Do you ever use facebook

1. Introduction
2. Types of Social Networks
3. What Information is Public?
1. Information a User Shares
2. Information Gathered Through Electronic Tracking
4. Who Can Access Information?
1. Behavioral Advertising
2. Third-Party Applications on Social Networks
3. Government and Law Enforcement Use of Social Networking Sites
5. Social Networking and Job Searches: Pros and Cons
1. How Social Networks May Assist Job Seekers
2. How Social Networks May Hinder Job Seekers
3. How Social Networks Can Get You Fired
6. Anonymity on Social Networks
7. What Laws Protect a User’s Information Online?
8. Reading a Privacy Policy
9. Fraud on Social Networks
1. Identity Theft
2. Malware
3. Social Engineering
10. Tips to Stay Safe, Private and Secure
1. Setting Up an Account
2. General Tips for Using Social Networks
11. Resources

Do you ever use Facebook?
Feb, 2013, Pew Internet & American Life Project
View Question Results | View Report
Did you ever use Facebook in the past, or have you never used it?
Would you like to start using Facebook, or is that not something you're
interested in?
Have you ever voluntarily taken a break from using Facebook for a
period of several weeks or more?
Thinking about the impact of Facebook on your life overall, would you
say that over the last year Facebook has become more important to
you, less important to you, or that it is about as important as it was a
year ago?
And over the last year, would you say that the amount of time you
spend using Facebook on a typical day has increased, decreased, or
stayed about the same?

Now thinking about the upcoming year, do you expect to spend more
time on Facebook, less time on Facebook, or do you expect to spend
about as much time on Facebook as you do now?
Please tell me if you ever use the Internet to do any of the following
things. Do you ever...use a social networking site like Facebook,
LinkedIn or Google Plus?
(We are interested in what some people do as the (2012 presidential
According to J. A. Ryan (2008) the concept of “the virtual community” had been introduced in
Howard Rheingold‟s (1993) landmark novel by the same name, though he would later suggest the more apt
term “online social network” (2000). Researchers use quite a number of terms, which are related to social
networking sites:
• Internet Social Networking, which can be understood as the phenomenon of Social Networking on
the Internet. Hence, the concept subsumes all activities by Internet users with regard to extending
or maintaining their social network (Richter et al, 2009).
• Social Web sites, defined as those Web sites that make it possible for people to form online
communities, and share user-created contents (Kim et al, 2010). Authors researched social
networking sites and social media sites as two distinctive groups of social web sites, though they
acknowledge that that the distinction between the two types of sites is fast disappearing. Their
definition of social Web sites, although fairly loose, does exclude certain types of Web sites and
parts of Web sites that allow people to post UCCs and share them. For example, the groups in
portal sites (such as Yahoo Groups, South Korea‟s Naver cafes), blogs, online news sites, and
dating sites do not, at least today, meet the definition of social Web sites, since they do not allow
the users to form communities.
• Social networking services, are online communities that focus on bringing together people with
similar interests or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others (Marcus &
Krishnamurthi, 2009).
Most popular definition is proposed by d. m. boyd and N. B. Ellison (2008):. Social Network Sites are
“web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded
system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their
list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these
connections may vary from site to site” (Boyd & Ellison, 2008). D. Beer (2008) criticised this definition on
the grounds that it is too wide and includes all sites that feature social network of any kind (and not just as
core features). He also disagreed that social networking sites are only for making new relations.
As it is not intended by this article to propose ultimate definition of social networking sites, it will be
d. m. boyd and N. B. Ellison (2008) definition that will be used as basis in this paper, though term of social
networking sites is used instead of social network sites (SNS), as I agree to D. Beer (2008) opinion, that
networking is not limited to extension of ones‟ network with only new acquaintances.
Research on Cross cultural differences in Social Networking Sites
Most studies on cross-cultural difference impact on various online activities are based on G.
Hofstede‟s (1980) culture dimensions (power distance, individualism / collectivism, masculinity / femininity,
uncertainty avoidance, and Confucian dynamism), as well as E. T. Hall‟s (1976) dimensions (high / low
context and polychromic / monochronic cultures).
According to P. Y. K. Chau (2008), individualism / collectivism of those dimensions is supposed to be
particularly relevant dimension in studying the use of services built around Web 2.0, including SNSs.
Individualism means that loosely connected social relationships are valued in which individuals are expected
to care only for themselves and their immediate members, while collectivism means that tightly knitted
relations are valued in which individuals expect to look after their extended social relations (Hofstede, 1980).
Prior studies have identified four important distinctions between individualism and collectivism which
provide a good theoretical foundation to examine the Web 2.0 adoption issues: first is an individual‟s
personality orientation (idiocentric and allocentric), second difference is self-construal (independent and
interdependent), third and fourth differences based on E. T. Hall„s dimensions – communication style (low
context communication and high context communication) and time orientation (monochromic and

polychromic). Though he explained fairly well that those distinctions between individualism and
collectivism mean, P. Y. K. Chau (2008) did not provide any assumptions of how this dimension and
particular distinctions could be related to some particular features of Web 2.0, which also includes SNSs.
Thus not much research done so far fits these predictions anyway.
In following sections of article there are brief descriptions of research related to cross-cultural issues
in social networking sites provided in order to highlight scope of research and limitation of each study. This
article covers only those research articles which could be found online.
ISSN 1822-6515 ISSN 1822-6515
EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15 ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15
846
Research mentioned in other sources. This part covers studies which there mentioned in other
scientific articles, but there not otherwise accessible online or by other means to me.
d. m. boyd and N. B. Ellison (2008) in their article mentioned research of S. Fragoso (2006). She
explored the cultural differences between Brazil‟s and America‟s appropriation of the SNSs Orkut. Orkut is a
social network site created by Orkut Buyukkokten and launched by Google in 2004. Although originally an
English-only platform, Orkut was quickly adopted by Brazilian users and became a major phenomenon in
the system (by 2005, over 75% of Orkut users were Brazilians).
Other scholars begun to do cross-cultural comparisons of social networking sites use – L. Hjorth and
M. Yuji (in press) compared Japanese usage of Mixi and Korean usage of Cyworld (boyd & Ellison, 2008).
According to J. Kent (2008) Asian and Anglo Saxon differences are a specific challenge, by means of
language and social protocols. Social Networks based around regional Korean relationship protocols were
analyzed by Kyung-Hee Kim and Haejin Yun. Their work on how Cyworld.com supported both
interpersonal relations and self-relation for Korean users traces the subtle ways in which deeply engrained
cultural beliefs and activities are integrated into online communication and behaviours. Findings of this
study show, that in Cyworld architectural social networking site features are adapted to match the cultural
norms of the users and the high-context relational dialectics of Koreans (Papacharissi, 2009).
Language use and SNSs. S. C. Herring et al. (2007) analysed language use on LiveJournal.com. From
1000 randomly selected journals, according to the findings from the coding of the random sample four non
English languages were selected: Russian, Portuguese, Finnish, and Japanese. Selection was supported by the
fact that these languages were among the most common non-English languages used on LiveJournal.com.
Afterwards authors selected total 24 journals (6 journals per language analysed). Study suggested that trends
towards English language use and other language use co-exist on the Internet, along with the tendency for
bridging individuals to blur the boundaries between language groups. S. C. Herring et al. (2007) identified
these limitations of their study: findings are based only on LiveJournal.com; they may not apply to other
blog hosting services in the U.S., or to similar services in other countries; only four languages on
LiveJournal.com were examined; further research is needed to determine the robustness of other languages.
User goals and behaviour on social networking sites across countries. C. N. Chapman & M. Lahav
(2008) study was supposed to identify differences in the SNSs user goals and behaviour across four different
locations: USA, France, China and South Korea. As a result of study three dimensions emerged to
characterize social network interaction by culture, which were described in terms of user goals and
expectations; typical pattern of self expression; and typical interaction behaviours. Authors claimed that to
their knowledge work they did is the first large-scale project to investigate SNSs in the United States,
Europe, and Asia. However they analysed profiles and observed behaviour directly of only 36 users in total
and it was only SNS that particular user visited the most that was analysed.
C. C. Lewis & J. F. George (2008) based their research on G. Hofstede‟s (1980) dimensions (as
independent variable), but their study was more focused on how cultural values of particular country affect
deceptive behaviour (dependent variable) on SNSs. This study not only found differences in deceptive
behaviour for the two cultures, but there were also differences associated with the topics of deception. For
instance, Koreans were apt to lie about their salary and their physical appearance, whereas Americans were
more apt to lie about their age and where they lived. Study was carried out by using online questionnaire
posted in two SNSs: MySpace and Cyworld. Only two countries respondents were questioned: US (99
responses) and Korean (94).
A. Dotans‟ (2008) study sought to explore cultural differences in user content driven website by
focusing on Flickr as a case study. The primary research question was: To what extent does cultural
background impacts the use of a user content driven website? In order to answer it the research approach was
to collect and compare different data from five national cultures and observe if there are any noticeable
patterns that could be attributed to cultural background. Once any differences were encountered the task was
to try and explain them. This was attempted partially by applying G. Hofstede‟s (1980) cultural model. For
the research there were 5 countries chosen according their rank on G. Hofstede‟s (1980) individualism index:
Taiwan and Peru (low Individualism value), Iran and Israel (medium Individualism value) and the United
Kingdom (high Individualism value). 50 users from each culture were selected manually based on the

