Facebook for Boomers

Thanks to Anna, Shawna and Patrick for their posts on Facebook privacy. Each one of them gave me something different to think about. Anna told me that younger people are more savvy regarding their privacy, which is ironic since we are continually talking about protecting our children. Shawna taught me that I can customize my privacy settings so that even though I’ve friended someone, I don’t have to give them access to my entire life. (Not that much of my life is on Facebook, but more on that later!) Patrick pointed out that knowing how to use new technology does not mean understanding it. Good point.

I’m one of those older folks, older being a totally relative term (my parents are on Facebook too, at age 80), who has only been on Facebook for about 2 years. My sole reason for starting a profile was to be able to see what my grandson was doing. His mom is great about posting almost every day about what they are going to do for the day, what cute, profound statement he made and/or what she found interesting in the news. In order not to be overwhelmed, I did what I suspect many older people do, I just plunged into Facebook, set my privacy settings without thinking about it, and I was off! However, now that this subject came up in our blog, I rechecked my privacy settings and found out I did ok going in blind. The only things I allow everyone into are my search result on Facebook and in search engines, and allowing anyone to add me as a friend or send me a message. All of my posts, IM screen name, birthday, likes and interests, etc. are for friend’s eyes only. I’m considering making searches for me more private but have to think about it. I do want people from my childhood or former jobs to be able to locate me if they look for me.

My main concern with Facebook is not what I post, but what people can see that my friends post. Is that even possible? One of my sons is uber liberal and outspoken. Even though I consider myself liberal, he posts things on Facebook that I really don’t want future employers seeing, not even my friends seeing for that matter! However, he doesn’t post them on my wall, so I think I’m ok. I welcome comments on this topic from the more Facebook-educated of us.

As for my postings, well, I can count on one hand how many posts I have made. I respond to others’ posts but only two or three times have I posted something on my own wall. When I use Facebook, I feel guilty because I use it to peer into the lives of my loved ones although my kids are well aware of my voyeurism and don’t care. I think posting is a mindset that you grow up with. I don’t know too many people my age who post things about their day on a regular basis. It seems to be those 25 and younger who post all the time. Mostly, we “older” folks use it to keep up with family and friends.

Anyway, it’s an interesting topic and amazing technology. I agree with Patrick that we cannot assume that just because someone uses Facebook, and/or are 25 years old or less, that they know what they are doing and are being as private as they like. I too would love to see some classes in social networking privacy and etiquette.

The Supreme Court and Questions about Technology

An interesting article has been making the rounds this week concerning technology and the Supreme Court entitled "Technical difficulties at the Supreme Court." If you have time, you should read the short article, but in summary, it details some of the questions that the Supreme Court justices have been asking during the arguments for the City of Ontario v. Quon case. The officer involved with the case, Sgt. Quon, charges that his messages were searched unconstitutionally. It appears that after Sgt. Quon exceeded his allotted usage limit, the city acquired transcripts from the pager provider and discovered that Quon had used the pager for personal purposes and that some messages were sexually explicit. The questions presented to the Court include:

1. Whether a SWAT team member has a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages transmitted on his SWAT pager, where the police department has an official no-privacy policy but a non-policymaking lieutenant announced an informal policy of allowing some personal use of the pagers.
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit contravened this Court’s Fourth Amendment precedents and created a circuit conflict by analyzing whether the police department could have used "less intrusive methods" of reviewing text messages transmitted by a SWAT team member on his SWAT pager.
3. Whether individuals who send text messages to a SWAT team member’s SWAT pager have a reasonable expectation that their messages will be free from review by the recipient’s government employer. (source)

These are of course interesting questions with potentially interesting consequences. Nevertheless, what is getting the most attention is the level of technological knowledge, or lack thereof, that people feel the justices are demonstrating. For example, Justice John Roberts, Jr. asked about the difference “between email and a pager” while Justice Anthony Kennedy asked what would happen if a text message was sent to an officer at the same time he was sending one to someone else - “Does it say: ‘Your call is important to us, and we will get back to you?’” Justice Antonin Scalia’s questions -“You mean (the text) doesn’t go right to me?” - seemed to intimate a concern about the role of service providers and the ability to print text messages - “Could Quon print these spicy little conversations and send them to his buddies?”. Even Quon’s lawyer was uncertain about some of the technological aspects of the case as he struggled to answer a question about technology posed by Justice Samual Alito concerning whether or not officers could delete text messages from their pagers in a way that would prevent the city from retrieving them from the wireless carrier later. Initially, the lawyer said that they could but later noted that he “couldn‘t be certain.”

