Google Researchers Warn of Automated Social Info Sharing 124
holy_calamity writes "Researchers from Google have written a paper about how social networks can undermine privacy. The most interesting scenario they discuss is 'merging social graphs' — when correlating multiple social networks makes it possible to reveal connections that a person has intentionally kept secret (PDF). For example, it may be possible to work out that a certain LinkedIn user is the same person as a MySpace user, despite their attempting to keep their profiles separate. The Google solution is to develop software that screens new data added to a social network, attempting to find out if it could be fodder to such data mining."
Re:Other people may publish information about you (Score:4, Informative)
It may not have come across, but I was assuming that the information in question was true, and, taken on its own, largely trivial and harmless. I'm not thinking of a case where, for example, somebody says on their blog that you committed incest with your aunt. I'm thinking of cases like, for example, a hypothetical social networking application that allows people to list you as somebody they know, without requiring your authorization. An application like that would be just as much subject to the kind of analysis detailed in the article, which could easily uncover lots of information about people who never volunteered any of it.
So, what's really the essential difference between these three acts?
The law was created to make a distinction between informal sharing and dissemination of the first sort, and "publication" of the third sort. You don't need any model release for #1, and the journalism or modeling arguments are largely irrelevant.
The problem here is that case #2 falls squarely between #1 and #2. Should it be subject to the law for informal sharing, the law for printed publications, or some new, yet-to-be-developed body of law? (And would the court system be able to handle the caseload that treating informal online sharing always as "publication" would imply? People share stuff informally all the time, and they increasingly do it online.)
"As long as Google obeys the current law, they're obeying the current law, and therefore, we shouldn't change the law."
Um, what? That's a transparently bad argument. This is an argument about whether the law should be changed. Whether Google is following the current law correctly is completely irrelevant. You can't defend againt an argument that the law is wrong by saying that the acts allowed by the law are allowed by the law!
Transparently bad argument too. "It's ok if I have access to these photos that I shouldn't have access to, because you also do have access to them."
Re:Aggregation and correlation destroy privacy (Score:4, Informative)
There's already a website that aggregates this information. http://www.123people.com/ [123people.com]. A friend showed it to me the other day and It's pretty good in what it picks up, since most of them don't even show up on google top 50 together. There were 1 or 2 pieces of information that were off, but these were obvious.
For people that had more of a web presence it picked up quite a bit more, even photos tagged of them from other people's photobucket and such.
Obviously the more unique the name, the better the results too.
Re:For me... (Score:4, Informative)
I've got a friend who used to be a great teacher. She loved her job and her students, did lots of volunteer work for students and parents, and volunteered to coach sports. The principal slept with a student, admitted it, resigned and was arrested.
When the police were interviewing students about the principal, one student said he slept with my friend. She was arrested and her mug shot went up all around the world. He later said he was kidding. The police still investigated, as well they should, and dismissed charges.
Problem is, she can't teach anymore. She's easily googleable and you find her mug shot.
Ah, the web.
Re:For me... (Score:3, Informative)
Then she needs to have them "clean" the image off easily found areas. To not do so could be considered libel, and she already can easily show loss of career.
She just needs a good lawyer, and considering the case, a pro-bono at that. She could draw blood good.
Re:I Wonder... (Score:4, Informative)
I know most people here don't, but try reading the actual paper [w2spconf.com]. Clearly they were analyzing the risks and suggesting ways to put privacy back in the hands of the people.