Data Privacy Regulation in the Context of Facebook Advertisements

The blog of the Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law recently covered my upcoming article in the John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law on data privacy regulation in the context of Facebook advertisements.

You can read more about it here.

'Rethinking Relations and Regimes of Power in Online Social Networking Sites: Tales of Control, Strife, and Negotiations in Facebook and Youtube.'

For those of you who are interested in my doctoral thesis, I have included the abstract below: 

This doctoral thesis investigates the potentially complex power effects generated in Online Social Networking Sites (‘OSNS’), such as YouTube and Facebook, when legal values, such as copyright and personal data, are protected and/or violated. In order to develop this analysis, in Chapter Two, I critically analyse key academic writings on internet regulation and argue that I need to move away from the dominant ‘regulatory’ lens to my Actor-Network Theory-Foucauldian Power Lens (‘ANT-Foucauldian Power Lens’) in order to be able to capture the potentially complex web of power effects generated in YouTube and Facebook when copyright and personal data are protected and/or violated. In Chapter Three, I develop my ANT-Foucauldian Power Lens and explore how key ANT ideas such as translation can be used in conjunction with Foucauldian ideas such as governmentality. I utilise my ANT-Foucauldian Power Lens in Chapters Four to Seven to analyse how YouTube and Facebook are constructed as heterogeneous, contingent and precarious ‘actor-networks’ and I map in detail the complex power effects generated from specific local connections. I argue five key points. Firstly, I suggest that complex, multiple, and contingent power effects are generated when key social, legal, and technological actants are locally, contingently, and precariously ‘fitted together’ in YouTube and Facebook when copyright and personal data are protected and/or violated. Secondly, I argue that ‘materialities’ play key roles in maintaining the power effects generated by specific local connections. Thirdly, I argue that there are close links between power and ‘spatialities’ through my analysis of the Privacy Settings and Tagging in Facebook. Fourthly, I argue that my relational understandings of YouTube and Facebook generate a more comprehensive view of the power effects of specific legal elements such as how specific territorial laws in YouTube gain their authority by virtue of their durable and heterogeneous connections. Finally, I argue that we can extrapolate from my empirical findings to build a small-scale theory about the power effects generated in OSNS when legal values are protected and/or violated. Here I also consider the contributions made by my research to three distinct fields, namely, internet regulation, socio-legal studies, and actor-network theory.

Irish Data Protection Commissioner`s audit of Facebook

Dear All

Apologies for the long hiatus in blogging!! Unfortunately, the doctorate and my part-time job are keeping me pretty busy and away from blogging!!

Normal duties will definitely resume once I submit the doctoral thesis later this year!!

For those of you who fervently keep abreast of the privacy issues related to Facebook, my upcoming talk at the Kent Critical Law Society Conference 2013 may be of interest. I will present a paper entitled 'The Irish Facebook Audit: On Power and Relations' this Saturday.

This paper will highlight some of the key findings of my doctoral research related to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner`s audit of Facebook. In particular, I will explore how the audit process is constructed as a 'socio-legal-technological' process, what rationalities and practices render the audit process 'reasonable', 'routinised' and 'rational.' I will also suggest possible reasons for the rise of an 'audit' culture in Facebook.

The right to oblivion in a Facebook world!

I attended the very instructive seminar organised by the Westminster Media Forum today on privacy, social media platforms and the right to be forgotten. The idea of the 'right to be forgotten' has been promoted by Viviene Reding (VP of the EU Commission) recently and has attracted a number of strong and diversion reactions (e.g. Tessa Mayes` recent article on the subject in the Guardian).

There were a number of key actors from different provenance in the hot seat today at the WMF to discuss this very issue such as the Information Commissioner (Christopher Graham), privacy experts such as Caspar Bowden (Microsoft) and Georgina Nelson (Which?), academics such as Dr Chris Pounder, and interested parties such as Jim Killock (ORG) and Tessa Mayes. The full list of speakers can be found here.

Three crucial points emerged from the discussion in my view. Firstly,  privacy (or rather the expectation of privacy) is very much contingent of the specific setting (i.e. the specific SNS) and its technological capabilities (e.g. is the privacy expectation in Twitter the same as the privacy expectation in Facebook?). A second important point emerging from the seminar is the commodification of data and the impact of data monetisation on privacy expectations (i.e. users are foregoing their data for the benefit of enjoying free access to all the services offered by SNS). Finally, the old issue of education surfaced and many speakers argued that a key component of the solution to the privacy issues raised by SNS rested on educating users about privacy issues in SNS (i.e. what should their expectation be? how can they protect their privacy efficiently etc).

