Privacy vs Openness my take on Facebook Live vs Periscope ...

Credit to @tjcoughlan regarding a really short yet though provoking post on this blog … “Do you have any views on privacy or open-ness differences?”. To be utterly honest - this is not something that has crossed my mind until the question was presented. Not because I have no regard for privacy or openness, so far I have been focussed on the pedagogical benefits of social media streaming as well as understanding the nature of the audience.

In my biased opinion you need to look at each platform separately - conflating Periscope with Facebook Live is like comparing Coca Cola to Pepsi Cola. They are the same, yet not, both work, both are very similar yet there is a subtle difference in taste (i.e usage in the case of Periscope and Facebook Live) that sets them apart.

I will not labour the analogy any more than this.

Let us explore Periscope in terms of Openness and Privacy:
  • Anyone can follow your Periscope broadcast - armed with the link they can watch it without any restriction - they do not need to be logged in or have a Twitter account for the web page version. Which means that it can be seen by all - presenting a zero privacy and one hundred percent openness perspective (in terms of visibility).
  • Those using the mobile app - can use their twitter account. Twitter by design can be anonymous, how do you think that the Trolls behave. Also - so can you be. I broadcast as @OUCisco - while I am clearly open regarding my role in this. If I allowed a colleague to be @OUCisco they could do so with respectable privacy.
  • Twitter therefore offers both user privacy and follower (viewer) privacy - openness is limited to the honesty of the broadcaster was well as the following viewers.
  • In terms of openness the persistent nature of the video stream is also of interest. Periscope lasting for 24 hours - makes any repudiation or comparison difficult. Not that anyone is being accused of sneaky tactics. Facebook live on the other hand allows the live broadcasts to be stored permanently on ones timeline (or page), giving a different perspective on the ideal of openness.
Now, lets explore Facebook Live, in the same terms of Openness and Privacy:
  • You have to be a friend, follower or ‘liker’ of a page to be able to view a Facebook Live broadcast. As the broadcaster - I can control how it is seen - a bonus. So, in terms of privacy - I can see that you can see what I have broadcast. I can see who are ‘likers’ on my pages - however you can control how much I know about you - the problem is that not everyone has yet been successful in following the guidance from Facebook in managing this
  • I personally elect whatever I put on Facebook, is something that I can live with - however not everyone is the same. There are privacy risks associated with Facebook. From my experience of using the OUCisco page for the last two years there have been no issues as this is a self selecting population.
  • In terms of openness Facebook Live wins over Periscope at many levels - on Periscope I can be AnonymousBOB - on Facebook I have to be the page, which is associated with me - and I have to use my real name. While there are false/pseudo accounts (and they are not difficult to create). The potential for openness and therefore transparency is potentially greater.
  • Facebook Live offers another layer of openness in terms of persistence - the videos can remain forever - unlike the short 24-hour persistence of Periscope. In these terms - you have to stop and think what you broadcast or delete. Otherwise it can escape to a considerably larger audience.
Both platforms offer sharing, both offer the ability to follow (or like) a page. For the work I am doing I am more interested in the page based approach rather than from my own personal profile. Personal profiles if the Facebook Live broadcast is public - may have considerable privacy issues which the users must consider before they engage.

I doubt that I have covered all aspects - however I do believe that this is the start of an interesting conversation.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wikipedia editors never walk alone: Hillsborough changes can be traced ... from @ConversationUK

Image
By Andrew Smith , The Open University According to the Liverpool Echo , UK government computers have been used to make offensive comments on the Wikipedia page detailing the 1989 Hillsbourgh Disaster over a number of years. The newspaper reports that revisions to the page have been made from computers using the government’s secure intranet since 2009. They include insults to Liverpool fans and a comment suggesting that fans were responsible for the football ground disaster, in which 96 people died. This case highlights the continual issue of trolling and cybervandalism on Wikipedia. It also shows how journalism is using good, technical forensic tools at the disposal of every cybercitizen. Cybercitizens can be good or bad So many of us use Wikipedia on a daily basis that it is one of the most visited websites in the world. Yet not that many of us really understand how it works. Wikipedia is based on the principle that the community can create, edit and refine pages covering
Read more

If airlines offer in-flight Wi-Fi, they should invest in an extra black box for security ...

Image
Yijun Yu , The Open University and Andrew Smith , The Open University In-flight Wi-Fi is one of the most sought-after facilities for air travellers these days, now that laptops and smartphones are so common and so much of our working and personal life revolves around online services. But a US Government Accountability Office report has suggested that many in-flight wireless networks could expose the plane to being hacked or remotely controlled . In fact it’s of such a concern to US authorities that when a well-known computer security expert made an admittedly ill-thought-out joke about doing so on Twitter, he was promptly arrested, his computers confiscated, and subsequently banned from the airline . And all he was suggesting was to make the oxygen masks drop down. So it would appear that the stuff of Hollywood may jump from fiction to fact: Liam Neeson and Julianne Moore starred in the 2014 film Non-Stop , where a passenger hacking the aircraft’s internal wirel
Read more

Highlights and lowlights of 2014, a golden year for cybercrime from @ConversationUK

Image
Looking back, 2014 was not a good year for keeping things safe under digital lock and key. If a score was being kept, it might seem that the cybercriminals are in the lead, despite the valiant efforts – and own goals – from the cybersecurity profession worldwide. Cast your mind back to March , everyone was panicking about the HeartBleed bug. Based on an error in code upon which the majority of the world’s secure servers relied, experts had plenty of time to fix the issue. Sadly there was an array of conflicting information about changing passwords, leading to widespread confusion. While most IT administrators made sure this was managed in a professional manner, it created a stir that seemed to set the tone for the year. In May , online auction giant Ebay admitted to having been compromised. The site said its systems, with personal details of tens of millions of users, may have had been vulnerable for months. Everyone was advised, indeed forced, to change their password. In the
Read more