Schneier's Revised Taxonomy of Social Data

Jamie noted that over at Schneier's blog, he has a worthwhile entry on the data in the social networks. He writes "Lately I've been reading about user security and privacy — control, really — on social networking sites. The issues are hard and the solutions harder, but I'm seeing a lot of confusion in even forming the questions. Social networking sites deal with several different types of user data, and it's essential to separate them."

Unfortunately

[cosm]

The unfortunate thing is that Schneier's taxonomic breakdown of data is most likely known by the majority here, and the folks who really need that information conveyed to them (ie mom and pop, aunt velma and her pic's of fluffy, partying cheerleader squad, drunk frat, etc..) will probably never see it, and if they did, they wouldn't understand it, or take heed to its importance even if they did.

Not to mention large social sites are not really transparent with their collection and retention practices in the first place.

Cynical, yes. Realistic, perhaps.

Re:Unfortunately

[lapsed]

I hadn't heard about it until now, but I'm just one data point. Later in the post, Schneier writes that "there are other ways to look at user data," so it's not clear that his proposed taxonomy is the only way of classifying social networking data. What's weird about it is how it assumes and implies ownership. A user owns the page to which other users post, and as a result, the data posted by those other users is of a different type than the data posted by the page's 'owner'.
Empirically, these types don't exist. In this sense, it's more of a typology than a taxonomy (in the social sciences, conceptually-derived classification systems are called typologies and empirical classification systems are taxonomies). Control over data -- particularly social networking data -- is, to a much greater degree, a function of the underlying protocols, API's, and SLA's.
I get that the post is normative -- that Schneier is proposing a means of classifying data that will result in a social networking infrastructure that returns the control over data to its creators. But as you say, that change has to take place without the active participation of Facebook's 5 million indifferent users.

Selling to third parties

[whencanistop]

We often don't mind if a site uses it to target advertisements, but are less sanguine when it sells data to third parties.

Really this is the problem with the whole privacy thing that has caused so much issue in the past. The problem isn't that the company collects the data, it is that they then sell it to third parties to make a profit.

Similarly if you look at the in depth report that the WSJ published [wsj.com] then the real issue isn't the use of cookies or even the collection of the behavioural data - it is that they have then sold out to third parties by either selling the data or allowing them to collect it in the first place (which they can then do whatever they want with).

social data vs pr0n?

[vlm]

Story about a fuzzy taxonomy of social data gets like 4 posts, whereas a taxonomy of Pr0n would probably have about 900 comments by now.

The influence bothers me more than the privacy...

[Anonymous Coward]

My girlfriend was browsing facebook on a system without adblock and I glanced over at her screen. It was _filled_ up with bridal advertisements. Get married here! Have this cake! Perfect honeymoon! I logged into the site and saw nothing like that. She fits the advertising profile— no doubt. Age, gender, — in a relationship for many years... etc. Lucky for me she's as disinterested as I am or somewhat more.

This got me thinking though— what influence does this kind of thing have— certainly some number of unlucky dudes are more likely to get the wedding bell nags as a result of this.

I called up a friend of ours— same age group, married a year ago. I ask her, "What ads do you get on facebook?" Baby supplies, baby showers, pregnancy blah blah. Will these advertising systems promote population growth?

It seems to me that what we expose people at large scales can have a considerable influence on the our world... and much more so when the messages are so tightly taylored and focused. We hand that power over to whomever has the most money or whomever can best profit from it. Is this a good thing?