I bring attention to this article not to pick on the justices, but to show that all of us have a bit more to learn about technology. I’m certain that some of us in this class are quite comfortable texting, IMing, BBMing, using Facebook and Twitter, blogging, and perhaps even gaming, yet we’d still have a tough time explaining the ways in which, for example, text messages are routed from one phone to another. I think that that is what came to mind when I first came across this article - both how much I know and how little I know at the same time. It’s amazing how much we don’t realize that we know.

A thread discussing this article was started on a listserv to which I belong which includes mostly Computer Science students and faculty though a few people are from other backgrounds. The comments were actually kind of different. Some of the comments concerned the justices' level of knowledge about technology:

This is really depressing and daunting. It is emblematic of how out of touch our leadership is with technology and its implications. Technology, particular our newer systems of interaction and communication, are evolving so much faster than our legal and political system, and those who are incumbent within.

It is troubling that these justices are going to make key decisions about something they certainly have no deep understanding. It does not bode well for their decisions on other important and timely issues such as net neutrality -- where one's participation in the internet culture fundamentally impacts one's understanding of it.

Another poster thought that the questions posed by the justices were valid:

Some of those seemingly stupid questions might have been asked for legal reasons; i.e. they were really focusing on issues of law and not issues of technology. Did the reporters understand what is going on and report it correctly? In my experience, reporters almost always get important details wrong.

Another poster still thought that anyone could have posed those questions and that perhaps the justices weren't that different from any other person who uses technology casually:

Yea this report is just taking a bunch of quotes out of context and making fun of the justices, and saying they don't use iPhones. Most of the questions I can easily imagine being asked in a rhetorical, investigative way. And why should anyone (besides us CS freaks) know how a TXT message is transmitted between two phones? Younger people certainly have a better feel for how all this stuff works, but we are on the extreme end of the spectrum of understanding it. I guess justices can't be expected to be experts on every topic... their job is to listen to lawyers and expert witnesses and whatnot and decide who they believe (or who they want to believe). In education, don't we say there is no such thing as a "dumb question?"

I provide these quotes to help exemplify the different ways that people responded to this article and also to sort of show that technology and our understanding of technology is anything but straightforward. What do you guys think about all of this?

Facebook Literacy

As I was reading through the article on facebook's policies (which are, by the way, changing again, for those of you concerned--check the staff blog!), I was struck by the fact that, at least as far as facebook is concerned, I feel like kids and young adults are much more aware of the privacy issues contained in the site than many of their parents are.

For those of us who've been coming into adulthood since facebook entered the scene, there has been what seems like hyper-awareness of the propensity for privacy invasion there. Because facebook is designed to network with people you sort-of-know-but-not-necessarily-really, it treads a strange terrain for most of us between sharing and keeping secret. Our organizational affiliations, interests, and contact details are widely publicized, but at the same time, we are hugely aware of who may be looking at our stuff. We were incensed when the site opened up to non-college students, even more when it became apparent that prospective employers and, increasingly, family members were there.

For me, facebook is a tool to keep in quick contact with people from my undergrad, a spare few from high school, and the occasional relative. I have very little of substance on there; a few photos from a family reunion, some from when I was at Oxford, some program pictures from my RA days, basic contact information for myself, and a few quotes. But my family members, all adults who have been very concerned for years about my own online presence, share pieces of information about themselves that I often wonder if they realize are quite as available as they are. My peers and I navigate privacy settings carefully, while those who are newer to the game seem completely unaware of the need to do so.

As someone who's been responsible for hiring and has been required by supervisors to browse facebook profiles in the process (sometimes deceptively!), I am extremely careful about what goes onto my profile in the first place, and especially about who can see what. I don't allow people to post on my wall; I get notifications any time someone replies to anything I post so I can edit if needed; no one is able to see photos in which other people have tagged me until I change settings on each individual photo.

There are a great many situations in which it is incredibly important for kids to be educated on their privacy concerns, and facebook is certainly one of them, but in my mind, the nature of the site and its user base suggest that perhaps we need to be hosting information sessions for adults who are long past their undergrad days to make sure that they have the same information as the rest of us.

Some Scattered Thoughts on Copyright and Privacy

Copyight & Choking Creativity

Lessig’s TED presentation on copyright law certainly resonated with me, and left me with much to think about. While I very much respect where he is coming from, I have several concerns about his proposed solutions.

Corporations not Creators Own Copyrights

First, he argues that artists and creators should allow more freely available content into the marketplace. This makes sense, and I agree that this is necessary for movement toward his vision of a “legal” read-write society. What I question, however, is whether in today’s economy artists and creators are really in control of their work. Often artists sign away their rights (or at least some of their rights) to corporations –agencies, publishers, record labels, etc. While they may still gain profit from their work and have some limited control over how the work is used, it is the corporation that must give permission and make the content freely available. It is the corporation that will sue if copyright infringement occurs, and it is the corporation that has a vested interest in making sure the content is not freely available.

