If you are an active Internet user and under the age of 25 (or 30), you probably fit in one of two categories; either [1] You have tried social networking, but didn’t really get what the buzz was about, or [2] you get it, you dig it, and you sit for hours scouring, posting comments and photos, and clicking refresh obsessively.
Everyone has heard of Facebook. At almost 2 years old, it’s growth is staggering.
Take a look at the Repeat Usage statistics, in particular and tell me that this isn’t a craze bordering on obsession. 70 percent of users return on a daily basis to a site that really isn’t all that dynamic. There are no blogs; just personal info, a place to post blurbs on users’ “wall”, and now pictures. With websites like Facebook and MySpace gaining an almost-disturbing amount of popularity, it seems that our desire for networking has trumped our sound-thinking, skepticism and desire for privacy.
I started thinking about this issue recently, and the question just keeps popping up: Why do we place so much trust in the creators of these websites? Since the emergence of “Web 2.0″, it seems that with a simple “We’re not evil, try our Beta” everyone is falling over themselves to shell out as much information as it takes.
Stop and think about Facebook for one minute. A 21-year-old Harvard student starts a networking site for college students, and now there are over 5 million users, many of which have probably never looked at the Privacy Policy. After all, Facebook is fun, so they freely post their name, address, school, concentration, political affiliation, friends, plans and even photos in which faces are linked to profiles. Comforted by the idea that this info isn’t crawled by search engines, the fact remains that membership is only limited by the ownership of an “.edu” e-mail address (the Wall Street Journal expressed concerns about this, in fact).
What about the Privacy Policy? In the Help Section of Facebook it says, “Facebook respects your privacy. We don’t distribute your user information to third parties” followed by “Read more about our Privacy Policy.” Click the link and it says oh yeah, one more thing: we just might share your info, and it “may include sharing information with other companies, lawyers, agents or government agencies.” This is a pretty typical policy, actually. It’s in the section entitled “The Information We Collect” that it gets a little disconcerting.
When you visit the Web Site you may provide us with two types of information: personal information you knowingly choose to disclose that is collected by us and Web Site use information collected by us on an aggregate basis as you and others browse our Web Site.
It goes on to explain cookies, etc., but then ends with this vague third mode of data collection:
I’m not sure what that means, but I do remember something about AOL’s updated terms of service.
I’m not usually big on conspiracy theories, but I point out Facebook’s privacy policy to highlight some other interesting aspects of this company. It has been just a few months since Accel Partners announced a $13 million investment in Facebook. That may seem like no surprise that a VC is interested; Facebook’s numbers are impressive. However, there are some significant details that cannot be overlooked.
1. Other VCs weren’t very interested.
The concept isn’t a new one, and according to Private Equity Week:
It is also an enormous gamble for the firm, which typically invests in networking and software and is betting its status on Thefacebook. Not only has Accel shied away from Internet-related investments in recent years, but also it is veering into territory that has not been too kind to VCs.
Several top-tier funds have bets on various social networking sites that had enjoyed flashy launches, but have been quiet since the startups were announced.
[...]
“They’re operating on a wing and a prayer,†says one VC who met with Thefacebook, but didn’t invest. “They don’t have any valuable [intellectual property]. Those kids got lucky, but I don’t know that [their business] will prove any better an investment than the other social networking sites we’ve seen.â€
The fact of the matter is, regardless of Facebook’s success, a $13 million investment is huge at this stage of the social networking game. That leads one to wonder about Accel’s motivation.
2. The VCs that ARE Interested have strange connections
Take, for example, Jim Breyer, manager of Accel’s Investment Team, and the guy working most closely with Facebook. Breyer is the former chair of the National Venture Capital Association (NVAC), where he served with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel. In-Q-Tel is a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1999. This firm works in various aspects of information technology and intelligence, particularly in “tools for the rapid deployment of distributed, economical data collection networks. Systems that are self-organizing or that provide tools for the aggregation and management of data from large numbers…” and other items “of interest to the CIA.”
Breyer has also served on the board of BBN Technologies, a research and development firm also closely tied to In-Q-Tel. In fact BBN shared board members with In-Q-Tel, such as Anita Jones, former Director of Defense Research and Engineering for the U.S. Department of Defense. Her responsibilities included serving as an advisor to the Secretary of Defense and overseeing the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
In a 2002 NY Times article entitled, “Many Tools of Big Brother Are Already Up and Running“, John Markoff shed light on DARPA as well as it’s cousin, the Information Awareness Office, whose purpose was described as
[gathering] as much information as possible about everyone, in a centralized location, for easy perusal by the United States government, including (though not limited to) Internet activity, credit card purchase histories, airline ticket purchases, car rentals, medical records, educational transcripts, driver’s licenses, utility bills, tax returns, and any other available data.