CyberPanda thinks that there is a lot of merit in the idea of a right to be forgotten. On a theoretical level, it puts the 'power' (term used loosely here) back in the hands of the users who have more than a mere right to object to data processing and places more evidential burdens on data controllers. However on a practical level, this raises many issues including the old issue of how to enforce EU laws against a US-based company, and also whether the right to be forgotten is enough to deal comprehensively with the whole array of issues raised by SNS (e.g. what is the expectation of privacy for data which the data controller can prove that it needs?).

Weekly Cyber-Law News Round-Up

What a week it has been!! Here are my personal picks of the highlights of last week`s news which relate to internet law. As always privacy and intellectual property issues are dominating the legal landscape of cyber-law news!

Google

Intellectual Property · Google clarifies AdWords policy to satisfy French competition regulator http://bit.ly/atAR6g · Google's 'copied Java code' disowned by Apache #androidlawsuit http://ow.ly/32pPL · Great and thorough analysis of Viacom v YouTube and impact of safe harbour #copyright #DMCA #Viacom= #YouTube #in http://ow.ly/30Jtk · Google Goes After YouTubeSocial For #Trademark Infringement Streetview · UK MPs question Google over Street View data breaches #privacy #in http://ow.ly/32pV7 · MPs accuse Google on wi-fi data http://bbc.in/aOjlTC · FTC sends letter to Google - drops Google WiFi case, but tells Google its privacy processes are inadequate #privacy http://bit.ly/aPEQcL · Google says its cars grabbed e-mails, passwords http://ow.ly/2Zpnj #privacy · Italy Orders #Google To Clearly Label Street View Cars, Advertise Routes http://ow.ly/2Zpjn · Regulators closing in on Google http://ow.ly/2ZsLf #StreetView #privacy · Google investigated over household data privacy breaches by ICO http://ow.ly/2YLpq YouTube · Turkey lifts two-year ban on YouTube #censorship #regionalblocking http://ow.ly/32pVY · Great and thorough analysis of Viacom v YouTube and impact of safe harbour #copyright #DMCA #Viacom= #YouTube #in http://ow.ly/30Jtk · Google Goes After YouTubeSocial For #Trademark Infringement

Facebook

Privacy · Facebook app developers sold user info http://ow.ly/32q21 #privacy #in · Facebook locks down private user data after app controversy #privacy #in http://ow.ly/32pSA · Court Orders Disclosure of Facebook and MySpace Passwords in Personal Injury Case · Facebook Allows Users To Turn Off Group Chat http://ow.ly/2ZpvT · Firesheep Exposes Flaw In #Facebook Log-In Security http://ow.ly/2Zptw #security Intellectual Property · Facebook Files for #Patent on Inferential Ad Targeting http://ow.ly/30Jm8 · Facebook comes down hard on Faceporn for #trademark infringement http://ow.ly/2YLk2

Limewire

· As LimeWire Shuts Its Doors, Other P2P Clients See a Surge in Usage #copyright #in #filesharing http://ow.ly/32pWO · Limewire shuts down after receiving permanent injunction #copyright http://ow.ly/308HB

Other Intellectual Property News

· Twitter Issues New Guidelines for the Tweet Trademark http://ow.ly/32pXh #trademark #in · Apple sues Motorola over smartphone #patents http://ow.ly/32pQH · Taiwanese company threatens Apple with legal action over iPad name #trademark http://ow.ly/30J6r

Other Privacy News

· Berlin Privacy Commissioner Dix proposes principle of Anonymization and Pseudonymization. #OECD30 #privacy · #EFF Urges EU Data Protection Authorities to Call for the Repeal of the EU Data Retention Directive http://ow.ly/2ZpfB #dataretention

Personal Jurisdiction

· Email and phone contacts help to establish personal jurisdiction in US case VEDICSOFT v. MILLENNIUM CONSULTING http://bit.ly/9lTaZ6

Defamation

· Hoteliers Look to Shield Themselves From Dishonest Online Reviews http://ow.ly/2Zpq4

Cyber-Warfare

· Emergency Powers in Cyberspace http://ow.ly/32pRE #cyber-warfare · US Air Force #cyberwarfare manual goes public http://ow.ly/2ZpiB

Weekly Cyber-Law News Round

Wow this week has flown by so quickly: where did it all go?!! It has been quite exciting week in terms of legal developments in the area of cyberspace. The usual suspects are in the news: Google Street View, Facebook, piracy, and privacy. But it has also been a week of great significance for copyright laws in the UK (adoption of the Gallo report), and some surprising developments in trademarks law (woman claiming trademark protection for her name).

