privacy

With the new information out about Facebook allowing data and access to it's users for advertisers and the new and improved privacy settings, the recent Pew Survey about youth attitudes toward privacy couldn't be more timely.

"Some 71 percent of social networking users aged 18 to 29 have changed the privacy settings on their profile to limit what they share with others online"

This compares to just 55 percent of users who are 50 to 64. I'm sure there's a crack I could make here about it being because they just haven't signed on in six months...

Further

"44 percent of young adult Web users limit the amount of personal info available about themselves online."

I frequently hear reporters talk about the accessibility of information on individuals who are members of the Millennial Generation. Whether naughty photos on facebook or drunken tweets, the talking point has been that young people are free and open to exposure. I think these numbers show that while young people are open to accessibility to some extent, they have a larger amount of control over the information that they are giving than perhaps previously assumed.

After all - one doesn't have to fill out the entire facebook profile page, right?

"Contrary to the popular perception that younger users embrace a laissez-faire attitude about their online reputations, young adults are often more vigilant than older adults when it comes to managing their online identities," Madden wrote in her May 26 report."

I had a conversation with a guy at an event last week who wondered what election cycle we'd start to see photos from facebook and twitter from their college days or high school being used against them as they're running for office. More specifically when we would begin to see photos surface or "controversial" tweets that suddenly became part of the standard for opposition research and used in campaign commercials.

I think we've started seeing some of that with campaigns that try to go after staffers of candidates. We've see Obama staffer photos from facebook and incoming White House staffers back in 2008 were asked to provide their facebook links and answer questions about any embarrassing emails they might have sent.

I think this is probably up to begin in the next 5-10 years but it might be 15 before we see it at the Presidential level. But my spin to the guy I was talking to was that our generation is accustom to the concept of accessibility to information about ourselves and the increased lack of privacy. As the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers begin to die off and Millennials take the lead in the electorate, I predict we'll see a rejection of this kind of information to be a valid form of attack against a candidate.

With such a huge majority of young people on social networking sites there is surly a deeper level of understanding and solidarity with tagged photos and profanity in tweets among Millennials. I can't imagine that in the Millennial Congress politicians will be able to get very far using this for attacks. There will probably be a period of transition where shocking things will surface and older generations will naturally be aghast and horrified - but realistically they weren't voting for a progressive candidate anyway.

What is interesting is the level of privacy control that youth seem to have over their own data. Meaning - as long as they are the ones posting the embarrassing photo it's fine, but Facebook better not allow advertisers to find my demographic info for the purposes of market research and targeting. For that - 71% alter their settings on the site. As long as there is a possibility of control, users all seem to be cool on the facebook front.

With these new settings and concerns I found this fancy Top 10 Privacy Settings Every Facebook User Should Know guide. I will make a plea, however, please, don't think your facebook and twitter pages disqualify you for seeking higher office. We need more young candidates, not less.

Update: Add Florida to the list, as the University of Miami caves to Sallie Mae:

According to excellent reporting in the St. Petersburg Times, many University of Miami incoming freshmen were surprised this summer when they received pre-filled out master promissory notes from loan giant Sallie Mae even though they never actually applied for a loan. The students were particularly shocked to see that the notes included personal information, such as their Social Security numbers and birthdates, which they had not authorized the university to release.

------------------------------------------

Higher Education Watch is reporting a disturbing piece of news. Sallie Mae and other corporate lenders are using state Freedom of Information Laws in a bid to force colleges and universities to hand over private information about students and their financial status. So far these types of requests are known to have been filed in New York, Pennsylvania and Oregon.

According to Higher Ed Watch, Sallie Mae will not challenge any schools that refuse to comply with the request, and insist that their intent in making such requests is to inform students of "all of their financial options." That is a hard pill to swallow. Sallie Mae is a company that profits by pushing more costly private loans on students over loans that come directly from the federal government. As Higher Ed Watch notes, a more likely explanation is that Sallie Mae and other lenders are targeting schools where they have failed to be included on the preferred lender list - a listing of private lending institutions that school financial aid offices provide to students who need to fill in the gaps in their funding after grants and federal lending options are exhausted.

What can be done? Students at schools can engage their financial aid offices to see if Sallie Mae or other lenders have issues such requests, and activists can work towards strengthening the Family Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act. FOI laws were created to increase transparency in government, not to allow corporations to exploit young people trying to pay for an education.