That almost sounds like a description of social networking itself. It’s interesting to note that the IOA’s original mission statement, “Total Information Awareness (TIA)” was adapted in 2003 to “Terrorist Information Awareness (TIA).” That was convenient. Following a Congressional investigation, the IAO “disappeared”, though it’s difficult to say if it ceased to exist. The Department of Defense and the CIA have their legal limitations; what better way to usurp those than to seek commercial products that do the job for them?
Proponent articles for Total Information awareness appeared in National Review and The Weekly Standard. It is interesting to note that Peter Thiel, who is also a significant investor to Facebook sits on the board of the VanguardPAC, and likely holds similar views.
I’ll say this one more time; I’m not a crackpot, and I don’t go around sniffing for conspiracies. There are simply so many strange connections back to the CIA and intelligence-hungry organizations that it truly has me concerned. Worst case scenario: we could be voluntarily handing over personal information to the government in a clean, searchable format. If there is something to these connections, we have - on our own accord - created an extensive network that Orwell’s Big Brother could have only dreamed of.
Update: Over at The Sounds of Crickets Chirping there are some interesting points made on this topic…
Another Update: Trent Lapinski (AppleXnet.com) details some interesting information about MySpace.
32 responses so far ↓
1 Dan Bruno // Dec 14, 2005 at 9:40 pm
I have to say, that’s pretty creepy. The scariest part is that people are so willing to part with personal information (myself included). How did that happen?
2 Mark Josephson // Dec 15, 2005 at 9:24 am
Not to mention AOL has done away with all privacy on AIM conversations and Facebook has links at the bottom of every profile giving instruction on hot to link your profile directly to your AIM SN.
3 Jacob // Dec 15, 2005 at 9:31 am
I’m just throwing out some possibilities. It may be absolutely nothing; however, if it’s something, I’d certainly like an explanation or an option to protect myself. We’re talking about groups of people and organizations whose goals and methods are all very similar. The Internet is the best tool yet for satisfying an info-hungry government. It’s just something we need to keep in mind, regardless of the veracity of this theory.
4 Mark Josephson // Dec 15, 2005 at 10:34 am
Anyone who gets into the upper eschelons of any large corporations gets there with major help from networking skills. I would assume in the realm of major venture capitalist firms networking is exponentially more important. So “Zach” to assume these people did not know a great deal about eachother’s connections and past work would be a little on the naive side. I am sorry you were exposed to an interesting possibility, continue taking everything in life at face value.
5 Kenneth Dellovo // Dec 15, 2005 at 2:55 pm
The thing is - that’s the best way to get information. Find a way for the people to give it up freely and I can assume, with high accuracy, that this has been one of the benefits of the Internet all along.
We’re communicating over one large database. Only a slim, slim amount of this information is protected.
I’ve done nothing but restate generalities. But, it’s true.
Passwords are easily accesible, as are credit card numbers. All you need to do is start cross-referencing databases and with enough information I willing to bet you could begin to predict a patterns action.
It’s like anything that you have large quantities of information for, whether it be baseball (Moneyball), the weather or Google. It is being recorded and it will both benefit us as a society (Fun tools like the Facebook and easy access to information like Google) and hurt us (Release of Privacy - What we search for in the private).
6 Yves // Dec 15, 2005 at 3:08 pm
Very interesting (and quite scary too)… Thanks.
7 Dan // Dec 15, 2005 at 4:16 pm
I think that the most interesting thing about this topic is that it goes completely unnoticed by most people. Everyone is oblivious that someday they may regret the data they have shared with the world (online). Good article, I read it through carefully, rarely are blog posts that good. For that I’ll add this to my feed reader.
8 Tanya // Dec 15, 2005 at 6:49 pm
only idiots put their addresses on a public site. it’s not about the site itself, it’s that people do not understand how to use it, or how other people might be using it.
expected the unexpected
9 mobius // Dec 16, 2005 at 2:48 am
orkut’s also been connected to the cia. it’s on the same server as a cia data mining outfit. and orkut has also been tied to inqtel.
10 anon // Dec 16, 2005 at 4:11 pm
A little digging yields this tid bit:
see topics AF06-072, AF06-050, AF06-060
http://www.dodsbir.net
11 Josh // Dec 17, 2005 at 10:43 am
>”There’s this guy who’s a manager at the VC that invested in Facebook. This guy used to be >in a VC industry group. There was another guy in that group too! (Out of how many?) And >this guy worked for a CIA-Backed VC! Also the first guy was on a board of directors with >some other woman who worked for the CIA once.”
