I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy [Hardcover]

you're want to buy I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy [Hardcover],yes ..! you comes at the right place. you can get special discount for I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy [Hardcover].You can choose to buy a product and I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy [Hardcover] at the Best Price Online with Secure Transaction Here...





other Customer Rating:

List Price: $26.00
Price: $14.94 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
You Save: $11.06 (43%)
  Special Offers Available


read more Details

"Unnerving narrative regarding the misuse of personal online information—without our knowledge—to track, judge and harm us in innumerable aspects of our lives.
"Social-network executives often dismiss online privacy concerns: 'You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it,' said Sun Microsystems’ Scott McNealy. But the constitutional freedoms of thousands of people posting personal data on Facebook and other networks are violated routinely, along with the law has not kept up while using new technology, writes lawyer Andrews (Institute for Science, Law and Technology/Illinois Institute of Technology; Immunity, 2008, etc.). Noting that social networks make their profits on users’ data, she describes the multibillion-dollar industry of data aggregators who mine online data to the advertising industry, often 'weblining' people, denying them certain opportunities because of observations about their digital selves. Most users have zero idea how much information is being collected about them: 'People have a misplaced trust that what you post is private.' The results could be devastating: A Georgia teacher posted a photo displaying drinking a glass of Guinness in an Irish brewery, and she was instructed to resign as soon as the photo was e-mailed anonymously to her school superintendent. After traversing to a mother’s MySpace page displaying posing provocatively in lingerie, a judge awarded custody of her small children to her husband. 'Virtually every interaction you have inside offline world could be tainted by social network information,' writes the author, who proposes developing a 'Social Network Constitution' to govern our everyday life online. Her governing principles would protect against police searches of social networks without probable cause, require social networks to post conspicuous Miranda-like privacy warnings and hang up rules to the use or collecting of user information.

"Authoritative, important reading for policymakers as well as an unnerving reminder that everything else you post can and will probably be used against you."

--Kirkus Reviews

Facebook Nation

When David Cameron became Britain’s prime minister, he made an appointment to speak to another head of state—Mark Zuckerberg. Yes, that Mark Zuckerberg: the billionaire wunderkind, the founder of Facebook. At the meeting at 10 Downing Street, Prime Minister Cameron and Facebook President Zuckerberg discussed ways through which social networks might take over certain governmental duties and inform public policymaking.1

A month later, Zuckerberg and Cameron had a follow-up conversation, later posted on YouTube. Cameron, put on suit and tie, chatted with Zuckerberg, who wore a blue cotton T-shirt.2 “Basically, we’ve got a large problem here,” Cameron pointed to Zuckerberg, describing the U.K.’s financial woes.

Zuckerberg outlined how Facebook may be used being a platform to decrease spending and increase public participation within the political process: “I mean these individuals have great ideas plus a large amount of energy which they want to bring and I think for any lot of people it’s just about having a straightforward and a cheap way for them too to communicate their ideas.”

“Brilliant,” Cameron said.

Within a year, Zuckerberg stood a seat with the table with government leaders. In May 2011, he attended the G8 Summit, the annual meeting of key heads of state (named as soon as the eight advanced economies—France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada, and Russia).3 The media reported that world leaders from German Chancellor Angela Merkel to French President Nicolas Sarkozy were more in awe of Zuckerberg than he was of them.4 Zuckerberg summarized how Facebook had played a job in worldwide democratic movements and pressed his own policy agenda—urging European officials to back away from proposed regulation of the internet. “People inform me for the one hand ‘It’s great you played such a major role in the Arab spring, but it’s also form of scary because you enable all of this sharing and collect information on people,’ ” Zuckerberg said.

Is it odd to think about Mark Zuckerberg as a head of state? Perhaps. But Facebook has the power and reach of an nation. With greater than 750 million members, Facebook’s population would allow it to be the third largest nation inside the world. It has citizens, an economy, its very own currency, systems for resolving disputes, and relations with nations and institutions. After watching the video chat between Cameron and Zuckerberg, I came to be intrigued through the concept of an social network as being a nation. I did start to wonder, what form of government rules Facebook? What are its politics? And, if it is being a nation, should it use a Constitution?

People are drawn to Facebook, as early settlers are drawn to the new nation, from the look for freedom. Social networks expand people’s opportunities. A regular individual can be described as a reporter, alerting the world to breaking news of an natural disaster or possibly a political crisis. Or an investigator, helping cops solve a crime. Filmmakers and musicians on the start of the careers will find large followings through social networks.

The power of individuals is harnessed in new ways on social networks. Art is redefined as bands and novelists post early works and make use of crowdsourcing to change the music, lyrics, and story lines. Anybody can certainly be a scientist, participating in the crowdsourced research project. In the Galaxy Zoo project, members of the public classify data coming from a million galaxies and publish the final results in scientific journals. Facebook itself uses crowdsourcing to translate its pages into foreign languages.

