Evolution and Security - A reflective analysis

Reflective Blog by Joshua Varghese (41396359)

You may curl your lip and sneer in poorly concealed contempt over these newfangled, upstart social networking fads, perhaps as you jab your gnarled walking stick angrily at the computer screen, but these hipster networking sites are not only here to stay but are gaining in popularity and permanence in the modern information age[3]. Could this widespread presence be due to communication or socialisation breakthroughs? In addition, their insidious influence on society may be having unforeseen side-effects such as warped senses of identity and alarming security risks.

As someone completely new to social networking websites, I have, some might say boldly, utilised a variety of web 2.0 applications of which I may refer to in my reflection. These applications tend to focus on a particular aspect of typical internet usage and transform them into social activities. As most people are no doubt already quite aware of how these applications function, I will spare you the intimate details of what they do and instead comment on my experience in wrestling with some of these eldritch social sensations.

I found that twitter perhaps crushingly embraces the simple question, “What are you doing?” Strictly limited in its capabilities and its decidedly delicate critical mass level, it nevertheless skyrocketed in popularity and it shows no sign of slowing its relentless ascent to global ubiquitousness[1]. I found the use of third party software such as twitterfox (an add-on for the firefox browser) served as a much-welcome crutch to aid in the potentially awkward and cumbersome default interaction process. This is because it requires me to navigate to the website, possibly log in if my cookies expired, and click on “post a new update” if I want to post something new. All in all, a ponderous process involving many clicks and load-waits. Twitterfox allows me to post and view updates from any website by clicking an icon located unobtrusively in firefox’s status bar.

Initially, my opinion was that flickr’s concept of sharing photo albums was intriguing due to the fact that while other services such as facebook and mySpace allow the user to upload photos in addition to the teetering skyscraper of their other social features, flickr manages to carve out its own niche in the ostentatious ranks of the social networking aristocracy by specialising and refining the simple act of uploading pictures. Upon further inspection I can appreciate the potential of such a specialist application – for example, photos could be automatically uploaded once taken without having to specify where or how the photo should be added.

As one might expect from last.fm’s lofty declaration “the social music revolution”, it deals with the widely varying musical tastes of users – but (of great interest to me) without the usually inevitable cliquing and associated typecasting that clings to any musical genre or artist like the barnacles on a festering plank of wood. This is not to say that last.fm doesn’t categorise music genres or attract the very same people who assert that their bands of choice are superior and more sophisticated then your plebeian embarrassments, but through its complex system of grouping preferences it hammers together the musical choices of a particular user and utilises this data to recommend music to other users via streaming internet radio. It’s actually pretty cool.

I do not have a facebook or mySpace account, nor have I ever used them. In terms of personal experience I draw purely on over-the-shoulder knowledge of other people interacting with them.

To my mind, the level of innovation involved in the design process of web 2.0 applications vary – after all, while people were shooting off pointless SMS via mobile phones and showing friends their photographs for years before the audacious likes of twitter and flickr, a self-sustaining and growing network of categorically based music (last.fm) and bookmarking (delicious) shows an impressive level of potential (such databases have theoretically infinite growth).

Considering, then, how recent social networking sites are and how much they offer that’s actually something new, they certainly have a staggeringly high number of users. The focus of this reflection will be on whether this is due to web 2.0 being an evolution of socialisation and/or communication, and how this popularity affects user privacy and security – or rather, is it evolution that makes these sites so popular? How is the widespread usage affecting society?

Communication is civilisation

Are social networking sites the evolution of human socialisation? Will they change the way we communicate forever? To answer such questions, it’s helpful to have a firm definition of socialisation on hand. Dictionary definitions of socialisation tend to attribute the word to establishing behaviour patterns within a cultural or social context. For a true evolution of socialisation, social interactions within social networking sites would need to have broadened to the point where it doesn’t fit that definition anymore (or the concept wouldn’t have grown or developed).

Renowned author and blogger John Blossom comments on web 2.0 applications,

“[they] are a realignment of the essential tools of human communication that is giving new power to individuals and institutions to change the world”[3]

– in other words, he appreciates the power of communication these applications provide. Blossom goes on to say how much our lives are changed by people being able to publish what they want to anyone in the world – they certainly are changed, but I feel this is an aspect of the internet that is quite irritating (while many people have interesting things to say, who really wants to hear about every single person’s opinion on every little thing? We’re talking about an infinite sea of opinions).

