Archive fortrust

Facebook, Foucault and the CIA

foucault.jpg

(this is an part of an essay, I liked the image of Foucault and the Lolcat, so I just had to put something online to support it)

From the surface Facebook might look like just another toy for teens to waste their time on, but Facebook is much more than that. Not only is the audience comprised of much more than purely teens, the amount of users -70 million- and the time spent on it - the 6th most trafficked website in the world- make it a platform that is a seriously big player in the world of online destinations. Tom Hodgkinson, journalist for the Guardian, writes in his article about Facebook With friends like these… about the size and the goals of Facebook:

Furthermore, have you Facebook users ever actually read the privacy policy? It tells you that you don’t have much privacy. Facebook pretends to be about freedom, but isn’t it really more like an ideologically motivated virtual totalitarian regime with a population that will very soon exceed the UK’s? Thiel and the rest [shareholders of Facebook] have created their own country, a country of consumers. (Hodgkinson 2008)

With Facebook, state and commerce seem to have found a solution to the problem of decentralization that they had been dealing with on the web. Where they already had solved some of their problems by building in surveillance possibilities in the hardware, with Facebook they can directly see what users are doing by following every click they make on this closed platform. I’ll try to present you with some background of Facebook as both a surveillance and marketing tool and we will try to relate the ideas of Foucault, biopolitics, segmentation and the Panopticon to the way Facebook allows its users to interact on the platform and itself the surveillance all this.

With Facebook as a closed platform, commerce no longer needed to need tools anymore to track users on different internet sites, for as long as the user stayed on Facebook, they could be followed on every page they visited. From research done by Harvey Jones and José Hiram Soltren for their article Facebook: Threats to Privacy, we can understand that on average nearly 90% of the students of their researched universities (including MIT and Harvard) had a Facebook account (Jones/ Hirman Solten 2005 [14]) and although Facebook has a privacy option to disallow ‘strangers’ from viewing specific information (Jones/ Hirman Solten 2005 [14]) this setting does not interfere with what Facebook itself can see; their privacy statement also leaves no doubts:

When you use Facebook, you may set up your personal profile, form relationships, send messages, perform searches and queries, form groups, set up events, add applications, and transmit information through various channels. We collect this information so that we can provide you the service and offer personalized features. (Facebook 2007)

It is pretty clear that those surveillance powers of getting all the user data are used by marketers to up its fullest potential, and according to Tom Hodgkinson the government in the form of the CIA also managed to get onboard; he writes:

Facebook’s most recent round of funding was led by a company called Greylock Venture Capital, who put in the sum of $27.5m. One of Greylock’s senior partners is called Howard Cox, another former chairman of the NVCA, who is also on the board of In-Q-Tel. What’s In-Q-Tel? Well, believe it or not (and check out their website), this is the venture-capital wing of the CIA. (Hodgkingson 2008)

And although the CIA were only indirectly related to Facebook in this article it would be of no surprise if the CIA were indeed capable of having the same information as Facebook’s commercial partners.

Foucault and Facebook
If we take another example that Foucault uses in his book Discipline and Punish, namely measures that have to be taken when a plague hits town, we can see another kind of social control happening on Facebook, the user-to-user control. An interesting feature on Facebook is its News Feed, which is on the opening page for everyone who has logged in and shows everything that your friends have done on Facebook: whether they have added new friends, uploaded photos, or even if their relations are still working out; and thereby reminds us both of the ideas of the Panopticon as to the segmentation after a plague, as Foucault writes: ‘Everyone locked up in his cage, everyone at his window, answering to his name and showing himself when asked - it is the great review of the living and the dead’ A quite somber image for the profile pages users create for themselves, but it could be used as a way to think about how social networks (especially those with a reach of more than 90% in certain groups) force their members to behave in a certain way. If we see each profile page as the representation of a human being, and we know that the News Feed allows everyone in the group to know about all the changes a person makes, then we can see the order Foucault mentioned:

This enclosed, segmented space, observed at every point, in which the individuals are inserted in a fixed place, in which the slightest movements are supervised, in which all events are recorded. (Foucault 1977 [140])

Two things are different though; first, the users join voluntarily (although is it a free choice to not join, when you know you will miss out on an activity 90% of your friends are joining?) and second the unknown guard is replaced by all your known friends that could be watching, although there is no way to find out which ones exactly, because Facebook does not give insight into who is watching your profile. It is here that we choose to be part of a self-created Panopticon, we are the inmates of a self-inflicted social prison; Foucault states: ‘that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers.’ (Foucault 1990 [31]) The current Internet users do not need power of state, or seduction by marketing anymore to keep them in control; rather they happily agree with self-surveillance to create an online society of social normalization.

