‘Privacy’ and social networking

In response to Raya ZimmermanâÄôs article, “Social networking sites open door to new crime online,” concerning social networking identity theft, social networking should supplement a personâÄôs regular methods of communications âÄî i.e. face-to-face communication, or even telephones âÄî not replace it. This is the major issue I see in recent identity theft issues concerning Facebook. Consider life before Facebook. Would you ever consider writing your own phone number in a very public place for the whole world to see? IâÄôd hope not.

Even with the privacy settings that Facebook allows, nothing can fully prevent a virus from hacking your computer and your Facebook account. One should be reminded of the expression “putting all your eggs in one basket.” Again, the strictest of privacy settings donâÄôt matter when you put up your address, your phone number and your real name on Facebook. A hacker can access all of that in a second even if “only friends” can view your profile. That takes “Face-stalking” to a whole new level.

Moreover, in response to Amy SandersâÄô comment on the privacy issue of Facebook, unless you live in China, the Internet is a public domain and a public domain creeping with hackers.

Private, privacy, privatization (no matter which way you look at it) implies restrictions and exclusivity while the converse is inclusiveness. Ultimately, everyone has the opportunity to have their faces posted onto the bodies of naked women or men with their phone numbers attached, if they so choose to share such information via Facebook, Twitter or whatever joke of a social network service that provides the false sense of “privacy” when trading information online.