I was surfing around The New York Times site, and a story about Facebook caught my eye.  For the full article, you can check out this link.

The main idea of the story was privacy on Facebook, and it dealt a lot with privacy settings on an individual's account, as well as what information is being given out to outside servers. 

For 15 of 19 information categories, Facebook sets a default setting of “share,” which means the information can be pulled out of Facebook and stored on servers outside its control. These 15 categories include activities, interests, photos and relationship status.

I don't know about you, but I feel pretty uncomfortable seeing that this info is being passed around without my knowledge, especially photos.  Further more, I'd like to know who exactly has this info, and what it's being used for.

The article pointed out other facts that I failed to even really take the time to think about:

For many members, “friends” now means a mish-mash of real friends, former friends, friends of friends, and non-friends; younger and older relatives; colleagues and, if cursed, a nosy boss or two. Everyone accepted as a “friend” gets the same access.

When the distinction blurs between one’s few close friends and the many who are not, it seems pointless to distinguish between private and public.

This article was featured last month, but it goes along well with what I've discussed so far.  We all remember the "New Terms of Agreement" debacle that happened a few weeks back.  In this article, Mark Zuckerberg (cheif exec. of Facebook) is trying to assure that the users have control over the content and how it's used.  Seems like a load of crap, Mark.

It is the users that make MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and the slew of other social networking tools go 'round.  So logically, shouldn't we be the ones who have the say over the information that is present on these sites? 

The more developments I see in social networking technologies, the more uneasy I become.  The fact is that we don't really know what is being done with information we post online, and that can be a scary thought.

I recently discovered a story about Twitter that caught my attention.  It is not a new story but I had never heard of it before now and I thought that it was interesting enough to mention.  Apparently a report was put out by the 304th Military Intelligence Battalion and posted to the Federation of American Scientists Web site that stated the Army’s concern that twitter could be used by terrorists.  The report “examines the possible ways terrorists could use mobile and Web technologies such as the Global Positioning System, digital maps, and Twitter mashups to plan and execute terrorist attacks,” states Steven Musil of CNET news. 

The report begins this section with some very limited background information on Twitter.  Such as what it is meant to be used for and how it works.  Then it mentions different occasions where twitter has been effective in communicating information such as the July 29,2008 Los Angeles earthquake.  The quake is said to have been reported on Twitter four minutes earlier than the news.  While many, myself included, would see this as a wonderful and fascinating show of technological efficiency the report states some concerns. They believe that “Twitter has also become a social activism tool for socialists, human rights groups, communists, vegetarians, anarchists, religious communities, atheists, political enthusiasts, hackivists, and others to communicate with each other and to send messages to broader audience.” (8)  The report says that twitter is “already used by members to post and/or support extremist ideologies and perspectives.” (9)  In addition, they are concerned that “extremist and terrorist use of Twitter could evolve over time to reflect tactics that are already evolving in use by hacktivists (politically motivated hackers) and activists for surveillance.  This could theoretically be combined with targeting.” (9) While this statement immediately struck me as a long shot and had the potential to be done without the use of Twitter, the report goes on to provide an example that they seem to believe shows the potential negative use of Twitter.  During the Republican National Convention Twitter was used as “a counter surveillance, command and control, and movement tool by activists.” (9) The activists were able to send tweets to each other and the web on what law enforcement was doing at the time.  This example, to me, does not seem to incorporate the same factors as the terrorist scenarios mentioned later but better safe than sorry I suppose.

The report continues to present three possible scenarios.  1; A terrorist operative uses Twitter via a cell phone to send and receive messages from other members of the cell.  The operative “also has Google Maps Twitter Mash Up of where he is under a code word for other members of his cell posted on the WWW that can be viewed from their mobiles.” (10) They can then send each other “near real time updates on how, where, and the number of troops that are moving in order to conduct an ambush.” (10) 2; A terrorist operative uses his cell phone to tweet messages and take pictures.  They also have a “separate mobile phone that is actually an explosive device and/or suicide vest for remote detonation.” (10)  A second terrorist has “the detonator and a mobile to view [the first’s] tweets and images.  This may allow [the second] to select the precise moment of remote detonation based on near real time movement and imagery…” (10)  3; A “cyber terrorist operative finds U.S. Army Smith’s Twitter account.” (10)  The operative follows Smith’s Tweets and “begins to elicit information from Smith.  This information is then used for a targeting package (targeting in this sense could be used for identity theft, hacking, and/or physical.)” (10) This possibility could arise on other social networking sites as well. 

Obviously, there are dangers to Twitter just like anything else and it is the government’s job to find these and do their best to prepare against them.  After the report was covered by Fox News may Twitter users and non-users voiced their disproval.  Their strong reaction was perhaps even more interesting than the report itself.  These supporters ranted about everything from protecting freedom of speech and the patriot act to their opinion of Army Intelligence and Fox News.  Of course, the Army report was not suggesting banning or regulating Twitter, just being wary of other possibilities for its use.  However, it was interesting to see how protective people were over a site. 

Al Qaida-Like Mobile Discussions & Potential Creative Uses; Sample Overview. 304th Ml Bn OSINT Team. Supplemental to the 304^th M l Bn Periodic Newsletter. October 16, 2008.