Facebook Privacy Regulations - Essay Sample

Introduction

In the current centuries, social media has become an essential way for people to connect and share information. As such, individuals use social media to share their information, which sometimes has been linked to privacy issues (Esteve, 2017). However, posting and updating status creates a condition, which exposes users’ data to third parties, and this has triggered information misuse (Rubinstein & Good, 2013). Facebook and Google are two major companies that have been closely associated with privacy violations, which trigger data exposure to other parties.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Do people who use Facebook have a legitimate claim to privacy when they themselves are posting information about themselves?

When a person posts data or updates their status, they tend to believe that only their friends have the capability to view it. On the wall of these media platforms, there are security settings that give users a chance to manage their personal data, and this allows them to control who can view their information (Rubinstein & Good, 2013). Therefore, the data provided in personal status should stay protected unless the owner decides to change the profile to the public. Due to the approach, users tend to trust the platform to the extent that they use real information rather than pseudonyms (Rubinstein & Good, 2013). Additionally, Facebook gives users an opportunity to differentiate and classify individuals into groups, for example, family, friends, and much more, and this triggered more privacy issues.

The privacy issue arises, especially personal information that is protected in Facebook is shared with third parties without the users’ knowledge and consent. The issue has triggered some members to share data of individuals who are not related, thus violating the rules and policies on Facebook (Esteve, 2017). In this case, the social media platform may change the privacy regulation without informing members, and this has triggered personal information being exposed to third parties (Esteve, 2017). The approach has triggered a critical argument regarding the privacy setting of the platform.

Additionally, Facebook has been associated with selling user’s personal data to other parties or advertisers, and this has triggered some crucial information being used in online platforms without owner consent (Rubinstein & Good, 2013). Online games tend to track down which website users have viewed, and this gives them a chance to collect data that they then use to create a profile using someone’s information. Based on illustration, it is not safe for an individual to post personal information as Facebook does not guarantee users quality security services (Rubinstein & Good, 2013). The lack of a better security system has triggered massive data exploitation without users' permission, and this has created a constant state of confusion about privacy. In such an incident, users have a legitimate claim to privacy as the platforms tend to have violated the regulations as it works with other parties that facilitate data sharing without users’ permission.

Additionally, based on the illustration, users have a legitimate claim to privacy as Facebook is supposed to have a proper security system, which protects user data. Due to numerous privacy issues, Facebook has been striving to enhance its security system, which is a way of enhancing trust among users (Rubinstein & Good, 2013). For instance, Facebook now allows users with apps to regulate those who can see their data, and this has helped in reducing the number of members who can view personal information. Additionally, Facebook collaborates with the Federal Trade Commission to offer users projective notice before sharing the data (Esteve, 2017). The approach has given users a chance to select or deny the platform the right to share data, which is an essential way of adhering to confidentiality requirements (Rubinstein & Good, 2013). These rules have been established with the aim of trying to improve data protection, thus control any claim that may arise due to privacy violation.

How can using the sharing privacy controls help preserve your privacy on Facebook? In what ways is the sharing control ineffective?

Currently, a large number of people skip the privacy policies as they perceive it as being boring. Nevertheless, they have forgotten that privacy is a critical aspect that they are supposed to observe when joining any social media (Esteve, 2017). By the application of privacy controls, Facebook users can effectively specify the form of data on their social media platform, and this allows them to regulate what their friends and public can see (Esteve, 2017). These privacy controls are more granular-based because members can have the power to control the nature of the content and data they share. The system acts in an independent manner, and thus, the previous alternation of status and photo settings.

This privacy control feature comprises a new technique that allows members to “customize” a certain friend record that they can share their data with (Rubinstein & Good, 2013). The system gives users the capability to specify and manage their privacy as it offers a “share” button, which determines who is supposed to view the post (Rubinstein & Good, 2013). Additionally, these control policies effectively control the kind of people that use the platform, and this has assisted in controlling children under the age of 18.