location and description specified in their Flickr profile and had to have a minimum of 100 public photos.
Data provided by users on 40 randomly selected photos in their profiles was analysed and users were
interviewed via online questionnaire. According to author the data analysis revealed noticeable and
consistent trends and patterns; however most were too contextualised and sometimes general to be
ISSN 1822-6515 ISSN 1822-6515
EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15 ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15
847
interpreted using Hofstede‟s model. They were more about “Flickr culture” than national culture and the
correlations with most of the quantitative data were very weak. A. Dotan (2008) suggested that in future
following aspects on Flickr and other user content driven websites should be explored: private versus public,
visual content analysis, extending current study by either adding more users from the current five cultures or
introducing new ones. However author did not seem to recognise that criteria he used in methodology
employed for this research are very Flickr oriented and most probably could hardly be used in analysis of
other user content driven websites.
Online privacy and communication on SNSs across countries. B. A. Marshall et al. (2008) aimed to
make cross-national comparison of Indian and American university students‟ attitudes toward and usage of
SNSs. The research was focused on online privacy and communication issues. An online survey was created
based on a survey conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project among American teenagers.
Altogether, 366 university students in India and 272 college students in the United States took the survey.
Results did not really mach expectations of authors which they had according to values of
individualistic/collectivistic countries they build their hypothesis on. Such results led to suggestion that
cross-cultural research about the use of SNSs is required for several reasons. First, this research illustrates
that online privacy and communication behaviours do not match traditional understanding of cross-cultural
differences. Second, the appeal of SNSs among university students indicates that such technologies will be
increasingly important tools for the workplace.
Ch. Guo (2009) investigated the combination effects of privacy and trust on SNSs in a cross-cultural
context. Cross-cultural aspects of research based on G. Hofstede‟s (1980) individualism dimension. Author
chose to carry out research with social networking users in USA and China. First there were focus groups
organised, there were 7 people in USA group and 6 in China group. The respondents were encouraged to
freely discuss and exchange their personal experiences of using SNSs in detail, including privacy, trust,
social awareness, familiarity, etc. Afterwards there was quantitative survey carried out. 321 usable entries
were identified in the U.S. data and 773 were recorded in the Chinese data. The study shows critical
differences exist within the process of trust formulation between American and Chinese SNSs users. For
instance, Chinese users have different perceptions on social awareness than U.S. subscribers; hence, they
generate different expectations of what makes a SNS provider trustworthy. Thus, the study helps to better
understand factors that influence individual‟s general perception of SNSs and how such perception differs in
the East and West cultures.
Cross cultural differences in appeal of SNSs. A. Marcus & N. Krishnamurthi (2009) analysed sample
of SNSs, basing analysis on G. Hofstede‟s (1980) dimensions, but limited only to three countries: Japan,
South Korea and USA. Besides, their study is limited by observation of only interface of websites: first page,
home page, sign-up and sign-in pages. They found some apparent cultural differences in SNSs, but
recognized that more research needs to be done to obtain clearer picture of the cultural artefacts involved in
the different SNSs. Authors as well recognized that inclusion of Europe into the study would also help give a
clearer picture of how cultural differences affect patterns observed on SNSs across the world. However it
seems that authors do not deem it important to analyse how well users from different countries perceive
appeal of different social networking sites.
Conclusions
Researchers use different definitions of social networking sites which mainly results in different
scopes of research, - in some cases it means excluding sites mainly meant for sharing user generated content,
as Flickr (photo sharing), YouTube (video sharing).
Most of the studies on cross-cultural issues in social networking sites analyse only few social
networking sites and/ or in respect of few countries, in most cases involving only very limited numbers of
users, if not involving them at all. As noted by A. Marcus & N. Krishnamurthi (2009), it is important
1. School going children who are presently doing their 10th +1 and +2 in Private management schools were
assumed to represent the population of active participants in the social media networks because of their family
circumstances and the spread of this media due to peer pressure.
2. These children command a sizable market for various product categories.

3. The age group of this population is suitable both for their active participation in their family decision making
as well as an unexplored avenue for the research.
4. It is assumed that all the members of the population are equally socialized as consumers due to equal
exposure to various media especially Social media but are divided by standard of education, school, mother
tongue, number of siblings in the family, although there is no empirical evidence to assume so.
5. It is strongly felt that social media‘s dominance in networking among children results in word of mouth
communication on fashion, trends, style, brand awareness, product information sharing besides influencing
one‘s tastes, preferences, likes, etc. This informal peer pressure equips children in consumer socialization viz-
a-viz more knowledgeable than their parents in order to be dominant in family consumer decision making.
6. Very few studies in India have focused on the impact of media as a source of information and as a
socialization agent, affecting family purchases. With the exposure and influence of media (including internet)
on children is on the rise, it is imperative that future research should be planned to determine children‘s attitude
towards advertising, and the impact of creative elements. Hence this research was undertaken to explore the
extent of influence of social media on children‘s role in family purchase decision making circumstances.
HYPOTHESES
This study needs to find the demographic, Netnographic profiles of the respondent group in order to tie up the
variables in question. The following hypotheses were generated to test the significance of these variables
among the population.
1. There is no significant difference among the young & older children in terms of influencing the family buying
decision making situations.
In India older children command an upper hand over younger siblings in family decision ePROCEEDINGS FOR
2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging
Economies 346

making because of their seniority in the household. Hence influence of age on the role played in the decision
making is studied here.
2. There is no significant difference among the children in their self declaration about the frequency in taking
part in the family buying decision situations.
Though no corroborative evidence is collected from parents on the validity of the children‘s response, it is
assumed that children do take active part in the family decision making situations.
3. Consumer socialization will be associated with social media membership, internet usage (weekly usage,
most used media), and word of mouth communication over social media chatting, positional influence in family,
most preferred social networking site and the number of friends in SNM.
4. Social Network Media lurking leads to brand/product knowledge sharing.
5. Irrespective of being immersed in social media or not, product knowledge is least shared among online
friends.
Chatting is the single most purpose of using the SNM besides sharing information with others. Most of them
have less than 100 friends in their SNM and 100-500 friends is the next major segment. In their opinion
majority of them stay neutral when they are asked about their level of agreement if their online presence is
essential to them. It was statistically significant. On the whole, though children were found to be active in their
online presence, their online self does not significantly show any relationship to their online consumer self.