Facebook is a dream platform for extracting marketing data –and possibly security data- because it no longer has to deal with the problem of decentralization; from the moment the users show up on one of Facebook’s pages their every move can be tracked and traced. Facebook’s privacy policy also leaves no doubt that they will. The way Facebook is created also allows us to see it as a sort of social prison or Panopticon and use the work of Foucault to understand better how social surveillance creates a status of social normalization.

Comments (1)

Demo version

in the media
Friday I got some positive comments on my project by Dutch web2.0 weblog BlueACe, although they have some questions if openness will create trust and truth in the end, they are looking forward to the release.

demo version
Last weekend i worked in completing all the screenshots i needed to give a complete vision of the project, you can visit the demo here, any comments are welcome again :)

screenshots updated
Based on the feedback i got, i changed some things in the screens on Flickr

front-page - removed the search for good reputation
personal profile - changed the color settings, and tried to make reputation areas more explicit
public profile - minor changes
directory - removed the search for good reputation, and added links to more pages

mailing list
On the front-page its possible to subscribe to my mailing list.

Comments (1)

Reputator.net

What is Reputator?

It’s an online social biography network. www.reputator.net
Who can use it?

Reputator was created to serve everyone, but especially those who depend on online created trust, like small traders and freelancers.

How does it work?

You can create a profile just like in any other site. With each personal profile, there comes also a public profile (similar in style to a wiki). The personal profile is the one you can edit, the public profile is open for the public to correct add and rewrite the information about you.

Why is there a public-profile about me?

By having a profile that can be edited by anyone, you are vulnerable for all kinds of comments, but by showing your weakness, you make clear that you have nothing to hide. That is, according to A. Baier, how trust is defined:

“One leaves the others an opportunity to harm one when one trusts, and also shows one’s confidence that they will not take it.” Baier, A. in Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., Howe, D. C., Trust Online 2000 (pdf)

Where is the reputation coming in?

Glad you asked. Just like many sites these days, each profile can be tagged, with fields on which one person is trusted. Those “fields of trust” can be tagged multiple times by different individuals, each adding their own meaning about your biography and giving you a more complete reputation on the fields they’ve chosen to tag. This creates a growing and reliable reputation on certain fields.

Enough talk, show my pictures!

The front-page:

Frontpage

The front-page, with a huge search box for easy finding.
The search result page

direcory

After a search on the word “Design” you will get to the search result page / directory. Here you get all the results shown from high to low reputation.

The personal profile page (when you are not logged in)

profile
The profile page, which can be build up in modules, has both a personal as a public side, and a reputation tag cloud. (two lines of people after degrees, to prevent you from, creating fake accounts for boosting your reputation)

Profile when you are logged in

As you can see on each subject there can be a discussion, and each discussion can be confirmed or declined by the owner of the profile (not removed however)
Questions for you :)

You could all help me by giving your overall impression about the design and the idea, and some answers on these questions would also be appreciated.

1. Do you think adding a function for negative reputation could be useful?

2. Should you be able to create public profiles about some-one who doesn’t have a personal profile

3. Would an add-friends connection be any help

4. Is this a good idea anyway (why / why not)

5. Since this is it, and I don’t have much time to make something new, will I survive my presentation with this, any hints and tricks are appreciated.

Well that’s it, press release can be downloaded here in English, en hier in Nederlands.

Comments (7)

Me tagging Me VS You tagging Me

There has been a recent outbreak on possibilities to claim your own identity, but what is the best solution?

I tag myself
There is ClaimID to claim your ID and off course my portfolio
pros:No one knows myself better than myself (or does one), I have the most direct access to my own work, and i can remember if something was made by me (update claimID also enables to ensure that a claimed website is yours)
cons:How do I make you trust me, It would be more than logical to let all negative stuff away from my ID. There’s no talk back option for other users.