My pick of the top cyber-law news for this week in descending chronological order:

• Legal row over who can use the word 'pod' #Apple #USPatentOffice http://tinyurl.com/36gcvqw

• Channel islanders attack Street View car http://tinyurl.com/3yy5kck

• US Senate considers update to Electronic Communications #Privacy Act http://bit.ly/9prdfQ

• Spanish court rules that #YouTube is nt liable 4 breach of #copyright re YouTube/#Telecinco copyright dispute http://tinyurl.com/2fmx23z

• Facebook Ends Conversion Tracking For Ads http://tinyurl.com/2e55a9h

• Google tackles rogue pharmacies in court #consumer protection http://tinyurl.com/33zf5pp

• EU Parliament adopt #Gallo Report on pan-European #copyright laws http://tinyurl.com/2ueykrw

• Proposed US law could force ISPs to block websites on piracy allegations http://tinyurl.com/34k935z

• Ontario Privacy Commissioner says Facebook has addressed privacy concerns http://tinyurl.com/295ywcy

• Google's 'Street View' banned for privacy invasion Czech Republic's privacy watchdog says Google http://bit.ly/cgJrA9

• Lawsuits Filed Over “Zombie” Cookies http://tinyurl.com/3966lop #privacy

• US Autodesk decision gives software company the tool to prevent the resale of licensed software by unauthorised third parties http://tinyurl.com/33u2bev #in

• Google's new Transparency Report logs government requests for personal info, takedown requests and blocking: http://bit.ly/dueLKf
  

• Lawyers Sued Over Blog Posts Criticizing Referral Hotline for Personal Injury Cases http://is.gd/flsUg

• Street View prompts privacy code in Germany http://tinyurl.com/3xsfmwq

• Code That Tracks Users’ Browsing Prompts Lawsuits http://tinyurl.com/39dl8lj

• Online hotel bookings to be probed for price-fixing by OFT http://tinyurl.com/33jr89p

• HP and Oracle settle dispute over Mark Hurd #confidentiality http://tinyurl.com/342wlvy

• Woman Trademarks Her Name, Says No One Can Use It Without Her Permission http://ow.ly/2GSXx

• Germany opposes Google Street View switch-on http://tinyurl.com/3xsfmwq

Hope you guys enjoy the new weekly cyber-law news round!

Facebook: the privacy backlash!

It was only a matter of time before Facebook`s numerous and worrying privacy changes attracted a number of complaints from its users and also from privacy bodies. The EU Privacy watchdog has now added its voice to the growing number of complaints and has stated that the recent Facebook privacy changes are 'unacceptable.' The complaint refers to the privacy changes made by Facebook over the course of the past year. In its statement, the Article 29 Working Party stated that:

"It is unacceptable that the company fundamentally changed the default settings on its social-networking platform to the detriment of a user...Facebook made the change only days after the company and other social networking sites providers participated at a hearing during the Article 29 Working Party’s plenary meeting in November 2009."

In its letter to Facebook, the Article 29 Working Party also added that default settings should protect users rather than expose their data. An interesting article from the New York Times this week showed that currently users have to navigate through 50 different privacy settings with an excess of 170 options to disable the default settings and protect their data.

The Article 29 Working Party has now added its voice to the criticism. It said that in its letter to Facebook it had emphasised that default settings should protect, not expose, users' private information. The Article 29 Working Party also addressed the issue of third party applications having access to users` data and the disclosure of third person data contained in users` profiles to other users.

Additionally, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has made a similar complaint about Facebook to the FTC on the ground that Facebook is engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices.

As a result of these complaints, Facebook is holding a privacy crisis meeting today although the company is downplaying the significance of the meeting. It remains to see whether the privacy watchdog will have enough clout to compel Facebook to change its privacy policy and whether Facebook acknowledges that it is not feasible for the user to navigate through so many privacy settings before having a decent level of protection for his/her data. In the end it will be a question of the clout of such privacy watchdogs, the extent of their enforcement powers, and whether such powers are enough to prevail over the current company`s business model in which disclosure is the norm as it ensures more revenue for the company via targeted advertising.