Table 4
Netnographic Profile
of The Respondents
Netnographic profile
F(N=126) % Aware and having an
account in Social
Networking
Media(SNM)
Regular
Access to
Internet Yes
No
93
33
73.8
26.2
Face book
Aware
Having an
Account
Neither aware
nor have an
account
27
90
9
21.4
71.4
7.1
Weekly
Internet usage
Nil
Less than 1
Hour
1-2 Hours
2-3 Hours
3-4 Hours
4-5 Hours
More than 5
hours
33
2
26
20
9
11
25
26.2
1.6
20.6
15.9
7.1
8.7
19.8
Orkut Aware
Having an
Account
Neither aware
nor have an
account
48
54
24
38.1
42.9
19.0
Twitter Aware
Having an Account
Neither aware nor have an
account
59
37
30
46.8
29.4
23.8
Advertisement
over Internet
Yes
No
No response
61
44
21
48.4
34.9
16.7
My space
Aware
Having an
Account
Neither aware
nor have an
account
54
11
61
42.9
8.7
48.4
Most Preferred
SNM
Facebook
Orkut
Twitter
LinkedIn
Bharatstudent
Others
No response
91
3
1
1
1
6
23
72.2
2.4
0.8
0.8
0.8
4.8
18.3
Flickr Aware
Having an
Account
Neither aware
nor have an
account
49
20
60
38.9
5.6
55.6
Hi5 Aware
Having an Account
account
46
20
60
36.5
15.9
47.6
Most preferred
SNM
introduced by
Friends
Brother
Sister
Parents
No response
82
11
6
2
25
65.1
8.7
4.8
1.6
19.8
LinkedIn
Aware
Having an
Account
Neither aware
nor have an
account
44
4
78
34.9
3.2
61.9

Bharatstudent Aware
Having an Account
account
44
6
7
34.9
4.8
60.3
Have you
recommended
your SNM to
someone?
Friends
Brother/Sister
Relative
Parents
No response
68
3
6
2
47
54
2.4
4.8
1.6
32.3
Ibibo Aware
Having an
Account
Neither aware
nor have an
account
58
15
53
46
11.9
42.1
Perfspot Aware
Having an Account
account
38
2
86
30.2
1.6
68.3
Using SNM for
less than a
year
1-2 years
2-3 years
3-4 years
4-5 years
More than 5
years
No response
46
30
12
5
3
2
28
36.5
23.8
9.5
4.0
2.4
1.6
22.2
Bigadda Aware
Having an
Account
Neither aware
nor have an
account
44
2
80
34.9
1.6
63.5
Fropper Aware
Having an Account
account
41
2
83
32.5
1.6
65.9
Single most
purpose of
using SNM
Chat
Share
Play games
Time-pass
Check latest
News updates
Know latest
trends
68
12
4
10
2
1
54.0
9.5
3.2
7.9
1.6
0.8
My online
Presence is
essential to me
strongly Agree
Neutral
Strongly
disagree
No response
31
68
9
18
24.6
54.0
7.1
14.3

In this study, an effort is made to check if interactions in SNM lead to product/brand knowledge, whether
online friends could influence brand/product preference, and whether children acquire product/brand
knowledge through online advertisements in order to influence their family in the buying decision process.
The following statements
elicited the responses on a 5
point Likert scale to measure
the above. Statements
Statement Number Description
Statement 1 S1 My online friends share product
information with me.
Statement 2 S2 My online friends are my best
guide for purchases I make.
Statement 3 S3 My online friends share more
information than offline friends
Statement 4 S4 I discuss with online friends
before I make up my mind.
Statement 5 S5 I read lot of reviews in online
forums before I decide on a
brand choice.
Statement 6 S6 I judge brands on my own
though I read them online.
Statement 7 S7 I never discuss with friends
online about my purchases.
Statement 8 S8 I get lot of product input from my
offline friends.
Statement 9 S9 It is fun to comment on what
someone bought.
Statement 10 S10 Advt. are informative in my
social networking site.
Statement 11 S11 I buy impulsively whenever I
see a new advt. in my site
Statement 12 S12 I influence my friends about
brands whenever I go online.
Statement 13 S13 There is not much truth about
chat room comments on brand
usage.
Statement 14 S14 My family takes my views in to
account whenever we buy after
reviews.

Statement 15 S15 My online friends' approval of
my choice is a must for me.
Statement 16 S16 I care what others see of me. I
exhibit my purchases thro'
pasting the pictures on the wall.
Statement 17 S17 I influence my family's brand
choice. I show the reviews
online.

1. Introduction
What do your long lost childhood best friend, your college roommate, your boss and your
significant other all have in common? If you are one of the hundreds of millions of people using
social networks, there‟s a good chance that you are linked to them through an online relationship.
The information you share with your online contacts allows you to keep in touch without much
effort. But who else is looking at that information? And how are they going to use it?
Online social networks are websites that allow users to build connections and relationships to
other Internet users. Social networks store information remotely, rather than on a user‟s personal
computer. Social networking can be used to keep in touch with friends, make new contacts and
find people with similar interests and ideas.
These online services have grown in popularity since they were first adopted on a large scale in
the late 1990s. Pew Research shows that the number of adult Internet users who have a social
networking profile more than quadrupled from 2005 to 2008. (See Pew Research's Social
Networks Grow: Friending Mom and Dad). By October 2012, the social network Facebook had
exceeded a billion active accounts worldwide.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/04/technology/facebook-billion-users/index.html.
However, many people besides friends and acquaintances are interested in the information
people post on social networks. Identity thieves, scam artists, debt collectors, stalkers, and
corporations looking for a market advantage are using social networks to gather information
about consumers. Companies that operate social networks are themselves collecting a variety of
data about their users, both to personalize the services for the users and to sell to advertisers.
This fact sheet will provide information about the advantages and disadvantages of using social
networks, what kind of information may be safe to post and how to protect it, as well as who is
able to access different types of information posted to these networks.
2. Types of Social Networks
There are many types of social networks available. This fact sheet examines the privacy and
security implications of using a few of them. Most social networks combine elements of more
than one of these types of networks, and the focus of a social network may change over time.
While this fact sheet does not address every type of social network, many of the security and
privacy recommendations are applicable to other types of networks.
Personal networks. These networks allow users to create detailed online profiles and connect
with other users, with an emphasis on social relationships such as friendship. For example,
Facebook, Friendster and MySpace are platforms for communicating with contacts. These
networks often involve users sharing information with other approved users, such as one’s
gender, age, interests, educational background and employment, as well as files and links to
music, photos and videos. These platforms may also share selected information with individuals
and applications that are not authorized contacts.