Social networks also provide new methods for individuals to interact with government. The White House asked its Twitter followers for comments on a tax law.5 An official through the National Economic Council then posted your blog with links to questions raised by the Twitter followers, eliciting a discussion concerning the direction tax policy should take. In 2011, the social network created with the capital of scotland- Bay area introduced a phone app that allowed citizens to consider photos of potholes as well as other things that needed maintenance and upload them directly for the proper city office to order repairs. Through that same network, people who have CPR skills can volunteer to help you within an emergency. If a person has a heart attack on the golf course, a smart- phone app will recruit volunteers inside area based on his or her GPS position and get the crooks to rush onto Hole 7 to render aid.

And when we get fed up making use of their government, they could use Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to incite others to sign up them in the streets to protest. While previous types of political protest required a charismatic leader, that leader may be killed or his headquarters destroyed. It’s considerably more difficult to prevent a widely dispersed group of antagonists for example the citizens of Facebook Nation. It’s harder to put out thousands of revolutionary fires burning through the Web.

Social networks have enormous benefits, helping us stay in touch with folks from my pasts and introducing us to individuals who share our interests. They develop a much-needed comfort zone. As philosopher Ian Bogost points out, “Public spaces in general are actually destroyed, privatized, and policed in recent decades, however the public life of teens and young adults has been particularly damaged, due to additional fears of abduction, abuse, criminality, and moral corruption.”6 According to Bogost, social networks provide a location to hang out, akin for the main drag or perhaps the video arcade from the past.

Social networks have become ubiquitous, necessary, and addictive. Social networking is no more simply a pastime; it’s a method of life. People expect to be in a posture to log on to Facebook or Myspace wherever they're going and tweet their every thought. Until recently, cellular phones and internet use were banned using places, like courthouses, these days social institutions have largely abandoned their efforts to maintain someone faraway from their Facebook friends or Twitter audience. As a result, there’s another group of issues, with judges friending defendants, jurors finding out about witnesses’ Facebook pages to gauge their credibility, and lawyers blogging about confidential interchanges with their clients.

The military held out for a long time. In August 2009, the U.S. Marine Corps formalized its ban on marines’ usage of Myspace, Facebook, and YouTube on its networks.7 The military’s concern was a similar as it's with lots of of us—phishing, hacking, and also other security breaches. But the stakes were much higher. It’s a hassle when you have to get a brand new bank card as your American Express number is hacked through PlayStation.8 But it’s considerably more serious if military design secrets are stolen by other countries or soldiers die when confidential battle plans are revealed.9

The military ban made sense except for two things. It was with enough contentration to obtain website visitors to enlist within an all-volunteer armed services. But morale sank even lower when we were holding cut removed from Facebook friends and Myspace family members. And the technology of armed conflict itself was demanding one of the links on the Web. For certain weapons to get used most effectively, soldiers need usage of smartphone apps—such as iSnipe and Shooter—to estimate bullet trajectories. Another app allows soldiers to understand the positions of friendly soldiers and enemy combatants on a map updated in real time.10 There’s even an app—Jibbigo—to translate a certain Iraqi dialect of Arabic.11 And another, Telehealth Mood Tracker, to measure a soldier’s mental health.12

In February 2010, the U.S. military embraced social networks in the big way. The military reconfigured its internet grid, NIPRNET (Non-classified Ip Address Router Network)—the largest private network within the world—to provide soldiers use of YouTube, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, and Google apps.13 The army began issuing smartphones to soldiers to try the apps’ effectiveness both in and from combat.14 In war zones, wireless networks where to run the apps are brought into the field mounted on vehicles, planes, or air balloons.15

Not just our soldiers but our global enemies take to social networks. A 2010 Department of Homeland Security Report entitled “Terrorist Use of social Networking Sites: Facebook Case Study” found out that jihad supporters and mujahedeen are increasingly using Facebook to propagate operational information, including improvised explosive device (IED) recipes in Arabic, English, Indonesian, Urdu, and also other languages.16

A 2,000-member militant Islamic Facebook group includes informational videos on “tactical shooting,” “getting to know your AK-47,” “how to field strip an AK-47,” and so forth.17 Facebook pages for other extremist Islamist groups contain propaganda videos featuring wounded and dead Palestinians in Gaza, links to Al Qaeda YouTube videos, and videos promoting female suicide bombers, all ones can be accessed through the public without becoming a “fan” with the groups, “liking” the groups, or “friending” the Facebook pages.

Even criminals utilize the Web for everything from figuring out who to rob by checking Facebook posts containing the saying “vacation” to using a google search to train for murder. Sometimes virtually the whole crime could be reconstructed from a search history, as within the case of the nurse who killed her husband after Googling “undetectable poisons,” “state gun laws,” “instant poison,” “gun laws in Pennsylvania,” “toxic insulin levels,” . . . “how to commit murder,” “how to buy hunting rifles in NJ,”. . . “neuromuscular blocking agents,” . . . “chloral hydra...