Copyright is Confusing

Lessig alludes to Creative Commons in his presentation, though he doesn’t go into a discussion of it. I strongly support the ideals of Creative Commons. However, I don’t see it as a feasible solution that will end “Copyright abolitionism” that is so rampant among youth (and many others), simply for the fact that it is too confusing. If you are remixing 10 movie clips with a song plus multiple photographs, and perhaps look at 100s of objects to decide which is best for your creation, think how time consuming and limiting it is to try to figure out the allowances and restrictions that are on each individual item. Even with Creative Commons labeling, it can be extremely difficult to discern how and when the item can be used, who to ask for permission, etc. I just don’t see young people taking the time to investigate this for each item.

I agree with Lessig that in this “Age of Prohibitions” youth will continue to be driven (or choose to) live life “against the law” simply because it is too hard and limiting to follow the law, and because the risk of prosecution is relatively low. The lessons of a previous age of Prohibition (remember speakeasys?) showed that in the end it was necessary to reconsider the law because it was impossible to prosecute everyone who has breaking the law, and only the gangsters and bootleggers were profiting. I wonder if digital copyright law might not be a similar case.


Does Participating in Society Today Mean Forgoing Privacy?

I’ve been thinking lately about the ways in which privacy is defined and does or doesn’t exist in today’s society. I have recently received a spate of privacy policy statements in the mail from various credit cards, banks, and businesses that I use the services of. In order to participate with nearly any business or web site, or to have a presence in the online world, etc., etc. we must sign away certain rights to our personal information. Many of us do this without thinking—often feeling that we don’t have a choice. And in many ways, I don’t think we do. How can one really avoid putting their information into the public sphere without becoming a recluse?

Even if you were able to somehow avoid working with any business or organization that had access to personal information, you would still be confronted with the massive amounts of public surveillance that goes on worldwide. I can’t remember ever signing or seeing a privacy policy about how an ATM or convenience store or city street camera can use my image. While generally these images are only released upon a crime being committed, how are images being stored, by who, and for how long? Is there any law saying that the owner of that surveillance tape could not use it to make a profit? If a celebrity sits down in a restaurant with someone who is not their spouse, could that restaurant sell the tape to a gossip outlet like TMZ?

I realize I am stretching things a bit here, but it is an interesting question. How much of our right to privacy do we give up just by leaving our house, whether virtually or physically? How much right to privacy should we expect to have in the public sphere? And will the legacy of our culture in the distant future be the massive amounts of surveillance images that we are leaving behind?

Also wanted to share this link to an intriguing map about surveillance from http://www.privacyinternational.org/. I was going to post a copy of the picture here, but decided in the light of copyright discussions this week, I would just link to it.

Radiohead and More

I have two different thoughts this week in my brain as I read and watched the assigned elements. The first is more simple: Radiohead, the music group, released their latest album in a digital format and allowed fans to pay whatever they wanted for the album.  After a set amount of time, the digital format was closed and the rights to distribution were given to the a record company, but the initial release of the album was done in an entirely new and different way than most people in the music industry.  Additionally, they asked fans to create storyboards for an animated music video and then the paid the best entries to make a one-minute clip.  I thought this was a really fun and legal take on the idea of listen and create process that Larry Lessig discussed. 

Second thought:  I was talking with a friend of mine who is a teacher this week.  Our discussion focused on the use of Facebook by students in here elementary school.  She teaches sixth grade, but had recently learned of students in third grade that had Facebook pages that did not have any security settings attached to them.  When she was exploring the students pages she noticed that there were many other students (as young as first grade) who did not have any privacy settings on their Facebook pages.  In looking through the Facebook terms of use, the Facebook people clearly state that users must be thirteen years of age which these students are clearly not.  Additionally, I asked her what the school has done to protect these students.  She said that they have put on internet safety seminars for parents but only five parents attended.  These are the questions that have been rolling around in my mind since I spoke with this teacher.  1) Since much of this media participation happens in the home setting what role should teachers/schools play in intervening in the situation of the very young and unprotected Facebook users?  2) Are there any additional security means that are possible on the side of the Facebook site that will stop these young children from having pages? 

For me this further motivates my understanding for the need for media literacy education in the classroom from a very early age.  I think that Tracy Mitrano's article had some very practical and useful guidelines for parents in teaching their children about protected internet activity, however I did not see any suggestions for teaching younger children.  I am not sure a young child would fully understand the ideas of only posting what you might "display in physical space."  The role of teachers was not really in the scope of her article outside of a college setting, but I wonder what she would suggest to teachers whose students are avid users without a lot of parental supervision? 

So at the end of this post I am torn by the excitement of students making mash ups and artists and musicians putting their creations out there for people to rework and remake.  And by the fear that young students already have an online presence that is not protected or legal and all their friends are also on the internet sharing personal information.  The only responses in my brain are "Yikes" and "I'm confused."  Any ideas fellow classmates?