Status update networks. These types of social networks are designed to allow users to post
short status updates in order to communicate with other users quickly. For example, Twitter
focuses its services on providing instantaneous, short updates. These networks are designed to
broadcast information quickly and publicly, though there may be privacy settings to restrict
access to status updates.
Location networks. With the advent of GPS-enabled cellular phones, location networks are
growing in popularity. These networks are designed to broadcast one’s real-time location, either
as public information or as an update viewable to authorized contacts. Many of these networks
are built to interact with other social networks, so that an update made to a location network
could (with proper authorization) post to one’s other social networks. Some examples of
location networks include Brightkite, Foursquare, Loopt and Google Latitude. For an in-depth
discussion of locational privacy, read the ACLU of Northern California's Location-Based Services:
Time for a Privacy Check-in and their Comparison Chart evaluating the privacy features of six
location networks.
Content-sharing networks. These networks are designed as platforms for sharing content, such
as music, photographs and videos. When these websites introduce the ability to create personal
profiles, establish contacts and interact with other users through comments, they become social
networks as well as content hubs. Some popular content sharing networks include thesixtyone,
YouTube and Flickr.
Shared-interest networks. Some social networks are built around a common interest or geared
to a specific group of people. These networks incorporate features from other types of social
networks but are slanted toward a subset of individuals, such as those with similar hobbies,
educational backgrounds, political affiliations, ethnic backgrounds, religious views, sexual
orientations or other defining interests. Examples of such networks include deviantART,
LinkedIn, Black Planet, Goodreads and Gay.com.
3. What Information is Public?
There are two kinds of information that can be gathered about a user from a social network:
information that is shared and information gathered through electronic tracking.
Information a User Shares
Information a user shares may include:
Photos and other media
Age and gender
Biographical information (education, employment history, hometown, etc.)
Status updates (also known as posts)
Contacts
Interests
Geographical location
This information becomes public in a variety of ways:

A user may choose to post information as “public” (without restricting access via available
privacy settings).
Certain information may be publicly visible by default. In some situations, a user may be able to
change the privacy settings to make the information “private” -- so that only approved users can
view it. Other information must remain public; the user does not have an option to restrict
access to it.
A social network can change its privacy policy at any time without a user’s permission. (See How
to Read a Privacy Policy) Content that was posted with restrictive privacy settings may become
visible when a privacy policy is altered.
Approved contacts may copy and repost information – including photos – without a user’s
permission, potentially bypassing privacy settings.
Third-party applications that have been granted access may be able to view information that a
user or a user’s contacts post privately.
Social networks themselves do not necessarily guarantee the security of the information that has
been uploaded to a profile, even when those posts are set to be private. This was demonstrated in
one May 2010 incident during which unauthorized users were able to see the private chat logs of
their contacts on Facebook. While this and other similar bugs are usually quickly fixed, there is
great potential for taking advantage of leaked information. (See New York Times' Facebook
Glitch Brings New Privacy Worries)
Information Gathered Through Electronic Tracking
Information may also be gathered from a user‟s actions online using “cookies” (short strings of
text stored on one‟s hard drive). Some of the purposes of cookies may include:
Tracking which websites a user has viewed.
Storing information associated with specific websites (such as items in a shopping cart).
Tracking movement from one website to another.
Building a profile around a user.
In fact, a 2009 study conducted by AT&T Labs and Worcester Polytechnic Institute found that
the unique identifying code assigned to users by social networks can be matched with behavior
tracked by cookies. This means that advertisers and others are able to use information gleaned
from social networks to build a profile of a user‟s life, including linking browsing habits to one‟s
true identity. Read Krishnamurth and Will's 2009 study On the Leakage of Personally
Identifiable Information Via Online Social Neworks. Information leakage also occurs in mobile
online social networks, according to Privacy Leakage in Mobile Online Networks, another study
by Krishnamurthy and Wills.
To learn more about cookies and how to browse the Internet safely and privately, see PRC Fact
Sheet 18: Privacy and the Internet. To find out if or how a social network uses cookies, see the
social network‟s privacy policy. (See How to Read a Privacy Policy)
4. Who Can Access Information?
When posting information to a social network, a user probably expects authorized contacts to be

able to view it. But who else can see it, and what exactly is visible?
Entities that collect personal information for legal purposes include:
Advertisers interested in personal information so they can better target their ads to those most
likely to be interested in the product
Third-party software developers who incorporate information to personalize applications, such
as an online games that interact with the social network
Entities that collect personal information for illegal purposes include:
Identity thieves who obtain personal information either based on information a user posts or
that others post about the user.
Other online criminals, such as people planning to scam or harass individuals, or infect
computers with malware (malicious software placed on a computer without the knowledge of
the owner).
Behavioral Advertising
Social networks that provide their services without user fees make a profit by selling advertising.
This is often done through behavioral advertising, also known as targeting.
Behavioral advertising is the term used to describe the practice of tailoring advertisements to an
individual‟s personal interests. This practice is appealing to marketers because targeted
advertisements are more likely to result in a purchase by a viewer than comparable non-targeted
advertisements. They are valuable to social networks as they can be sold at a higher price than
regular ads. (See The Value of Behavioral Targeting by Howard Beales, sponsored by the
Network Advertising Initiative)
Social networks collect a lot of information about potential customers, which advertisers are very
interested in using. In some ways, this may be useful to the user because the advertisements he or
she sees may appear more relevant.
However there are no limits on the ways advertisers can gather and use the information they
gather. The behavioral advertising industry is currently regulating itself. Companies are
voluntarily following principles such as those put forward by the industry group Interactive
Advertising Bureau (IAB). Read the Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral
Advertising.
There are several concerns regarding behavioral advertising:
Consumers may not be aware that data is associated with their profiles.
Consumers may not be able to view the data associated with their profiles and have inaccuracies
corrected.
There are no maximum retention periods on data and no security requirements for the
retention of data, leaving it susceptible to hackers and security risks.

Information about minors may be collected and used for behavioral advertising.
Read more about behavioral advertising in PRC‟s Fact Sheet 18 Privacy and the Internet -
Behavioral Marketing.
Third-Party Applications on Social Networks
Within the context of social networking, “third-party applications” are programs that interact
with a social network without actually being part of that social network. These applications take
many forms but some typical and popular forms include:
Games to play with contacts
Online polls or quizzes
Software that allows users to post to a social media profile via a cellular phone or web
application
Some social networks allow program developers to access their platforms in order to create these
applications. This makes the social network more attractive to users by facilitating the
development of new and creative methods of interacting with contacts and the network.
To make these applications useful, social networks may allow developers automatic access to
public information of users. In addition to public information, third-party applications may
access some private information. A user may grant a third-party application access to his or her
profile without realizing the extent of the permissions being granted. Users may also mistakenly
assume that third-party applications are held to the same standards as the primary social network
There are also “rogue” applications which do not follow the policies and terms that govern
applications. (See Consumer Reports' Apps that bite)
Some facts to keep in mind when considering using third-party applications:
They may not be covered by the social network’s privacy policy.
They may not be guaranteed to be secure.
Most social networks do not take responsibility for the third-party applications that interact with
their sites.
They may gain access to more information than is necessary to perform their functions.
Sometimes applications are designed only to gather information about users
They may contain malware designed to attack the user’s computer.
Third-party developers may report users’ actions back to the social networking platform.
A social network may have agreements with certain websites and applications that allow them
access to public information of all users of the social network.
Third-party applications typically can access information that:
Is considered public without explicit consent from the user.
Is considered private when a user grants the application permission.