Concerned about your privacy on Facebook: read ahead!

Comprehensive article by ZDNet giving detailed guidelines on how to protect your privacy on Facebook. This is a must read for any Facebook user concerned about his/her privacy since all the privacy changes of the past few months!

Another security loophole...

It has been reported by BBC Technology that Facebook has at last sorted out its security flaws which permitted users to view who other users are chatting to or which friend requests other users receive. The chat facility was removed temporarily until it was fixed again and it is now up and running again. A few blogs such as Allfacebook picked on the flaws but avoided blogging about them to curtail mass panic until the flaw was pick. The flaw was first outed by the very reliable TechCrunch.

Experiencing Facebook`s connected profiles first-hand: a tale of bewilderment and weariness.

Having just spent the past hour going through the maze of sorting out my Facebook profile page as a result of the introduction of the 'Connected Profiles' function, I am baffled... Baffled by the effort and time it takes to opt-out of any of the connections you do not want to make public (e.g. location, university etc), and baffled by how cumbersome it is to find out what the 'connected profiles' functionality is all about.

The help centre of Facebook has a section on Community Pages and Profile connections which is meant to guide the user gently through it all means and the impact of this new functionality on the privacy of the user. However, the section is not very user-friendly for many reasons. Firstly, you have to click on each question to find out the answer rather than all the answers appearing alongside the questions. This is very cumbersome specially as to find out what it is all about, you really do have to find the answers to most of the questions. Secondly, there is a line which appears time and time in many of the answers, almost as a sort of incantation: 'Connecting to Pages is now the main way to express yourself on your profile.' I have tried to find out what this means but to no avail yet: it sounds quite creepy actually!!!

If like me, you are sceptical of connecting to these community pages (and every user should be aware that many community pages are currently being under construction which means that there are currently no privacy settings for these pages: i.e. your data is out there for all to view!), then you will end up with a very boring profile page as mine: completely empty!! I am not even sure if I have a profile picture anymore!! If my current research did not focus on Facebook in part, this is the time where I would have said: 'Hasta la vista baby' in my best Arnie voice!

Timeline of Facebook`s privacy policy

Interesting article by the EFF on the eroding privacy policy of Facebook over the years @ https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline

Connected Profiles and Facebook

Certain worrying changes have been announced by Facebook at its f8 developer conference last week. Basically, Facebook is going to introduce a 'Connection Profiles' functionality which means that the information found on your Facebook profile page (e.g. location, interests etc) will be linked to the corresponding pages on Facebook (e.g. if London is your location, you will be connected to the London page on Facebook). Users who choose not to use this functionality will be left with the situation where their profile page will remain empty. Basically, only information which is linked via the 'Connected Profile' functionality will appear on the profile page of the user.

Facebook justifies the introduction of this new functionality on the ground of offering users more connections options and in particular the option to make deeper connections to things which matter to Facebook users such as interests etc. The real reason of course is that it means that Facebook will have access to users` data in a more focussed way (i.e. linked to their interests) and hence can make more revenue through targeted advertising.

There are two main issues raised by the introduction of this new functionality. Firstly, it will be imposed as a default functionality (i.e. if you do not opt out then this will be the default setting of your account). This of course means that users have the burden of having to understand yet again another functionality and evaluate whether or not they want to use this. However as past research has shown, Facebook users tend not to change the default settings for different reasons (e.g. lack of awareness, extra burden of having a specific setting for each type of data etc). So users will be increasingly at risk as they might choose to keep this functionality as a default option without being aware that this means that their data is being furthered distributed across the network.

A second important problem is that of choice. Although users are being given the illusion of having the choice here to opt out of this new functionality, realistically speaking, there is not much choice. If you opt out of the new functionality, then your profile page will be blank.

According to a FAQ from Facebook's Help Center:

"If you don't want to connect to any Pages, the corresponding sections on your Profile will be empty. Connecting to Pages will now be the main way to express yourself on your profile, and you can always edit your profile to remove specific suggested Pages that you don't want to connect to."

This new functionality will be launched fairly soon. It has already been launched in some part of the US. It would be interesting to see how users will react to this new change and whether Facebook will be forced to backtrack due to users` reactions as it has done in the past in relation to the changes to its privacy settings.