>Did I get it all? Oh wait, I forgot a chunk:
>”I’m not a crackpot!”
Silly
12 faceless // Dec 17, 2005 at 11:34 am
In-Q-Tel is also the VC behind http://visualsciences.com/ for the uninitiated, http://visualsciences.com/ provides a service that operates in the background to track everything and anything a visitor to a website does. this includes, what you review, how long you look at it, what you click on, where you came from, where you are physically located, etc. this information, when tied to a login(i.e. facebook) can be tracked on an individual basis.
http://visualsciences.com/ has several airlines as customers. hmmm, i wonder why anyone would want to track visitor activity at airline websites?
13 Sevets // Dec 18, 2005 at 11:40 am
I would be curious to see the connections of these other VC firms.
14 Cass // Dec 19, 2005 at 5:01 am
This probably doesn’t have much to do directly with facebook, but one thing that people need to watch out for in the Total Information Awareness Network is biometrics. More often nowadays people all over the world are thumbscanning for everything. Thumbscan to check in for appointments, thumbscan to clock-in at work, thumbscan so kids get their lunch at the cafeteria, thumbscan to get groceries, etc. The list goes on. It may not seem like a big deal to anyone, but deep down inside do you want private oraganizations (who don’t have to make their affairs public)and big brother to have YOUR thumbscan on record? You can call me a conspiacy theorist (I don’t care) but why would you ever want to give out personal information like your thumbprint or allow yourself to be microchipped???
15 karen // Dec 19, 2005 at 7:15 am
hang on, i’m still waiting for the part where i’m supposed to care. what exactly will happen to me if the cia knows my address? and, um, ever heard of the yellow pages? honestly, if you’re putting some kind of ridiculous information, like your plot to bomb your school and then the white house, maybe then releasing your info could get you in trouble. but even if they had my - god forbid - EDUCATIONAL TRANSCRIPTS in their possession, then they’d know, horror of horrors, that i got a C in public policy. ok. wake me up when the armageddon comes.
also, people don’t repeat-visit the facebook just because they obsessively want to upload their info or check to see if their info has changed. this thing is a portable photo album, everyone i know checks it largely for the purpose of showing their friends pictures of people they made out with. stop taking it all so seriously.
16 Steve Clancy // Dec 21, 2005 at 7:20 am
I’m a Penn State student and the privacy of the Facebook came into question this fall when the police used Facebook pictures to identify people who illegally ran on the field after the Ohio State game. I don’t think anyone got fined or arrested, but some got a warning call. You can read about it in this article.
The lesson is you can use things like the Facebook for fun, but be smart about it. Don’t post anything you wouldn’t want everyone to see on the front page of the newspaper.
17 Natalie // Dec 23, 2005 at 10:55 pm
c’mon now. The only thing that someone can find out about me is my age, place I graduated, and major, and oh, that I put down that I’m moderate. Who cares?
Anyone can look me up to find out address and number although it’s stupid to have it on a website, but can google me on white pages just the same. You’re screwed either way. Orwell would freak.
But what else can they get? They know my face and friends? fine. They have my thumbprint, too.
18 Ahmad // Dec 29, 2005 at 12:14 pm
FINALLY!!
karen you spoke my mind…this is all dumb WHY IS EVERYONE SCARED? AND WHAT ARE THEY SCARED OF? its like everday we hear more about how we are at threat to terrorists and how the goverment is watching us and know what library books we check out and how many ounces of orange juice we had this morning…..what are we hiding….every government in the world spies on its citzens….but if you’ve got nothing to hide then whats all the chit chat about?….we live in a world today where everything we do is recorded and monitered this shouldn’t be a suprise to anyone
if you have something to hide don’t post it on the internt….thats it problem solved….sheesh everyone chillax!!!
19 lil saint // Dec 31, 2005 at 12:41 am
In all honesty this shit is pretty weird. I made a facebook group entitled “Marylanders for the PLO” just to rile people up and 2 weeks later I got a call from the FBI and my university’s judicial board saying that I could face severed punishment and the group got deleted.