Cooking Up a Media Literacy Lesson

The Yippity Yo Cooking Show

While I couldn't bring myself to eat these cookies when she's done (my baby and I cook together, but there is no licking or dropping of spatulas on the floor!) and I hope they don't mind her continuing to do all those things that are "cute" now when she's older, this is a great example of letting kids experiment with media concepts. Production is certainly one of the goals of media literacy education, and I just hope her dad let her see what he was doing on the editing end of things (or if he didn't, that he will involve her more as she grows older)! While their audience for this particular video has become widespread, a kid who makes a video to share with faraway grandparents or friends when they've moved away has the opportunity to create a media product with a specific audience in mind and to see all the behind-the-scenes things that go into media production, whether it be a cooking show or a magazine or a song. What a fantastic way to teach kids about media literacy and give them a sense of ownership that will help them understand future media experiences better!

Lessig’s video, How Creativity is Being Strangled by the Law.

Watching this video, I realized why I love being in graduate school. Lessig brought up points that had never even entered my mind, much less been pondered in there. It is fascinating to have an entirely new view be opened up by someone’s 20 minute video on a subject that I have not thought of previously.

Of course, I’m talking about the TED talk by Larry Lessig, How Creativity is Being Strangled by the Law. A number of questions and thoughts came to me after watching this video and reading this week’s required reading for our class.

My generation’s culture is one of consumerism, generally. Sure, we had artists who rose to fame singing folk music calling for change, or by participating in demonstrations where a few of us rose to the top with new thought on old issues. I don’t mean to downplay the achievements of our generation, but rather, to point out that many of the people my age use the internet to watch and listen. I really don’t think I was taught to create. When I went to school, we were taught to think but not necessarily question, to learn and to recite. When we wrote research papers in high school, I was taught not to plagiarize but I do not recall trying to create new knowledge, just to get the facts right and use proper citations. Knowledge was to be revered, not created.

Young people today use the internet, not only to watch and listen, but to speak and create. Now, the more I see and experiment, the more I realize the full potential of the internet. Knowledge is so easy to come by that we can go beyond acquiring it to trying to make sense of it and maybe create new thought on a given topic. The internet is also a great platform for our views and opinions, not only in written word, but through music and video.

How can I teach my students to create new knowledge when I don’t do it myself? This is a really tough question for me. Is it too late for me to be an effective teacher? Am I over-the-hill in education? I think the answer to this lies in how old I think I am and how old I feel. If I think like someone closer to retirement than starting a career, then yes, I’m done. But, if I am willing to learn new things and try new things, then I can learn all the new technology. I can learn to create and then, can pass that on to the next generation. A key component of this is being willing to admit that I don’t know everything before I teach it and being willing to learn along with my students and from them. Who says I’m close to retirement anyway, if I work until I’m eighty, like my mom did, then I’ve got a good 25 years left!

How can we encourage creativity while still protecting the copyrighted material of artists and scholars? I think this is a very important point. I liked Lessig’s idea of artists’ choosing to loosen the reins on their art and allowing non-commercial use of their material in the creation of a new product but there are drawbacks to that. One glaring problem came to mind while watching the hilarious videos that Lessig showed during his talk of Jesus parading through the streets of a large city singing I Will Survive and George W. and Tony Blair singing a love song to each other. If the original artist is offended by a particular remix of their song on the order of the two listed above, he or she has no recourse. But then again, when I was watching and laughing uproariously, the thought that the original artist had anything to do with that piece never crossed my mind. Therefore, in the interest of hearing the voices of our youth and having a free thinking and speaking society, I think it is important not to legislate these mash-ups and remixes out of existence just so that the original artist and his recording company are not offended. This is a complex issue and still needs to evolve. After all, 8 or 10 years of existence is newborn technology.

How can we encourage our children to be risk-takers while protecting them from predators? This question has been central to me throughout this class. I firmly believe that banning social networking and file sharing from our schools is not the answer. As a mother and a grandmother, as well as an educator, I believe that education is the answer. There is absolutely no way to completely shield our children from predators online or in person – they are all a part of our modern culture. I have always been amazed at people who think if we just don’t talk about it, it will go away, or, if we just ban it, no one will be exposed to it. We have to be willing to have frank conversations about all of these things. When it comes to the internet and copyright issues, it is no different. First of all, whether we like it or not, we have to familiarize ourselves with what is legal and what is not and teach that to our children. If we disagree with the law, then maybe the next lesson is how to protest and fight for repeal of those laws. Secondly, we have to model responsible risk-taking behavior by speaking out on issues within our local government or school district and by getting our students involved in that. Teaching our students the importance of being productive, honest citizens with the tools for creating new knowledge has to be the number one priority in our schools.