Facebook users beware...

Another day, another Facebook story in the news. Today Facebook has finally rolled out its new privacy settings for all its users. Before the global roll out of the privacy settings, Mark Zuckenberg of Facebook, introduced and explained the new privacy settings to its user via an open letter. According to Zuckenberg, the aim of the new privacy settings is to simplify the latter to users, no doubt, with a view to making them more accessible and less confusing to its users following many complaints including the one from the Canadian Privacy Commissioner.

Hence the new privacy settings are supposed to be clearer, easier to use and more effective at protecting the personal data of Facebook users. However, as rightly pointed out by the EFF, the new settings push users to share their information further. For more on this, see the illuminating article from the EFF which has links to further information.

If you thought that only your friends/network could read your status updates, then you will soon be wrong!

It has been reported today that both MySpace and Facebook have signed a deal with Google which will allow its users` publicly available status updates to be fully searchable on the search engine. Google has a similar agreement with Twitter and it is reported that the new agreement with Facebook and MySpace will go live in a few days.

This is a very worrying development for MySpace and Facebook users who have had no say in this matter and will now have their status updates fully searchable and visible on Google to all and sundry if they have not changed their default privacy settings. Past research has shown that most Facebook users use default privacy settings (rather than higher ones) which means that their accounts are fully visible to the rest of Facebook users in their networks. This new deal will also mean now that their updates will be fully indexed and searchable via Google. Cyber Panda thinks that in the new few days, Facebook/MySpace users as well as privacy bodies will raise the alarm bell which will force the companies to either rethink this deal or provide more protection for users` data.

A new blog is born: FBHive!!

CyberPanda is loving the new blog FBHive which deals with all things related to Facebook: the news, the rumours, and the controversies!! And this new blog has started with a bang as it has disclosed a major security flaw which enables any user to access the basic information of other users even when such information has been protected by its owner (via privacy settings). Amazingly, the blog reports that it took Facebook 15 days to deal with this issue!!!

The flaw has now been fixed but you can still see how it could have been done in the past by checking out the FBHive blog. Amazing footage!!! As a security expert from Sophos has noted, what is worrying is that such a flaw existed and that users` data have been at risk for an unknown period until the flaw was fixed. In addition, users do not whether their data have been 'hacked' into by any other user in this manner. So many privacy issues are raised by this latest Facebook related issue.

From Digital Britain to Twitter.

It has been a long time since CyberPanda has written a post but she has been trying to put together a massive chapter and hence the prolongued absence.

However these past few weeks have been full of technology-legal news: where does one start? The UK Digital Report has been published last week attracted some criticisms regarding its proposals which many view as just not being enough.

The world has not been the same since the Iranian elections and the elections have rocked the world of Twitter as the latter has become a very important forum of exchange of information and views on what is currently taking place in Iran. Many Iranians are able to tell the world what is happening via Twitter and this is becoming even more important with news today that the BBC`s correspondent in Tehran has been asked to leave Iran and other alleged reporting restrictions.

Finally and on different note, the alleged cybersquatting of Facebook`s newly launched username option where third parties are alleged registering the names of well-known persons with a possible view to reselling those at a later stage.

CyberPanda will definitely try to post more often in the future!!

Another week where Facebook is in the press for the wrong reasons...

Another week and Facebook is yet again in the news for all the wrong reasons. It has been reported by BBC News that Facebook has been hit by five different security attacks in the past 7 days. The aim of these attacks have been to access the personal information of millions of Facebook users and resale them to third parties as commodities for various purposes including fraud and identity theft.

The attacks were concealed in what are commonly known as 'rogue applications.' This brings to light yet again Facebook`s worrying practice of not vetoing third party applications before they are published on the site. As a matter of fact, any individual can create an application and publish it on the site. S/he, then, has access to all the personal data of all the users of Facebook, irrespective of whether or not the users have subscribed to the application. Facebook justifies this practice on the grounds on 'open source,' namely, any user should be able to participate in the Facebook both as a user and as a developer of applications. However, this only serves to highlight the problem of the concept of open source or creative commons. The unfettered and unchecked proliferation of code by net users in such websites not only threatens the fundamental rights of other net users but also, and more importantly, yet again highlight the increasing risk posed by a regulatory framework which is based on technological determinism.