Update: Mashup pointed me on the Naymz website, a site where you ensure yourself in the top of search engines

I tag myself, but you can give some comments
you’ve got the 3 that are trying to take reputation out of ebay: IKarma , Rapleaf and Opinity.
pros:Opinity has the option to securely claim web accounts that are created by me. Other people can talk back on what the think of me.
cons:Still most comments will be positive, because people will fear me of burning down their reputation, It only works good in business situation where goods are moved.

You tag me, and I’m helpless
And there are some initiatives the measure your reputation based on google results like EgoSurf ,Preople which feels a bit like the good old wuffie and off course there is the most famous way to check someones ID search for it on google.
pros: There is a feeling of trust because the information it gathered without your direct input, its up to date.
cons: If there are some big lies about me, or some really old documents i need to call a SEO company to fix it up.

So what would you trust better, me talking about myself like ClaimID does, me talking about myself but let others comment it like the reputation systems do, or letting the machines talk about me as google does? The answer I think should be (as expected) somewhere in the middle. A profile that you can create where others can talk about you. And can leave a positive or a negative feedback of doing business, having a date or what whatever with you.

My ideal solution
-has the option to verify my webaccounts like opinity has
-hast the solution to check if my name and my address are real (as paypal and couchsurfing use)
-Will allow to give other users to give me a reputation like feedback (as the ebay system)
-does have an option to describe myself (perhaps as the consumating idea)
-gives a possibility to see directly the reputation of those who talk about my reputation.
-gives me some feedback from how i score on the Internet (like google and technorati)

I would love to have some comments on this :)

Comments (4)

The Impossible Identity Plan

1 When you subscribe you get 100 credits

2 Next you can describe yourself in tags. Common tags will be available

Example: Utrecht / Student / Design / Trust / HKU / 24

3 Add a description to your tags

Utrecht – I live in the city of Utrecht
Student – I am a student
Design – Designing is what I do
Trust – I’m completely to be trusted
HKU – The school I go to
24 – The age I am

4 Adding points to what is most important to you (Creating word value)

Utrecht 20
Student 15
Design 25
Trust 20
HKU 20
24 10

5 Ask other people to redefine your tags, add some extra and change some values.

by adding or removing points from their own credits to yours(with a max of 5)
So after a friend visits you, your score can be:

Utrecht 20
Student 15
Design 25
Trust 20
- 1
HKU 20
24 10
Tall +1

And my reputation score will be 101 / -1 (1)
My positive reputation, my negative reputation and the times editing

So why al the trouble?

Well my hardest unanswered question yet, it why wouldn’t anyone create 10 accounts and write on other accounts how good they are. But I guess faking is possible on any account. So there should be a positive reason not to do it.

Comments (1)

Reputator in steps

Step 1
Fill in your email address

Step 2
Confirm your email address

Step 3
3.1 Describe yourself in tags
3.2 post those tags in categories (or an higher ranking)
3.3 add a value to these tags
3.4 give an extra line of information about the tag

Step 4
-Ask your friends to re-rate and fine tune your tags and describings

Step 5
-rate and describe your friends. (and enemies)

As you can see the problems appear mostly at 3.3, what value to add? Any suggestions on this are more than welcome!

Comments

Reputator

Last weekend i started with the sketches of my online platform for reputation management, it’s got the cool name Reputator, and you the url is here: Reputator.net:: - where the virtual meets the real.

So what’s it gonna be?

Reputator is an online tool for reputation building. It makes it easier to trust those first time offline meetings, and helps you to build on your reputation without it being stuck at one platform.

How does it work

We give you the possibility to create an online profile. But instead off letting you create a hero out of yourself we ask you to ask your friends to build your profile. (and off course you can help build theirs;) In this way we keep the profile’s clean and trustworthy. And enable others to have a clearer view about who you are.

Ehh give me an example?

Let’s say you’ve just moved to another city, and want to get to know some new people. Off course you can go to myspace of meetic or an other social site, but they are all ego based. Reputator gives you an inside look into someone by their own friends.