20 Dash Ripcord // Jan 1, 2006 at 4:49 pm
I suggest to any user of any social networking site that he or she confine his or her usage to the directly purposeful. In other words, don’t post anything you wouldn’t want everyone in the world to know instantly. Assume that every government and every person is watching your every action and word. This could lead to greater responsibility for all of your actions and words. Good thing? More information only leads to better decisions. Since, as Ahmad points out, “we live in a world today where everything we do is recorded and monitered,” everyone should accept the possible third-party observer and deal accordingly. A man can still live with a camera pointed at him all the time. Think about the statement: Big Brother is watching you. Now think about the statement: God is watching you. People deal with this all the time in different fashions. Peer or social pressure should not be a governing factor in your life. Do good and watch out for yourself first, than others. Remember, Big Brother can’t read thoughts. But if He could… boy… then we’d be pretty screwed…
21 Oren // Jan 3, 2006 at 12:31 pm
While this is an intriguing argument, what information is really on there anyway? Your birthday (which the government knows), your friends (even though 1/3 of the people are probably random people who added you to just get a higher number than someone else or because they liked your picture) and your favorite music. Oooh. Let the CIA look, if they are I’d be surprised if they weren’t anyway, and really, what are they really getting that they don’t know already?
22 Tyler // Jan 6, 2006 at 12:27 am
i think Oren got it right there on #22. it’s a cute little conspiracy theory that adds up to…zero threat. what would Orwell do? yawn and find something worthwhile to worry about.
23 DegreeMe // Jan 6, 2006 at 11:25 am
I agree… if you have something you don’t want others to know about you, then just be more careful. It really is that simple. Most people probably don’t care who has their address or name.
24 JohnnyC // Jan 6, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Interesting connections. I might add that the original developer of Facebook went to school at Harvard. Afterall, Harvard and Yale are known to have entrances to the Skulls & Bones secret society. Illuminati, all-seeing eye, social hierarchy / power networks (pyramid), etc. typically spawn from the Skulls & Bones. Just food for thought.
25 Lu lu // Jan 6, 2006 at 3:02 pm
You are hot.
26 Hannah // Jan 7, 2006 at 6:49 am
I guess the whole identity-theft thing is what would worry me. If somehow someone got my cc# and name and then could find me on facebook, then they could be me and wipe out my account.
27 Tam // Jan 7, 2006 at 10:45 pm
So I guess none of you have heard of Watergate or COINTERPOL and all the problems that come when government spies on its citizens. And how people who weren’t “doing anything wrong” ended up dead ot jailed simply because their views differed from those of the administration and the administration viewed them as a threat. Wake up folk. Data mining, government spying is real and dangerous. Perhaps u need to take a closer look at your history books and you won’t be so non-chalant about government spying.
28 Lawson // Jan 8, 2006 at 5:05 pm
I think it is just sort of a given at this point to expect that the CIA is going to use things like this to collect data on anyone possible. It is, after all, what they were set up to do and systems like this let them get closer to more people than before possible. This has been the desire all along. BUT at the same time i think it is funny how everyone that has read Catcher and the Rye, reads the Guardian and smokes pot is worried that the government is keeping an eye on them. When it comes down to it, it is still a bureaucratic organization trying to accomplish an enormous task.
Absolutely am i for a system of checks and balances, especially when it comes to a single position strong point like the Presidency, and for him to spy without warrants is far beyond acceptable, but i think the Masses have a lot less to worry about than they presume when it comes to government spying. Of course, I work for the CIA so I don’t know if you want to listen to me or not.
29 TravisOfTheCosmos // Jan 8, 2006 at 5:18 pm
This discussion shows less about Facebook than about the country’s political climate. Say what you will about the war on terror, Iraq, monitoring of domestic phone calls, and the like, it boils down to a simple fact (in Travis’s humble opinion): our government has squandered a lot of people’s trust.
DeLay-Frist-Abramoff. Harriet Miers. Cheney’s “undisclosed location.” Secret energy policy sessions attended almost entirely by corporate bigwigs. Phantom WMD’s. Patriot Act. Plamegate. There’s enough out there that people are very nervous. Hell, Travis is a Republican, and these guys keep him up at night too.
As for Facebook, the fact remains that if the CIA, FBI, or even your local police department want to get information about you, they can. And there are easier ways to do it than Facebook.
Example: I’m a lawyer, and my firm has accounts with Westlaw and LexisNexis. Both offer services by which I can search for personal information on just about anyone. Hell, I looked myself up, and found 1) my address (no biggie); 2) my major assets (ok, a little creepier - I don’t really want people to know how much my mortgage is, or my car payments); 3) my social security number; 4) police records (yup, that pesky arrest in college is there); and 5) my educational history.
Folks, this took all of six minutes. And Travis ain’t the brighest bulb in the cosmos.
Lesson: if the CIA is relying on something like Facebook to gather information, then the spooks aren’t even as smart as your average corporate lawyer. Now that’s something to worry about, because if the last five years have taught us anything, it’s that there’s nothing more dangerous that dumb people with lots of power.
