« Social Tools for the Enterprise; London, July 2004 |
Main
| More Hatemail for Email »
July 24, 2004
Duncan Work: Call for a Social Networking Bill of Rights
Posted by Stowe Boyd
Duncan Work, an old pal of mine, has started a jeremiad for a set of privacy and security principles for social networking. He poses some interesting questions.
Duncan Work
[from
PlaNetwork Journal -Call for A Social Networking Bill of Rights
The primary question posed by this paper is: What are those correct designs and policies? Many online systems don't get privacy policies right because of self-interest, or simply because privacy is not a high priority. For online retailers, protecting credit card information quickly became a high priority. But social networking systems are still fairly new, so while earning the trust of their users is being increasingly recognized as important, clear privacy standards are yet to emerge. What basic principles can social networking systems follow to best protect the rights of both users and non-users?
By the way, what exactly are the rights of users? The right to privacy is probably the most basic, but how should that be expressed, and what other related rights are also important?
And what about non-users? Should non-users have rights too? Most online privacy policies seem to speak exclusively about rights of users, without mentioning non-users. But in social networking systems, the rights of non-users can quickly become important, as well.
Duncan's answer is a "Bill of Rights" which is really a code of ethics that he suggests the services should abide by -- and by inference, those that do not should be avoided. Ok as far as that goes, although I am personally less concerned about privacy and security in the systems at the moment, and more focused on functionality and purpose. There needs to be more going on than the limited contact list-oriented networking the services are offering today.
Clay suggests that Duncan's screed is a bit self-serving for the purposes of LinkedIn, where he serves as chief scientist.
And oh, by the way, Duncan - it would be better if LinkedIn launched a blog to have this conversation in, instead of posting a "paper" at PlanetNetwork Journal, where people can't even make comments for crying out loud.
Comments (2)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Technology
- RELATED ENTRIES
- Reminder -- /Message
- /Message - A New Blog
- The Individual Is The New Group -- Part 1
- 1000 Tags: Tag Advertising
- Social Ethics And Technology Design
- Nancy Hass on In Your Facebook.com
- Black and White and Dead All Over: Is Newsprint Dead?
- Anonymous Trolls, Beware: You Are Breaking Federal Laws
1. Duncan Work on July 28, 2004 11:48 PM writes...
Hi Stowe,
Thanks for making a note of the paper. I agree with you that social networking systems are still rapidly evolving and that privacy issues arent yet a huge concern for most users. But since I strongly believe that social networking systems will become pervasive and important, I tried to point out why the need for trust in social networking systems is greater than the privacy needs at, say, eBay, or Amazon, or many other types of online venues.
As I mentioned elsewhere, Bank customers would never deposit funds into a bank whose terms read We reserve the right to change these terms at our own discretion at any time.
In a social network, people deposit their social capital or really, they deposit information that lets the social networking system help them (and their friends) make better use of their social capital. Why should expectations for a social capital exchange be different from those of financial capital exchanges?
Permalink to Comment2. Stowe Boyd on July 29, 2004 08:04 AM writes...
I am not opposed to privacy and trustworthiness as elements of social networking solutions, its just not primary. Its like safety in an automobile -- first the primary functionality, mobility, has to be there, and then safety becomes a consideration.
In the case of social networking, the core functionality is still in process. By all means, design with the end in mind, so that privacy is builtin.
Permalink to Comment