Even though the sharing control gives users a chance to specifically identify who to view the data, the process has been linked with some downfall. The system ignores the previous settings that users had enacted, and this approach makes the privacy control ineffective. Based on the new structure that has been introduced, Facebook has made the general privacy setting more challenging to access and complex to navigate (Esteve, 2017). Due to the approach, a large number of users will use and unknowingly select the share button, and this exposes their data to the public and third parties (Rubinstein & Good, 2013). As such, a large number of users believe the process is tedious, as one is required to fill different categories as they try to edit the system. The approach in collaboration with the placement of the “like” button in most websites makes it easier for Facebook to share individuals’ data without user permission (Rubinstein & Good, 2013). In this case, the sites take advantage of the sharing control system and use the data for their personal gain. This step that users have to compete for them to ensure their data are effectively controlled against external influence is so challenge as it requires assistance from a source outside the platform (Rubinstein & Good, 2013). Therefore, as the platform is changing the system, it introduces settings that are too hard for users, and even if an individual is so smart, they experience the challenge in navigating through the privacy process (Esteve, 2017). Even though the system appears to be more effective than before, it has created a new platform that allows Facebook to efficiently share user privacy information without permission.

Additionally, the system has no clear system that can automatically send a notification to users in case a third party tries to use their data. Through the approach, it could be easier for users to identify that the privacy information is being interfered with, and it is likely that it can be used by other parties (Rubinstein & Good, 2013). Due to the lack of a better protection system, users have been left without any choice, rather than to watch their information being extracted by third users.

Why would Google combining information from separate accounts across its services and sites have privacy implications for its users?

Google announced its approach to combining data with the aim of offering better services to its customers. Through this approach, the company could effectively link and allow users to connect different accounts. The approach to combining data from different accounts across its services and sites appears to be challenging for users to control their privacy settings of the platforms (Rubinstein & Good, 2013). Lack of better control of the account exposes users’ data to third parties, which is a major challenge the Google security is experiencing (Esteve, 2017). Due to the approach, third parties have taken advantage of exploiting data from users despite members trying to restrict privacy. As such, Google has made it too complex for users to maintain and secure their privacy (Rubinstein & Good, 2013).

Additionally, Google has been accused of taking advantage of the period and the lack of effectiveness and responsibility to its users, which has given other parties a chance to misuse other people’s data (Esteve, 2017). In some cases, Google has been linked with the selling of users’ data to third parties, which has triggered an increase in the income rate. The approach has violated the rules and regulations regarding privacy, confidentiality, and rights (Rubinstein & Good, 2013). Due to an increase in technology, some individuals have taken advantage of internet-based services to collect information, which they then use for personal gain. In this case, site developers are creating a connection with third parties, and this has allowed intruders to efficiently access unauthorized data.

Look up your address on Google Street View. Do you believe Google Street View constitutes a breach of privacy? Why or why not?

The conceptual approach of Google to expand its mapping system using Street View technology has triggered a critical argument regarding privacy observation (Nodari et al., 2012). Based on the operation of Google Street View, I believe that the system does not violate the privacy policies as it does not recognize where there a person is located within a region (Nodari et al., 2012). Instead, it shows using the “defensive” physical systems, such as gates, fences, and much more, which are deployed to protect against external intruders (Rubinstein & Good, 2013).

Despite Google Street View using images to shows numerous approaches across the world, it does not violate the privacy law according to the United States. Based on the current law system, there is no expectation of privacy when an individual is in public areas, and the hazard of surveillance is assumed (Rubinstein & Good, 2013). For instance, if an individual is captured by Good Street View walking along with a store, they cannot sue the company on the basis of a claim of invasion of privacy (Nodari et al., 2012). As a way of avoiding such issues, Google embraces the blurring image specification, which ensures all pictures taken do not have a clear image, and thus it is challenging for an individual to be identified (Rubinstein & Good, 2013). In case a street is privately owned, Google has the mandate to remove the system to avoid privacy violations. However, the company collaborated with security forces across different countries to ensure they collect an image of criminals, and this has been perceived as a way of enhancing people's safety.

Conclusion

Facebook and Google have profoundly been accused of exposing users’ data to other parties. The issue has been triggered by a lack of an effective security system to protect privacy and regulate who should view the information. Google and Facebook have been linked with the selling of users’ data to third parties, which has triggered an increase in the income rate, which is against the rule of law.