Blossom raises an interesting point in that these tools provide a new level of power for communication. Twitter in particular is incredibly useful for instantaneous global communication to thousands of people – and I find this ironic because it’s outside the scope of what twitter was originally intended for (keeping in touch with close friends). People are increasingly realising the potential of social networking applications. Many popular celebrities and bands utilise mySpace, and twitter’s potential for keeping people informed seems to be taken seriously – many businesses make use of it and other social sites for collaboration[9] and even police departments in America have utilised it to make various announcements[8].

Given that twitter wasn’t designed to be used for such mass communications (it doesn’t have categorically organised followers or message organisation of any kind), the developers were wise to include a detailed API (Application Programming Interface) and usage instructions for people to create their own third party applications. To see that this technique has worked well requires only one to look at the plethora of user-made applications for twitter out there. This seems to be a case of fortuitous user response to a failed critical mass level (too many users) and it’s safe to say it’s contributing significantly to the widespread usage of the site.

So, what about the socialisation taking place in social networking sites?

Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the most popular drunken partygoer of them all?



Narcissism (or excessive fascination with oneself) appears to manifest in many users of social networking applications. An aspect of this is a tendency of users preferring quantity over quality of their ‘friends’ - for example, I have noticed many users of Facebook and mySpace (applications with which most are no doubt familiar) seem to be far more concerned with the quantity of their ‘friends’ then the quality of those relationships. I have even noticed such a trend in older social applications such as MSN Messenger, where people will have huge amounts of contacts on their list that they barely (if even) know and barely (if ever) talk to – and these people are usually quite eager to show others how huge their contact list is. I found my opinion validated by a recent study examining specifically how narcissism manifested on social networking sites – narcissism in this study was judged by levels of social activity coupled with self promoting user content such as main photo attractiveness and doctoring. Strangers viewing these profiles independently thought the profile owners narcissistic[4].

The other major aspect of user narcissism also treads into issues of identity[2]. Personality fabrication inevitably occurs due to selective showings of photographs and other information about the user’s life, often in a blatantly conformist manner. How many Facebook profiles are filled almost exclusively with drinking/partying photos with the user’s significant other draped around their shoulder like a human trophy? Are we to infer from this that so many millions of people are all sharing basically identical lifestyles, or that so many millions of users would like you to think so? I discovered my findings corroborated – a study was conducted that most users will “show, but not tell” their identities implicitly through the display of photos of friends to project the visual impression that the user has a vast social network and is very popular and well-liked[5].

It turns out that this phenomenon is actually a recent emergence in modern psychology which came about due to social networking sites. Identity construction varies depending on the level of anonymity. Complete anonymity has been shown to actually empower identity through the expression of the user’s inner self without the barriers or concerns of their physical identity[5], and most social networking sites require a user to be forthright about who they are (often complete with photos) which will constrain a user to a certain extent on how they might otherwise act if they were anonymous.

There are three kinds of identities people assume depending on the context of social interaction – the “standard” identity which people assume in day to day life, the “anonymous” identity which people take up in anonymous environments (often online) and the “modified standard” identity which has emerged recently from the context of social networking sites, where people will express their “possible” self or the self they wish to be[5].

Money is for nothing and your information is free

There are always multiple security risks inherent in new or emerging technologies [2] and web 2.0 is certainly no exception. It’s never been easier to obtain intimate personal details about users of social applications. It’s clear how this is poor for information security, and it’s interesting to note how people seem to treat the online medium differently from a physical setting. Strangers sending friend requests through social networking sites are frequently accepted with no questions asked, but those same people would be unlikely to provide all their personal information to random people they meet on the street. The shift to web 2.0 makes the inherent security challenges of the internet even more complex, due to completely user generated content which is viewable by anyone. In addition, people who might ordinarily steer clear of such applications might be made to use them (and in effect, made to make free with personal information to some extent) for work reasons[6] as businesses begin increasingly to utilise sites such as twitter.