Disclaimer: The rights to the image used above belongs to a third party. The original image can be accessed here.

Another Facebook row...

The Facebook row this week has been a very well documented one. Facebook changed its terms of service earlier this week. The new terms in essence gave to Facebook wider control over its use, storage and dissemination of the personal data of its users. The change was met with a general outcry from its users (who formed a group on Facebook called "People against the new terms of service" which had over 90, 000 members within a day) and privacy watchdogs (e.g. Electronic Private Information Centre). Facebook initially resisted the complaints but eventually reverted to its old terms of service, whislt considering the nature of the complaints raised.

The danger with online communities being regulated by such contractual arrangements as terms of service is that such system of governance does not have the usual checks (e.g. fairness, proportionality, transparency etc) which are present in centralised governance system (e.g. law). However, most online communities are regulated by such contracts to which the user has to agree before being able to become a member of the community. In most cases, the user agrees to these terms without being aware of the nature of the terms they are agreeing to. The rapid upsurge in such systems of decentralised governance in online communities raises significant issues of legality (e.g. unfair terms, lack of notice etc) and privacy (e.g. user agreeing terms authorising data processors to process their personal data in any way they see fit). It is vital for the survival of online communities for such concerns to be addressed by a system of governance which follows the principle of the rule of law and due process.

Facebook: a new way to serve court notices?

The Times newspaper has reported a recent Australian case which has been making legal history in Australia on the issue of methods of service of court notices. The supreme court judge of the Australia Capital Territory has ruled that court notices served via Facebook are binding. The case is in stark contrast to a previous Australian ruling (by a district judge in Queensland) that service of legal documents via Facebook was not effective service as the Claimant failed to attempt to serve the documents via the methods provided by law (e.g. post).

This surprising ruling seems to turn very much on the facts of the case: the lawyers of the Claimant attempted to serve the court notice to the Defendants personally on several occasions, in compliance with the provisions of the law. However, they were unable to physically locate the Defendants.

The lawyer of the Claimant tracked down the Defendants on Facebook by searching for their email addresses (which the Defendants communicated to the Claimants earlier on) and date of birth. The judge accepted the argument advanced by the Claimant that this was indeed a lawful method of service despite not being the conventional one.

CyberPanda thinks that this is a very controversial ruling which raises a number of questions including privacy and legitimacy of notices served via online social communities as Facebook. CyberPanda is very doubtful that this ruling will have an impact in the UK: the Civil Procedures Rules in the UK have strict provisions as to the acceptable methods of serving legal documents on parties to a case and it is very difficult to see the rationale for expanding the scope of the existing rules to include online social communities. This case is setting a very dangerous precedent and CyberPanda will not be surprised if this ruling is distinguished (factually) in subsequent cases.

Worms, Trojans and Malwares: A Bad Case of Indigestion

Sophos has recently reported that Facebook is under attack by a new malware which targets the all famous Facebook 'Wall.' The post by the hacker (who impersonates a friend of a friend) on the 'Wall' invites Facebook users to click on a link. This leads the user to a webpage which appears to be hosted by Google. In reality, the user is directed to a downloaded trojan.

The head of security at Facebook, Max Kelly, has re-assured users that the company is currently working on a fix for this worm. He goes, as far as saying that the company has 'identified and blocked the ability to link to the malicious websites from anywhere on Facebook.' However, he does not explain how this has been achieved.

Without further explanation, it is difficult to understand how the malware will be effectively blocked. In particular, given that the malware can navigate Facebook in the same way as the user can, detection is very much a tricky business, even for security experts. Currently, Facebook does a number of things to protect its users. Most of its measures are reactive (educating users by posting security notices) and part of the solution could be a more pro-active stance.

Jennifer Legio has made a number of sensible suggestions on how users can be educated to prevent such situations from arising. Some of her suggestions include using instances of compromise of the network as an opportunity to educate users effectively and developing “Secure Social Network Consortium” to increase user awareness.

Increasing user awareness is no doubt a good move but it will not completely answer the issue of hacking on social networks. The response to this should be an organic one: educational, technological and also, perhaps more importantly, regulatory (identification of the hackers, sanctions against the hackers). Effective sanctions include withdrawal of access to internet, withdrawal of access to social networking sites and a strike system (e.g. one strike you are included on a list available to similar websites, two strikes you are out). It will be interesting to see whether the response in this case will be solely technological or a more organic one.