Advertisement

Threat to Individuals’ Privacy in the Era of Social Networking: A Case Study of Facebook

  • Chai Yeun Hoe
Conference paper

Abstract

The explosive growth of social networks has created a brave new world for privacy. Most of the debate about online social networking sites has thus far revolved around questions of privacy and access to personal information. This article discusses whether Facebook’s privacy policy adequately protects individuals’ privacy under current Australian privacy laws. For the purposes of this article, it is convenient to consider five broad sections of Facebook’s privacy policy that attract privacy concerns: (A) information we receive and how it is used, (B) sharing and finding you on Facebook, (C) sharing with other websites and application, (D) how advertising works and (E) some other things you need to know. Each of these sections will be dealt with separately, applying current Australian privacy laws to assess adequacy of protection. This paper will conclude that Facebook’s privacy policy does not adequately protect individuals’ privacy under current Australian privacy laws. Further, this article will investigate privacy violations on Facebook by examining two controversial features of Facebook. To this end, this article will discuss to what extent can current Australian privacy laws mitigate or remedy the shortcomings in social networks’ privacy practices.

Keywords

Personal Information Privacy Policy Social Networking Site Online Social Networking Privacy Risk 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Acquisti A, Gross R (2006) Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the facebook (Lecture notes, privacy enhancing technologies, )Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haynes AW (2007) Online privacy policies: contracting away control over personal information? Penn State Law Rev 11:587Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moses A (2009) Privacy watchdog puts bite on Facebook. Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ortutay B (2009) Facebook to end Beacon tracking tool in settlement. USA Today (New York)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Debatin B et al (2009) Facebook and online privacy: attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequence. J Comput Mediated Commun 17:83Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abam C (2006) Welcome to facebook, everyone on Facebook Blog http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2210227130
  7. 7.
    Dwyer C, Hiltz SR, Passerini K (2007) Trust and privacy concern with social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace (Conference Paper, Association for Information Systems, 2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Denham E (2009) Privacy commissioner's findings in the case of CIPPIC against Facebook (Report of Findings, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 16 July 2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Facebook (2011) Date Use Policy. http://www.facebook.com/full_data_use_policy.
  10. 10.
    Davis G (2011) Facebook Ireland Ltd’ (Report of Audit, Date Protection Commissioner, 21 December 2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hull G, Lipford HR, Latulipe C (2009) Contextual gaps: privacy issues on Facebook. Ethics Inform Tech 13:289Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Health Aston (2012) Ex-lover punished for Facebook revenge, Sydney Morning Herald, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    IB Times Staff Reporter (2011) Sue facebook for quick crash and fun: top ten most whimsical lawsuits against Facebook to date. International Business Times, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stoddart J (2011) Privacy in the era of social networking: legal obligations of social media sites Saskat Law Rev 74:263Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Semitsu JP (2011) From facebook to mug shot: how the dearth of social networking privacy rights revolutionized online government surveillance. Pace Law Rev 31:291Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Regan K (2003) Online privacy is dead – what now? E-Commerce Times. http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/20346.html
  17. 17.
    Perlman L (2007) Facebook Ads on Facebook Blog. http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=6972252130
  18. 18.
    Story L (2008) To aim ads, web is keeping closer eye on you, The New York Times, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hodge MJ (2006–2007) The fourth amendment and privacy issue on the “new” internet: Facebook.com and Myspace.com. Southern Illinois University Law J 31 S.III.U.L.J 95Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Waters N, Pacific Privacy Pty Ltd, Convernor and Australian Privacy Charter Council (2001) The new Australian privacy landscape (Seminar Paper, UNSW Continuing Legal Education, 14 March 2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Applying the Privacy Act, Privacy Law http://www.privacy.gov.au/law/apply
  22. 22.
    Fernandes R (2011) Facebook second most accessed site, behind Google in the US Tech2 (India)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sengupta S (2006) Risk and riches in user data for facebook, The New York Times, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Staff Reporter (2002) Facebook timeline will be compulsory, The Sun, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Govani T, Pashley H, Student awareness of the privacy implications when using facebook <http://lorrie.cranor.org/courses/fa05/tubzhlp.pdf>
  26. 26.
    Pilgrim T (2011) Privacy law reform-getting the balance right (Speech delivered to Communications and Media Law Association, Euro)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hashemi Y (2009) Facebook’s privacy policy and its third-party partnerships: lucrativity and liability. Boston University J Sci Tech Law (B.U.J.Sci. & Tech.L) 15:140Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moses A (2009) Privacy watchdog puts bite on Facebook. Sydney Morning Herald, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Semitsu JP (2011) From Facebook to mug shot: how the dearth of social networking privacy rights revolutionized online government surveillance, 31 Pace Law Review 291Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) sch 3: an organization must take reasonable steps to make sure that the personal information it collects, uses or discloses is accurate, complete and up-to-dateGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Debatin B et al (2009) Facebook and online privacy: attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequence. J Comput Mediat Commun 83–86Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Aston H (2012) Ex-lover punished for Facebook revenge. Sydney Morning Herald, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fung P (2007) Public search listings on Facebook’on Facebook blog. http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2963412130
  34. 34.
    Facebook, Data Use Policy (23 Sept 2011) Facebook. http://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/
  35. 35.
    Abam C (2006) Welcome to Facebook, everyone’ on Facebook blog. http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2210227130
  36. 36.
    Staff Reporter (2002) Facebook timeline will be compulsory. The Sun, UKGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Privacy Act 1988 s 5BGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) s 6Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) s 5(1)(a)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hashemi Y (2009) Facebook’s privacy policy and its third-party partnerships: lucrativity and liability. Boston University J Sci Tech Law (B.U.J.Sci. & Tech.L) 15:140–155Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) sch 3 cl 2.1(c)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) sch 3 cl 2.1(c) Pilgrim T, Privacy law reform-getting the balance right (Speech delivered to Communications and Media Law Association, Euro, 6 Sept 2011)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) sch 3 cl 6AGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) s 52Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pilgrim P (2011) Privacy law reform-getting the balance right (Speech delivered to Communications and Media Law Association, Euro, 6 Sept 2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian National University, Barry DrActonAustralia

Personalised recommendations