In addition to making personal information brazenly transparent, web 2.0 applications utilise relatively new technology (such as Ajax) which widen new avenues of malicious exploitation. Patches might be furiously coded up to fix the latest security vulnerabilities but not before some hapless user has their passwords or other private details stolen[6]. The popularity of these sites only increases the possibilities for malicious internet attacks - a notable example of was when popular singer Alicia Keys’ mySpace page (at the time, the fourth most viewed page on mySpace) was hacked in November 2007 and used as a distribution platform for launching malware onto viewers’ computers[7].

There are, as well, a host of social security issues specific to web 2.0 applications. The nature of social applications means that many people use the software – with every person who uses the software, the chance of someone wittingly or unwittingly divulging all kinds of personal information that might otherwise be viewable only to an exclusive group of people, increases. With the possibilities of all kinds of media able to be posted such as video and sound recordings, it requires a high level of trust in exclusive user groups not to leak inappropriate material concerning an individual or business[6].

Closely related to security issues are potential ramifications for having your personal profile viewable – an interesting point that many people probably don’t consider is that their social networking profiles can potentially be read by potential or current employers which may lend an undesired impression[10] which may affect their job. A more obvious ramification is people you don’t like being able to read about you – this is actually a major reason why I do not generally participate to a personal extent in social networking sites. Of particular concern to society in general are particular user groups on networks such as facebook which may promote or encourage undesirable activities such as drug use[10].

So, are social networking sites an evolution of socialisation? The interactions taking place within social networking sites are really socialising within their own unique context – they fit perfectly into the definition of establishing behaviour patterns within a cultural or social context. It is not, therefore, an evolution but simply another kind of socialisation.

How about communication and security? The technical power of web 2.0 applications could conceivably be argued as an evolution of how we communicate if only for the level of instantaneous worldwide notification they can provide. At the same time, however, for every step taken forward in communication power there is a step backwards in security.

We are gaining power of communication and new avenues and contexts of social interaction at the cost of privacy and security. As the development of web 2.0 continues, it will likely be a source of some debate as to whether the advantages of communication and entertainment of online socialisation outweigh the glaring new vulnerabilities in our information privacy, internet security and solidarity of self image.


References

[1] Jessica E. Vascellaro. (2009, March 25). Firms Seek Profits in Twitter's Chatter. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. B.1. Retrieved March 28, 2009, from U.S. National Newspaper Abstracts (3) database. (Document ID: 1666505021).

[2] David Bawden, Lyn Robinson. (2009). The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 180. Retrieved March 28, 2009, from Academic Research Library database. (Document ID: 1662929741).

[3] Barbara Brynko. (2009, March). INTERVIEW With John Blossom: Unraveling the Social Network. Information Today, 26(3), 18. Retrieved March 28, 2009, from Academic Research Library database. (Document ID: 1655959351).

[4] Laura E Buffardi, W Keith Campbell. (2008). Narcissism and Social Networking Web Sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(10), 1303. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from Academic Research Library database. (Document ID: 1572477451).

[5] Shanyuang Zhao, Sherri Grasmuck, Jason Martin. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1816-1836. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from PsycInfo database.

[6] Jason Short. (2008). RISKS IN A WEB 2.0 WORLD. Risk Management, 55(10), 28-31,4. Retrieved April 2, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1631988481).

[7] Maya Grinberg. (2008). Hackers Hijack MySpace Music Page. Risk Management, 55(1), 11. Retrieved April 2, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1414141301).

[8] Rachel Lebeaux. (2009, March 29). Police tap into Twitter to keep public informed :Quick blogging tool finds wide following; FRANKLIN. Boston Globe,p. 1. Retrieved April 2, 2009, from Accounting & Tax Newspapers database. (Document ID: 1669019541).

[9] Eric Kavanagh. (2009). The Rich Get Richer, But Are The Users Poor :New developments in Internet applications can change the way we work. Information Management, 19(3), 40. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry database. (Document ID: 1671272591).

[10] Carly Brandenburg. (2008). The Newest Way to Screen Job Applicants: A Social Networker's Nightmare. Federal Communications Law Journal, 60(3), 597-626. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1536934351).