In some instances, once they have received permission from a primary user, the third-party
applications may also gain access to the personal information of users‟ contacts without those
contacts granting explicit permission.
As a general rule, use caution when using third-party applications. Remember that it is difficult
to control what information they are gathering, how they might use it, and who they will share it
with. To learn more about third-party applications, particularly Facebook quizzes, visit
DotRight's Quiz: What Do Facebook Quizzes Know About Me?
Government and Law Enforcement Uses of Social Networking Sites
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
with assistance from University of California-Berkeley Samuelson Clinic have shed light on
how government agencies use social networking sites for investigations, data collection and
surveillance.
While still incomplete, the documents that have been published indicate:
Government agencies, including the U.S. Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service
(IRC), have developed training materials instructing employees on how to utilize public profile
information on social networking sites during investigations.
Facebook has been noted as having a reputation for being “cooperative with emergency
requests” (See http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/eff-posts-documents-detailing-law-
enforcement) .
IRS manuals specifically prohibit employees from using “fake identities” in order to “trick” users
“into accepting a *government+ official as a friend.” (EFF Posts Documents Detailing Law
Enforcement Collection of Data From Social Media Sites.) However, there is no reason to
believe law enforcement officers practice similar restraint about creating false profiles.
Each social network has adopted its own procedures for dealing with requests from law
enforcement agencies. The degree to which these sites cooperate, or don’t cooperate, with
law enforcement may not be fully explained in the privacy policy. Currently, the primary law
protecting information privacy on the Internet, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
allows government officials to access information on social networks with a subpoena. Read
more about What Laws Protect a User‟s Information Online.
View “Obtaining and Using Evidence from Social Networking Sites,” a Justice Department
presentation obtained by EFF through FOIA request.
EFF states it will publish new documents as they are received on their page FOIA: Social
Networking Monitoring.
Additionally, information on social networking sites has been used as evidence during criminal
and civil trials. This includes divorce trials, child custody battles, insurance lawsuits, criminal
trials and cases brought by university police against students for inappropriate behavior or
underage drinking, to name a few. Be aware that information entered as evidence in a court case

could potentially become part of a public record. Read more about public records in PRC Fact
Sheet 11: From Cradle to Grave: Government Records and Your Privacy.
The use of social networking sites by law enforcement and government agencies, coupled with
the fact that information on social networking sites can be used as evidence in trials, reinforces
the importance of using restraint in posting information to your profile.
5. Social Networks and Job Searches: Pros and Cons
Jobseekers have increasingly turned to social networks to market themselves to potential
employers, network with other professionals and search out job opportunities. However, an
unprofessional social networking profile may also make a job applicant seem unsuitable by
revealing too much personal or unflattering information to a potential employer. This section
reviews the pros and cons of social networking for jobseekers.
This information can be applied to any situation where reputation matters, such as:
Renting an apartment
Beginning to date someone
Starting or maintaining a professional relationship, for example as an independent contractor or
in a managerial position
Engaging in volunteer or electoral positions
Applying for colleges or scholarships
Being considered in a jury selection process
How Social Networks May Assist Jobseekers
There are a variety of ways social networks can help with the job hunt. If a job applicant initially
contacts a potential employer via the Internet, a profile on a social network can help confirm that
there is a real person behind an email address.
Social networks also increase networking opportunities. A job applicant can alert others to an
interest in finding a job, as well as details on the desired position, by posting about this interest
on a social network. Professional networks, such as LinkedIn, are designed to provide
information about education, employment history and accomplishments to a large number of
people. There are also professional or interest groups on a variety of networks that can increase
visibility and contacts.
Potential employers can use social networks to confirm that an applicant has represented his or
her interests, education level and background truthfully. They can also learn about other
interests an applicant may have. Individuals who create positive, interesting and informative
social networking profiles may seem like stronger candidates for certain jobs. This is especially
true of, but not limited to, jobs involving outreach and communication.
How Social Networks May Hinder Jobseekers

Social networks may inadvertently reveal information jobseekers might not choose to reveal
about themselves. Potential employers often use whatever information they can gather about an
applicant in making a hiring decision. It is important to know what information can be seen by
non-contacts and to consider what kind of conclusions might be drawn from it.
Unflattering pictures or posts could seriously affect the likelihood of getting hired. Even if one
posts this information using restrictive privacy settings, there are many ways in which it may
become available.
As a general rule, before posting something on a social networking profile, imagine it displayed
on a billboard on the side of a highway. Would you be uncomfortable to see it there? If so, you
may not want to post it at all.
While it is illegal and very hard to prove, potential employers might discriminate based on
information available from profile pictures and other easily available information on one‟s social
networking profile. Be aware of revealing even basic information such as:
Age
Gender
Race
Disability
Sexual orientation
Political affiliations
Other groups and contacts
Also, negative posts about a current job could harm an applicant‟s chances of getting an offer.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is a law that not only regulates credit reports but also sets
national standards for employment screening and background checks. In effect, it sets limits on
what information employers can get from background checks and how they can use that
information (see PRC Fact Sheet 16: Employment Background Checks: A Jobseeker's Guide).
However, the FCRA only applies to employers using third-party screening companies.
Information that an employer gathers independently, including from informal Internet searches,
is not covered by the FCRA.
How Social Media Networks Can Get You Fired
Employers are increasingly monitoring what employees post on social networking sites. In fact,
many companies have social media policies that limit what you can and cannot post on social
networking sites about your employer.
Many companies have social media policies that limit what you can and cannot post on social
networking sites about your employer. A website called Compliance Building has a database of
social media policies for hundreds of companies. You should ask your supervisor or human
resources department what the policy is for your company.

Some states, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, North Dakota and New York, have
laws that prohibit employers from disciplining an employee based on off-duty activity on social
networking sites, unless the activity can be shown to damage the company in some way. In
general, posts that are work-related have the potential to cause the company damage. Anti-
discrimination laws prohibit employers from disciplining employees based on age, race, color,
religion, national origin or gender. If you feel that you have been discriminated against, contact a
lawyer. You can find a lawyer who specializes in employment law via the National Employment
Lawyers Association. For more information on the laws surrounding social media in the
workplace, read:
Law.com: Social Networking: A Workplace Policy
The Portland Press Herald: Your Business: Make Your Social Policy Clear
There is no federal law that we are aware of that an employer is breaking by monitoring
employees on social networking sites. In fact, employers can even hire third-party companies to
monitor online employee activity for them. In March, 2010 a company called Teneros launched a
"Social Sentry" service that tracks the online activity of employees across social networking
sites. According to an article by Read Write Web employers use the service to "make sure that
employees don't leak sensitive information on social networks or engage in any behavior that
could damage a company's reputation."
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a number of rulings involving questions
about employer social media policies. The NLRB has indicated that these cases are extremely
fact-specific. It has provided the following general guidance:
Employer policies should not be so sweeping that they prohibit the kinds of activity protected by
federal labor law, such as the discussion of wages or working conditions among employees.
An employee’s comments on social media are generally not protected if they are mere gripes
not made in relation to group activity among employees.
http://www.nlrb.gov/news/acting-general-counsel-issues-second-social-media-report. Also see
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/technology/employers-social-media-policies-come-under-
regulatory-scrutiny.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all&pagewanted=print.
6. Anonymity on Social Networks
Many users of social networks choose to mask their real identities. This may be done via
anonymity (providing no name at all) or pseudonymity (providing a false name).
Some people who may prefer an anonymous or pseudonymous persona include, but are not
limited to:
Individuals with medical conditions who want to discuss symptoms and treatment without
creating a public record of their condition
Bloggers and activists engaging in political discourse, especially on controversial issues
Teachers and childcare workers
Medical professionals, including mental health professionals

Law enforcement agents, prosecutors, parole and probation officers, judges, and other court
employees
Victims of stalking, sexual assault, and domestic violence
Children and youth
Jobseekers
In fact, anonymity is a useful tool for anyone who prefers to keep a strict separation between an
online persona and an off-line identity. It can also be abused by individuals trying to shield their
identities while engaging in illegal activities.
Typically, users who prefer to engage in social networks without divulging their true identity
will create profiles using a false name as well as a false email address. If you are considering a
pseudonymous profile, refer to the terms of service for the social networking site. Providing false
or incomplete information violates the terms of service of some social networking sites. Users
should consider using software that masks IP addresses, such as TOR. Users should also
remember to delete all cookies after visiting a social networking site. See PRC‟s discussion of
cookies in PRC Fact Sheet 18: Privacy and the Internet -- Cookies.
Bear in mind that it is difficult to truly separate online and off-line identities. It is possible to
divulge identifying information through status updates, group memberships, photographs, friend
networks and other indicators. In fact, numerous studies have shown that anonymized data can
often still be linked to specific individuals.
Read more about anonymization issues:
PRC’s Privacy Today: Data Anonymization
Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov’s paper, De-anonymizing Social Networks
The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Anonymity page
7. What Laws Protect a User‟s Information Online?
There are currently few laws that can be interpreted as protecting information given to social
networks. Most privacy laws in the United States protect specific types of information, such as
medical or financial records. Some laws that do protect the privacy of information do not
currently extend to casual information searches on the Internet (see FCRA, previous section) or
to information revealed by the user, such as a quiz about health that provides information to drug
companies. (See New York Times' Online Age Quiz Is a Window for Drug Makers).
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act was passed in 1986, before the Internet became an
essential means of communication. If information is stored on a server (such as the information
on social networks), this law makes it easy for law enforcement or the government to access it
via a subpoena. A variety of industry and advocacy organizations are lobbying to update this
law. The proposed update would strengthen the requirements needed for governmental access to
the data stored on a server by necessitating a search warrant. Information about location is also
not strongly protected under ECPA. (See Digital Due Process)
The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) requires that websites directed at

children under 13 must limit their data collection and usage in certain ways. There are also
limitations on the information that can be sent to advertisers (see PRC Fact Sheet 21: Children‟s
Online Privacy: A Resource Guide for Parents). Some social networks therefore do not allow
users under 13.
The California Online Privacy Act (California Business and Professions Code sections 22575-
22579) requires any website that collects personally identifiable information on California
consumers to conspicuously post an online privacy policy. This privacy policy must describe
what categories of information are collected, what categories of third-parties may be authorized
to view this information, how the website owner will notify consumers about changes to the
policy and the effective date of the policy. Websites without a privacy policy have 30 days
within being notified of the law to comply. See a sample letter to a website about the need to
post a privacy policy.
Several states have enacted legislation protecting employees, job applicants, and students from
employers and educational institutions that require them to provide a user name or password for
a social media account. California, Maryland, Michigan and Illinois have enacted legislation
that prohibits requesting or requiring an employee or applicant to disclose their user name or
password. California, New Jersey, Michigan and Delaware enacted legislation prohibiting
higher education institutions from requiring students to disclose social media passwords or
account information. For a current list of state laws see http://www.ncsl.org/issues-
research/telecom/employer-access-to-social-media-passwords.aspx
8. Reading a Privacy Policy
Many people skip over the privacy policy when joining a social network. However, users can
glean a lot of useful information by reviewing a privacy policy before signing up for service. A
social network‟s privacy policy will explain how the social network will collect and use
information about people who visit the site.
Some of the information users provide to a social network is readily apparent -- such as
providing a birth date in order to create a new account.
Other times, the social network may be collecting information on users “invisibly” – by tracking
where users go within the social network, what links they click on and even which websites they
visit after leaving the social networking site. “Invisible” tracking is often accomplished through
cookies. (Read more about cookies on PRC Fact Sheet 18: Privacy and the Internet -- Cookies)
When reviewing a privacy policy, remember:
Privacy policies can change – sometimes dramatically-- after a user creates an account.
Terms of service may have information just as important as the privacy policy, so always review
those as well.
The privacy policy only covers the social network. It does not, for example, cover third-party
applications that interact with the website.

Unfortunately, most privacy policies are long and difficult to understand. Here are some points
to consider when reading a privacy policy:
Start at the end. The most important portions of a privacy policy are often at the very end. For
example, the end of the document typical provides contact information for a privacy contact at
the company as well as the most important facts about how personally identifiable information
is used. So, when pressed for time, look to the end of the document.
Note the location and language of the privacy policy. Is it hidden away on a hard-to-find
webpage or can it be found easily? Does the language seem excessively vague or
incomprehensible?
Canceling your account. If you decide to leave the social network, can you delete the account
and remove all of your information? Can all data be removed entirely or will some information
be maintained by the social network? Be aware that some social networks may make it difficult
or confusing to cancel an account and instead direct dissatisfied users to “deactivate” accounts.
How long is personal information stored? Note that some information may be made
‘anonymous’ after a certain period of time, some may be deleted entirely after a certain period
of time, and some may be maintained in perpetuity.
What happens when a user dies? Does the privacy policy discuss what happens to personal
information after a user dies? Will it remain online or be removed?
Who owns the data that a user posts? Does a user lose rights to information that he or she
posts? Can it be used by marketers without the user’s explicit consent? For example, can a
user’s name and photos be used for advertisements?
|
How can a user complain? Look for a physical address, email address, website address or phone
number where users can voice concerns. Some online social networks utilize independent
companies to review their privacy practices. In such cases, users who are dissatisfied by a
company’s compliance to the posted privacy policy can submit complaints to the certifying
company.
How will a social network notify users about changes to the privacy policy? Will changes be
posted to the homepage or will it only be posted in the privacy policy itself? Can users connect
with a public profile on the social network that will inform them of changes to the privacy policy,
or is there a way to receive an email if changes are made?
Does the social network participate in seal programs? Social networks that participate in third-
party seal or certification programs show some level of awareness of privacy concerns. This also
gives users another place to voice concerns if any should arise. Some well-known companies
include the Better Business Bureau, Verisign and Truste. However, never assume that a third-
party certification means the social network will always respect users’ privacy and security.
Learn more about reading a privacy policy by visiting:
California Office of Privacy Protection’s How To Read a Privacy Policy

GetNetWise’s How to Read a Privacy Policy
Yahoo’s Reading Privacy Policies
Also, try seeing what others have said about the policy. A simple Internet search could turn up
thoughtful analysis of the policy, especially if the social network has been in the news.
9. Fraud on Social Networks
Criminals may use social networks to connect with potential victims. This section discusses
some of the typical scams and devices used to defraud consumers on social networks. Fraud
may involve more than one of the techniques described below. Some types of fraud may not be
described here.
Identity Theft
Identity thieves use an individual‟s personal information to pretend to be them – often for
financial gain. The information users post about themselves on social networks may make it
possible for an identity thief to gather enough information to steal an identity. In 2009,
researchers at Carnegie University Mellon published a study showing that it is possible to predict
most and sometimes all of an individual‟s 9-digit Social Security number using information
gleaned from social networks and online databases. (See Predicting Social Security Numbers
from Public Data by Acquisti and Gross)
Information often targeted by identity thieves includes:
Passwords
Bank account information
Credit card numbers
Information stored on a user’s computer such as contacts
Access to the user’s computer without his or her consent (for example, through malware)
Social Security numbers. Remember that the key to identity theft is the Social Security number.
Never provide a Social Security number through a social networking service.
Some fraud techniques to watch out for include:
Illegitimate third-party applications. These rogue applications may appear similar to other third-
party applications but are designed specifically to gather information. This information may be
sold to marketers but could also be useful in committing identity theft. These applications may
appear as games, quizzes or questionnaires in the format of “What Kind of Famous Person Are
You?” (See ABC's Online Games Can Lead to Identity Theft)
False connection requests. Scammers may create fake accounts on social networks and then
solicit others to connect with them. These fake accounts may use the names of real people,
including acquaintances, or may be entirely imaginary. Once the connection request is
accepted, a scammer may be able to see restricted and private information on a user’s profile.
(See ReadWriteWeb's Fake Social Networking Profiles: a New Form of Identity Theft in 2009)

Learn more about protecting yourself from identity theft in general by reading PRC Fact Sheet
17: Coping with Identity Theft: Reducing the Risk of Fraud. If you believe you may be the
victim of identity theft, read PRC Fact Sheet 17a: Identity Theft: What to Do if It Happens to
You.
Malware
Malware (malicious software) is a term that describes a wide range of programs that install on a
user‟s computer often through the use of trickery. Malware can spread quickly on a social
network, infecting the computer of a user and then spreading to his or her contacts. This is
because the malware may appear to come from a trusted contact, and thus users are more likely
to click on links and/or download malicious programs.
Some common techniques used in spreading malware include:
Shortened URLs, particularly on status update networks or newsfeeds. These may lead the user
to download a virus or visit a website that will attempt to load malware on a user’s computer.
Messages that appear to be from trusted contacts that encourage a user to click on a link, view a
video or download a file.
An email appearing to be from the social network itself, asking for information or requesting a
user click on a link.
Third-party applications that infect computers with malicious software and spread it to
contacts.
Fake security alerts – applications that pose as virus protection software and inform the user
that his or her security software is out-of-date or a threat has been detected.
Social Engineering
There are a variety of social engineering scamming techniques which trick users into entering
sensitive information. This section describes a few of the well-known techniques.
Phishing attacks are when emails, instant messages or other messages claiming to be from a
trusted source ask for information. For example, an email may appear to be from a bank and
could direct a user to enter a password at a fake login page, or tell a user to call a phone number
or risk having their account closed. For tips on how to spot and avoid phishing attacks, see FTC
Alert How Not to Get Hooked by a 'Phishing' Scam and OnGuardOnline's Phishing page. Some
Internet browsers, such as recent versions of Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer, have taken
steps to help identify fake websites. (See GetSafe Online's Avoid Criminal Websites for these and
other tips.)
Spear phishing is a type of phishing attack that appears to be from a colleague, employer or
friend and includes a link or something to download. (This is often the result of account
hijacking.) These links or downloads can be malicious, such as viruses or fake websites that
solicit personal information.
Misleading solicitations. A social network might use social engineering to make people feel
obligated to join. This often occurs when one person joins and (often inadvertently) provides the

social network with access to his or her contact list. The social network then sends out emails to
all of his or her contacts, often implying they are from the individual who joined. For example, it
has been reported that Tagged.com solicits contacts of users with emails claiming the recipient
has been “tagged.” These emails state: “Is <user name> your friend? Please respond or <user
name> may think you said no :( ” or “<user name> sent you photos on Tagged.” The recipient
may believe this is a personal invitation from the user and feel obligated to join the network,
giving out his or her information and perhaps perpetuating the solicitations. See Time's Tagged:
The World's Most Annoying Website for more information.
Hijacked accounts. A legitimate account may be taken over by an identity thief or malware for
the purpose of fraud such as posting spam, sending out malware, stealing the private data of
contacts or even soliciting contacts to send money. One typical scenario is when a hijacked
account sends out messages stating that the account owner is overseas and in desperate straits.
Contacts are urged to immediately wire money. A user may not realize his or her account has
been hijacked for quite some time. An attack could also be in the form of a chat conversation.
10. Tips to Stay Safe, Private and Secure
There are many ways that information on social networks can be used for purposes other than
what the user intended. Below are some practical tips to help users minimize the privacy risks
when using social networks. Be aware that these tips are not 100% effective. Any time you
choose to engage with social networking sites, you are taking certain risks. Common sense,
caution and skepticism are some of the strongest tools you have to protect yourself.
Registering an Account
1. Use a strong password different from the passwords you use to access other sites. See PRC’s 10
Rules for Creating a Hacker-Resistant Password
1. If you are asked to provide security questions, use information that others would not know
about you.
2. Never provide a work-associated email to a social network, especially when signing up. Consider
creating a new email address strictly to connect with your social networking profile(s).
3. Consider not using your real name, especially your last name. Be aware that this may violate the
terms of service of some social networks.
4. Review the privacy policy and terms of service before signing up for an account.
5. Be sure to keep strong antivirus and spyware protection on your computer. See Fact Sheet 36:
Securing Your Computer to Maintain Your Privacy
6. Provide only information that is necessary or that you feel comfortable providing. When in
doubt, err on the side of providing less information. Remember, you can always provide more
information to a social network, but you can’t always remove information once it’s been posted.

7. During the registration process, social networks often solicit a new user to provide an email
account password so the social network can access the user’s email address book. The social
network promises to connect the new user with others they may already know on the network.
To be safe, don’t provide this information at all. There are some social networks that capture all
of a user’s email contacts and then solicit them – often repeatedly – to join. These messages
may even appear to be from the original user. If you consider providing an email address and
account password to a social network, read all agreements very carefully before clicking on
them.
General Tips for Using Social Networks
1. Become familiar with the privacy settings available on any social network you use. On
Facebook, make sure that your default privacy setting is "Friends Only". Alternatively, use the
"Custom" setting and configure the setting to achieve maximum privacy.
2. Don’t share your birthday, age, or place of birth. This information could be useful to identity
thieves and to data mining companies. A research study by Carnegie Mellon University found
that Social Security numbers can be predicted based on publicly-available information, including
your birthday, age and place of birth. The Social Security Administration began assigning
randomized number series on June 25, 2011. Unfortunately, the more predictable Social
Security numbers will remain in effect for individuals born before June 25, 2011. If you do
consider posting your birthday, age or place of birth, restrict who has access to this information
using the site’s privacy settings. Also, some social networking sites allow you to show your birth
month and day, but hide the year.
3. Stay aware of changes to a social network’s terms of service and privacy policy. You may be able
to keep track of this by connecting to an official site profile, for example Facebook’s Site
Governance. Consider subscribing to an RSS feed for Tosback, a project of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation to track changes in website policies (covers some but not all social
networks).
4. Be careful when you click on shortened links. Consider using a URL expander (as an application
added to your browser or a website you visit) to examine short URLs before clicking on them.
Example of URL expanders include LongURL, Clybs URL Expander and Long URL Please (Privacy
Rights Clearinghouse does not endorse one URL expander over another.)
5. Be very cautious of pop-up windows, especially any that state your security software is out of
date or that security threats and/or viruses have been detected on your computer. Use your
task manager to navigate away from these without clicking on them, then run your spyware and
virus protection software.
6. Delete cookies, including flash cookies, every time you leave a social networking site. See PRC
Fact Sheet 18: Privacy and the Internet

7. Remember that whatever goes on a network might eventually be seen by people not in the
intended audience. Think about whether you would want a stranger, your mother or a potential
boss to see certain information or pictures. Unless they are glowing, don't post opinions about
your company, clients, products and services. Be especially cautious about photos of you on
social networks, even if someone else placed them there. Don’t be afraid to untag photos of
yourself and ask to have content removed.
8. Don’t publicize vacation plans, especially the dates you’ll be traveling. Burglars can use this
information to rob your house while you are out of town.
9. If you use a location-aware social network, don’t make public where your home is because
people will know when you are not there. (See Please Rob Me - Raising Awareness about
Oversharing) In fact, you should be careful when posting any sort of location or using geotagging
features because criminals may use it to secretly track your location. For the same reason, be
careful not to share your daily routine. Posting about walking to work, where you go on your
lunch break, or when you head home is risky because it may allow a criminal to track you.
10. Be aware that your full birth date, especially the year, may be useful to identity thieves. Don’t
post it, or at a minimum restrict who has access to it.
11. Don’t post your address, phone number or email address on a social network. Remember scam
artists as well as marketing companies may be looking for this kind of information. If you do
choose to post any portion of this, use privacy settings to restrict it to approved contacts.
12. Use caution when using third-party applications. For the highest level of safety and privacy,
avoid them completely. If you consider using one, review the privacy policy and terms of service
for the application. WhatApp? rates applications, browsers, platforms and social networks on
privacy, security and openness. While this rating system is still under development and is not a
guarantee that an application is safe, it may provide users with additional information when
making a decision about whether to use an application.
13. If you receive a request to connect with someone and recognize the name, verify the account
holder’s identity before accepting the request. Consider calling the individual, sending an email
to his or her personal account or even asking a question only your contact would be able to
answer.
14. If you receive a connection request from a stranger, the safest thing to do is to reject the
request. If you decide to accept the request, use privacy settings to limit what information is
viewable to the stranger and be cautious of posting personal information to your account, such
as your current location as well as personally identifiable information.
15. Be wary of requests for money, even if they are from contacts you know and trust. If a contact’s
account is compromised, a scam artist may use his or her name and account to attempt to
defraud others through bogus money requests.
16. Take additional precautions if you are the victim of stalking, harassment or domestic violence.
See PRC Fact Sheet 14: Are You Being Stalked?

17. In the event that your social networking account is compromised, report it to the site
immediately and alert your contacts. You will need to change passwords, but proceed with
caution because your computer security may have been compromised. Malware, including key-
logging software, may have been installed on your computer. If you use online banking, do not
log on from the computer that may have been compromised until you have ensured your
computer security is intact.
18. Prune your "friends" list on a regular basis. It's easy to forget who you've friended over time,
and therefore who you are sharing information with.
19. If you are using a social networking site that offers video chatting, pay attention to the light on
your computer that indicates whether or not your webcam is in use. This will help you avoid
being "caught on camera" by accident.
20. Be sure to log off from social networking sites when you no longer need to be connected. This
may reduce the amount of tracking of your web surfing and will help prevent strangers from
infiltrating your account.
Read more helpful tips at EFF's Top 12 Ways to Protect Your Online Privacy.
11. Resources
Nonprofit Resources
DotRights Social Networking Page, www.dotrights.org/social-networking
Electronic Frontier Foundation’s “Top 12 Ways to Protect Your Online Privacy,”
www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy
EPIC Social Networking Privacy, http://epic.org/privacy/socialnet/
GetNetWise, http://getnetwise.org/
The Terms-of-Service Tracker, www.tosback.org/timeline.php
Facebook & Your Privacy (Consumer Reports, June 2012),
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/06/facebook-your-privacy/index.htm
Government Resources
California Department of Justice’s Privacy Enforcement and Protection Unit's “How to Read a
Privacy Policy,” http://www.oag.ca.gov/privacy/facts/online-privacy/privacy-policy
California Attorney General, Privacy on the Go: Recommendations for the Mobile Ecosystem
Internet Crime Complaint Center, www.ic3.gov/default.aspx
OnGuardOnline, www.onguardonline.gov
Additional Resources
Acquisti, Alessandro and Ralph Gross. “Predicting Social Security Numbers from Public Data.”
www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/ssnstudy/
Boyd, Danah and Nicole Ellison. “Social Networking Sites: Definitions, History and Scholarship.”
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

Andrew Couts, "Facebook's Data Use Policy Explained" http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-
media/terms-conditions-facebooks-data-use-policy-explained/
Lifehacker's "The Always Up-to-Date Guide to Managing Your Facebook Privacy"
http://lifehacker.com/5813990/the-always-up+to+date-guide-to-managing-your-facebook-
privacy
N.Y. Times "Tool Kit: Protecting Your Privacy on the New Facebook" (February 6, 2013),
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/business/protecting-your-privacy-on-the-new-
facebook.html?_r=0
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Resources
PRC Fact Sheet 16: Employment Background Checks: A Jobseeker’s Guide
www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs16-bck.htm
PRC Fact Sheet 18: Privacy and the Internet: Traveling in Cyberspace Safely
www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs18-cyb.htm
PRC Fact Sheet 18a: Online Privacy FAQ www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs18a-OnlPvcyFAQ.htm
PRC Fact Sheet 21: Children’s Online Privacy: A Resource Guide for Parents
www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs21-children.htm
PRC Fact Sheet 21a: Children’s Safety on the Internet www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs21a-
childrensafety.htm
PRC Fact Sheet 36: Securing Your Computer to Maintain Your Privacy
https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs36-securing-computer-privacy.htm
Davis, Donald Carrington. “MySpace Isn’t Your Space: Expanding the Fair Credit Reporting Act to
Ensure Accountability and Fairness in Employer Searches of Online Social Networking Services”
www.privacyrights.org/ar/mySpace-background-checks.htm
Special thanks to intern Sarah Pipes, candidate for a degree of Master of Science of Information,
School of Information, University of Michigan (May 2010)
Tags:
Online Privacy & Technology
Fact Sheet
behavioral marketing
cookies
Facebook
internet
job seekers
location tracking
password
privacy policy
scam
social networking
third-party applications
Send to Printer

Post to Twitter
Copyright © Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. This copyrighted document may be copied and distributed for
nonprofit, educational purposes only. For distribution, see our copyright and reprint guidelines. The text
of this document may not be altered without express authorization of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.
Home
Why Privacy
About Us
o About Us - Contact Us
o PRC in the News
o Praise for PRC
o Privacy Policy
o Copyright & Reprint Guidelines
Fact Sheets
o English
o en Español
Latest Issues
o Alerts
o Privacy Today
o PRC in the News
Speeches & Testimony
Search this site:
Search
Browse Privacy Topics
Privacy Basics
Background Checks & Workplace
Banking & Finance
Credit & Credit Reports
Debt Collection

Education
Harassment & Stalking
Identity Theft & Data Breaches
Insurance
Junk Mail/Faxes/Email
Medical Privacy
Online Privacy & Technology
Privacy When You Shop
Public Records & Info Brokers
Renter Privacy
Social Security Numbers
Telephone Privacy

More…
Who We Are
We are a nationally recognized consumer education and advocacy nonprofit dedicated to
protecting the privacy of American consumers.
Print This Page
Send to Printer
Follow Us!
Like us on Facebook!
Follow us on Twitter!
Subscribe to RSS!
Home
Copyright
Privacy Policy
Site Map
Search

Do you ever use facebook

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (6)

Ähnlich wie Do you ever use facebook

Ähnlich wie Do you ever use facebook (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Do you ever use facebook