30 Jane Doe // Jan 13, 2006 at 3:29 am
Ladies and Gentlemen, you are not being watched by Big Brother. You are marketing targets. You are faceless bits of data that contain a gold mine of consumer trends and purchasing habits.
Here’s my theory: anytime an individual volunteers to interact with others online - for whatever reason - and share their personal information and communications, they voluntarily forfeit their right to personal privacy and any reasonable expectation thereof. But it’s not necessarily Big Brother that’s looking over your shoulder. With millions of online users criss-crossing various networks at any given time of day, it’s ludicrous to think that the CIA is concerned over Betty Smith’s daily blogs about her cat.
What the CIA is concerned with falls under the guise of national security interests and that, dear readers, is the price you pay for living in a free democratic society. We all love the blanket of protection and bundles of rights that the U.S. government affords each of its citizens - we just don’t want them reading our emails, right? Here’s some insight: if you’re a U.S. citizen, the CIA already has you in their database. If you’ve ever been issued a driver’s license, state ID, social security number or enrolled in university, you’re in there. If you’ve ever been arrested, detained, or questioned in connection with a crime, you’re in there. If you’ve ever left the country, applied for a passport, or received foreign visitors, you’re in there. If you’ve ever opened a bank account, been issued a credit card or payed your utility bill late, you’re in there. If you work, pay taxes, and have health insurance, yup, you’re in there. And all of this was happening before the Internet as we know it existed.
I’m always quite amused when people read the fine print of privacy policies and are outraged at learning how their information is being collected and used. Does anyone out there honestly believe that all of these free social networking/blog/email/messaging services are operating out of the kindness of their hearts? Do you believe that they genuinely have our best social interests at heart? Bollocks.
These mediums are supported by advertising and that advertising relies upon collecting user information for marketing and demographic purposes. Every click and every move you make is tracked. Every site you surf into logs information about you, your computer, your location and your online habits. Intelligent users are aware of this and take certain precautions. Anyone else who thinks that the shiny, happy world of online communications is here for any other reason is completely naive.
The majority of average online users don’t have much to be concerned about as far as information transmission is concerned because they’re using the Internet for entertainment purposes. They’re chatting, sending emails, listening to music, sharing photos, writing blogs and networking/ego-stroking.
The bottom line is this: Most of us value our personal privacy and wouldn’t volunteer highly personal, sensitive, damaging or damning information (i.e., your bank account info, your rabid anti-semitism, social security/credit card numbers or your odd preference for bestiality) to just anyone who approached us on the street. Why on earth would we do it online? The Internet is not as anonymous as we all would like to believe.
31 Chris Hughes // Jan 16, 2006 at 8:15 am
I’m the Spokesperson for Facebook and want to weigh in on some of the claims being made here.
Firstly, the clause you reference in the privacy agreement is leftover from an outdated version of the privacy policy which is currently being updated. We used to have a couple features on the site that aren’t still there, such as collecting users’ away messages from AIM (if they said they wanted it) and displaying mentions of their names in campus newspapers (again, upon request). That clause will not be included in the upcoming version of the privacy policy which will be released in the next couple of weeks.
Secondly, quite simply put, we have absolutely no relationship with any government agency. Contrary to these rumors, we are not harvesting data for the CIA or any other group.
If people have any other questions about Facebook or the way we magae information, feel free to email us at press AT facebook.com.
32 Stella V // Feb 1, 2006 at 6:08 am
This is in response to both “karen,” “zach” and others…I can only assume that you are also products of this generation that I call my own–a generation that is completely drowned in and irreperably desensitized by this eruption of digital media and culture. (call me melodramatic but–please–just think for one millisecond). There are deeper questions at stake here that go beyond mere practical personal safety and the right to privacy. The real question is, people, is anything sacred anymore? Facebook is more than just a collection of pictures to share with friends, Karen, it is a symbol of the larger problems of our time, epitomizing the hyper-detached nature of every exchange we have ever known.
Why care if the CIA and a ba-gillion other people have access to our personal information? True, it may not directly affect you or your 200 friends from various universities and all their make-out shots, but the second you press “save” on the facebook, you stop becoming a real person, so to speak–what is in your head at that point becomes a consumer product and a weapon. And in case you were unaware: before cell phones and computers were perpetually strapped to our skulls, humans had some sort of sanctuary in their minds. They had the power, at any given moment, to be completely alone, completely safe, and free.
This sanctuary is lost for most. I know mine is gone. And the saddest and most frightening thing is: we are happily paying taxes for it to be beat even further into the ground, while “we the people” shackle our selves to this vulgar means of understanding and experiencing the world.