Ok, an other example?

You are talking on a forum with this guy for months, then he says he’s coming to your town and ask for a meet up. But how can you trust him, how do you know if he has another live outside your little forum? Reputator gives you the answer.

Sounds good doesn’t it ;)

Today I did some research into the web2.0 projects in this subject. the website web2.0slides was a great help therefore.

So what did I found?

AirTroductions™ - There’s Something in the Air
Whether you’re looking for a date in Los Angeles, a business networking partner in Tokyo, or just someone to share a cab from Kennedy to Midtown, look no further. You’ve found AirTroductions™.

dodgeball.com :: mobile social software
Dodgeball is a online social tool, that is helping you meeting your friends using your mobile, and informs you when a friend of a friend is near.

streakr.com :: the real social network
all about making social networking on the web a bit more like it is in the real world. (More Mad Max and less Tamagotchi)

meetup.com/
Meetup.com helps people find others who share their interest or cause, and form lasting, influential, local community groups that regularly meet face-to-face. We believe that the world will be a better place when everyone has access to a people-powered local Meetup Group. That’s our goal.

Consumating: Hot nerdy girls and indie rock boys! With glasses!
We are the first dating site to use the ideas of tagging to help people find one another.

Favorville : People Helping People
Favorville.com is a social networking tool which provides members with the opportunity to help and be helped by others. With Favorville, members can post help requests, offer help and help grow the community. Favorville makes it easy to get in touch and build lasting connections with helpful neighbors, both in your locale or across the global village.
AsoBoo
Asoboo, which means “Let’s have fun” in Japanese, is a community-based city guide. Asoboo connects people and the places they hang out at, allowing you to explore networks of people and places. We hope that the use of Asoboo will make lives richer in friends, experiences, and enjoyment of the places in which we live.

So quit a lot inspiring website’s I’ll be working on my own the next weeks.

Comments (5)

Online Reputation Systems

After some googling I found this video about online reputation systems

Online reputation systems
Length: 14 minutes

Online reputation systems - for buyers and sellers on eBay, for contributors on Slashdot and so on - are a fundamental and necessary element to most online communities. Learn how the online reputation systems foster transparency and encourage good behavior among strangers.

Esther Dyson interviews Jim Griffith of ebay

Online reputation systems make it possible to trust people online, for online business you have to have a good reputation. Online reputation systems are build to encourage good behavior reduce fraud.

On slashdot for example you get karma for the quality of your writings, users with good karma are awarded with certain privileges, in that way they don’t just report good behavior they influence it.

No reputation system is perfect.. but in the long run users will learn that they will be always better out, when they have a long time relation than some easy money.

That reputation influence created because friends support friends are a weakness in any reputation system. The only solution is getting the message out, its ok to have a few negative feedbacks

The most important rule for a reputation platform is keep your hands off changing reputation, the system will collapse once the users doesn’t trust it anymore.

also found this link with some ideas

social software ideas

Similar to the “grade inflation” problems common in colleges everywhere, everyone at eBay seems to have the same positive rating of “GOOD COMMUNICATION WOULD USE AGAIN A+++++++++++” which doesn’t really tell you much and becomes meaningless if every bit of feedback looks like that. If you plumb someone’s profile and all their previous transactions, you can eventually figure out if they’ve moved any big ticket items but it’d be great if that information (which is already in the database) could be surfaced and used to assess an adjusted reputation (”This user has been rated positively on 125 sales of items over $500“. Other bits of info could include things like location of both the seller and the buyers (I’ll trust a seller in Spain if they have lots of high ranking sales to others in my country).

Fix some ebay feedback problems -

Some fixes have been proposed, including:

  • letting you see the count of total auctions the party has been buyer or seller in, so you can see how many resulted in no feedback at all. Right now only eBay knows how large that number is.
  • double-blind feedback. That is to say that feedback is not revealed until both parties have entered it, or if only one party enters it, after the feedback period has expired.
  • Marking revenge feedback, ie. putting a mark next to negatives that were a response to an outgoing negative.

Thus you could have very low fear of revenge feedback and there would be no argument about who should go first.

Another eBay feedback improver

Comments

« Previous entries

Recent Comments: