OFcom referance (794221), страница 14
Текст из файла (страница 14)
This report stated that 25% of all peopleusing social networking sites have posted data such as their personal phone number, homeaddress or email address on their site profile. According to the research, younger peoplewere more likely to have reported posting this information; 34% of 18-24 year olds and 30%of 25-34 year olds had posted their personal details on their profile.7.3Areas of potential riskWhile the potential risk is well documented, there appears to be a lack of research on theactual incidence of crimes such as identity theft as a result of the publication of personaldetails on these sites.
There also seems to be a lack of research into what UK socialnetworking site users are and are not posting online. In the US the Pew Foundation haspublished several reports on how teenagers are using social networking sites.58 In contrastto a commonly-held belief, Lenhart and Madden (2006 Pew Foundation) reported that mostteenagers were taking steps to protect themselves online. Protection involved a variety ofmeasures including: listing fake details on their profile, not filling out details they perceivedcould allow a stranger to locate them, and only allowing friends to view their details.Research suggests that users’ views, and in particular teenage users’ views, are quitedifferent from those of industry commentators and governing bodies.
The premise of socialnetworking sites is sharing details and communicating with others, and therefore many usersdo not see what the problem is. Ofcom’s qualitative research illustrates that some youngerusers can be suspicious of people who don’t allow free access to their site. They wonder,when the whole purpose is to find people and communicate, why anyone would hidepersonal details, and are suspicious of what such a person has to hide.Boyd (2007) illustrated that teenagers were using several strategies to protect themselves,not from strangers as they are often encouraged to do, but from their parents.
Examples ofstrategies they used are:•entering false details (such as name, age, location);•changing privacy settings so only friends can see the profile; and•setting up a duplicate site, for content not intended to be seen by parents.There is an inherent tension for people who use tactics like these about whether to limitaccess to their profile. If they make it difficult for specific people (whether parents, fraudstersor employers) to contact them, they also make it difficult for everyone else to find them. Formany people this is a considerable drawback.Through in-depth discussions on the issues of privacy and safety, social networkers in theOfcom qualitative research highlighted a number of possible risk areas:•Leaving the privacy settings ‘open’ as default. Some users, while unaware thatthis was the default setting, were not concerned that people they did not know couldsee their page and their personal details.
Other users, however, had presumed thatonly those in their friendship network could see their details.57http://www.getsafeonline.org/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=1469.Pew Internet and American Life project. Lenhart A. and Madden M. (2006) Teens, Privacy andOnline Social Networks; How teens manage their online identities and personal information in the ageof MySpace5853Social NetworkingAnybody could find out who you are. But I wouldn’t know how to make it so people couldn’tsee me – Boy 11, rural/semi-ruralBefore tonight I couldn’t be bothered to look at things like that, but now I am worried whatpeople I don’t know can see – Female 32, urban/suburban•Giving out personal information.
Many users didn’t conceal their personal detailsand often included their name, where they lived, the school(s) they attended or theirplace of employment. Some of them also included their MSN account details.•The apparent contradiction between protecting privacy and the activity of socialnetworking was expressed by some respondents.How else are people going to get in contact with you, it is the whole point I would havethought? – Male 22, rural/semi-rural•A minority of users were aware that their personal details could be stolen and fall intothe hands of criminals, who could use them to build up a profile of an individual andgo on to impersonate them. In discussion some users felt that one way of dealingwith this would be to post few, or fake, details in their profile. They did not feel thatthis would be a significant drawback.
However, there was no evidence that thesepeople were actually doing this, despite making the suggestion.The security thing … it made me kind of wee bit more aware now that I would look at that abit more and watch what I’m doing cos I didn’t realise, I did have my kids’ ages on there, andit does sit at the bottom of the page, updates with the date, so they can work out how oldyour kids are and all that kind of stuff - Male 30+, urban/suburban•Posting personal photographs. A number of issues were raised in relation to thispoint.
Firstly, that some teenage girls and young women were posting sexuallyprovocative photographs to seek attention. This appeared to be detrimentallyaffecting these young women’s reputations. Secondly, that some older users withchildren were sharing their private family photographs with their entire socialnetworking site, when they thought that only their friendship network could see them.I am single and it is nice to get the attention of men. Some of the photos I post are a bit racy,but really they aren’t meant to be that serious and are a bit of a giggle – Girl 15,urban/suburbanI had no idea that the whole of Facebook could see my little girl in the bath – Female 34,urban/suburban•54Becoming online friends with people they did not know.
This included acceptingpeople they did not know to boost their number of friends overall. They recognisedthat by accepting people they didn’t know, they could be opening up their profile toinappropriate and unpleasant comments. However, most users were not particularlySocial Networkingconcerned about this. Such comments were often considered to be more amusingthan alarming and users generally did not deem it necessary to report them to thesite.What can they do to you? They can’t harm you physically, so I don’t get wound up by it –Female 52, urban/suburban•Meeting people they didn’t know. A number of teenagers and older users haddone this and felt that they had mitigated any risks by meeting in a public place andbringing friends along.
In essence, many were using social networking sites as aform of free online dating.It happens all the time nowadays it is just how people meet – Female 24, urban/suburbanOur qualitative research indicates that some people are more likely than others to engage inpotentially risky behaviour. This suggests that communications about the implications ofpotentially risky behaviour may need to be looked at in different ways for different groups ofpeople.7.4Reasons why users are not doing more to mitigate riskAs mentioned previously, many respondents in the Ofcom qualitative research did not thinkabout the potential drawbacks of sharing information; they only tended to discuss this whenprompted.
There were several reasons for such low levels of concern, and these are listedbelow.•A reasoned judgement that the risks on social networking sites weremanageable and outweighed by the positive aspects. Our research suggestedthat some users had consciously weighed up the risks of social networking sites anddecided that they were manageable.What can they do to you? They can’t harm you physically, so I don’t get wound up by it –Female 52, urban/suburban•Lack of awareness of the issues. Some users were unaware that their behaviourcould be seen as putting them at risk. When these issues were discussed in theresearch sessions, many respondents expressed a desire to protect themselvesmore fully.How can we come to any harm when we are sitting at home, nothing really bad can happen– Girl 15, urban/suburban•There was an assumption that the social networking site had taken care of anyprivacy and safety issues.
Some users thought that the sites moderated content.55Social NetworkingI would imagine they are watching what is going on and would not let certain types ofmaterial be posted – Male 37, urban/suburban•Levels of information communication technology (ICT) confidence. Users whowere less confident with ICT were more resistant to changing their personal settingsor exploring the more technical aspects of social networking sites.•Privacy and safety information was difficult to find and use. All users, eventhose who were confident with ICT, found the settings on most of the major socialnetworking sites difficult to understand and manipulate.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
