Case Study 5-B: Facebook Violating Users Privacy
Ethical Analysis of Facebook’s Intrusion of the Privacy of its Users
Case Study 5-B
Julia Hurt
John Carroll University
Media Ethics
16 October 2014
Hurt-1
Case Study 5-B: Facebook Violating Users Privacy
Hurt-2
Introduction
This paper examines Lee Wilkins case study, “Facebook: Should You Opt Out or In?” It
includes factual evidence concerning the ethical consideration of the intrusion of Facebook users
privacy. The paper then reveals an ethical question based off the consensus of the situation from
the case study. An ethical analysis will then be presented of philosopher Immanuel Kant’s
logical perspective, including his standards of determining whether or not this case is ethically
sound. This paper reviews the values of conflicts such as trust, ownership, and privacy. Finally,
the paper will emphasize the provided facts, application of the philosopher’s views, and conflict
of values as to why the case is unethical. Scholarly evidence will be provided throughout the
paper to ensure creditability for various claims.
Case Study 5-B Background Information
Lee Wilkin’s case study, “Facebook: Should You Opt Out or In?” emphasizes how
Facebook users across the country have had their privacy violated in one-way or another.
Facebook is a social networking site where people can chat, form interest groups, and meet
people regardless of geographical constraints (Patterson & Wilkins, 1998). Currently Facebook
has a “total of 1.3 million monthly active users, making it the largest online social network”
(“Statistic Brain Institute”, 2013, para. 2). Since the creation of Facebook, there have been
various claims of privacy violation. In September of 2006, Facebook made changes that
automatically updated everyone’s user network anytime another person posted something
(Patterson & Wilkins, 1998). However, after this incident, CEO Mark Zuckerberg apologized
and surrendered the policy change. Yet in 2007, “Facebook users protested again, this time over
a featured called Beacon, which tracked users actions on dozens of outside Websites and
revealed information about users’ actions and purchases to their Facebook friends”(Patterson &
Case Study 5-B: Facebook Violating Users Privacy
Hurt-3
Wilkins, 1998, 123). Facebook then removed this Beacon feature from newsfeeds, as well as
allowing users to decide whether or not they wanted their data sent to third parties. This tracking
feature is significant since users are often unaware of its power. A statistic provided in the case
study from the Center of Democracy and Technology found, “59% of respondents said they were
not comfortable with online companies using their browsing behavior to tailor ads and content to
their interest even when they were told that such advertising supports free service”(Patterson &
Wilkins, 1998, 124). Facebook users are unaware of this revolutionary practice, which coincides
with them being unable to take action of controlling their personal information. Websites do
offer the “opt-out” option, however few users find it confusing when doing so. The confusion of
privacy is prevalent with Facebook, in 2009 New York Times printed a guide to Facebook
privacy settings “where users had to go through more than 100 different steps in order to change
their setting” (Patterson & Wilkins, 1998, 124). The next year Facebook changed the software
making it easier for users to change their privacy settings with only two clicks. In 201l Facebook
continues the pattern of violating privacy by implementing the new software of face recognition
in tagged photos, encouraging users to do so. This feature did have an “opt-out” option, but only
after the fact. It is apparent this reoccurring violation of privacy pattern is evident in Facebook’s
past, and it seems as if every year something more intruding occurs. In the U.S, there are
consequences to Facebook’s power, “in 2009, one survey found that 45 percent of employers use
Facebook and Twitter to screen job candidates”(Patterson & Wilkins, 1998, 124). Through
mobile devices studies Facebook is proved to be physically and physiologically impacting users,
“one multinational study in Europe found that young people who were asked to withdraw from
using their electronic devices for 24 hours began to show the physical, psychological, and
emotional signs of withdrawal normally associated with addiction”(Patterson & Wilkins, 1998,
Case Study 5-B: Facebook Violating Users Privacy
Hurt-4
124). Overall, since the creation of Facebook, there have been many cases of users privacy being
violated.
Ethical Question
Social networking sites, such as Facebook continue to violate privacy amongst its users.
Facebook was originally created as an outlet of communication between friends, where one can
post comments, pictures, and gain interest. This case study provides evidence of how Facebook
violated users privacy up until 2012, but this is still a reoccurring act. Journalist Robert Kiltzman
from CNN, wrote an article concerning, “Did Facebook’s experiment violate ethics?” The article
emphasized how “Facebook had subjected nearly 700,000 users in an experiment without their
knowledge, manipulating these individuals newsfeeds, reducing positive or negative content, and
examining emotions of these individual’s subsequent post”(Kiltzman, 2014, para. 2).
Facebook’s actions are negatively impacting human’s physiological, physical, and emotional
conditions without consent or the opportunity to fully understand their privacy settings. An
ethical question to consider would be is it more important for Facebook to gain trust and offer
ownership to users, or is it more important for them to invade users privacy solely for their own
benefit?
Philosopher Immanuel Kant’s Analysis
Philosopher Immanuel Kant can provide ethical insight pertaining to this case study.
Kant’s categorical imperative states, “an individual should act as if the choices one makes for
oneself could become universal law and you should act so that you treat each individual as an
end, and never merely as a means”(Patterson & Wilkins, 1998, 9). Facebook’s action of violating
their users privacy would become a universal law. This would mean every social networking site
would have the ability to violate their users privacy without consent or proper awareness of what
Case Study 5-B: Facebook Violating Users Privacy
Hurt-5
personal information they can leak. If every social networking site followed this law, privacy
would be demolished. Instead of personal information being defined as private by the users,
social networking sites would transform it into public information, forcing people to disclose any
information over social networking sites. Kant would deem this to be unethical since it concerns
changing the definition and standards of ones privacy. Since Facebook is manipulating or
“beating around the bush” to try and violate users privacy, Kant would not believe this to be
ethical. If all social networks were to violate their users privacy, then the implications of this
would be to great for Kant to believe ethical.
However, after every privacy violation that occurred, Facebook apologized and attempted
to fix the situation. If this action were to become a universal law, where every social networking
site apologized for unethical actions and attempted to accommodate their users— Kant would
deem this to be ethical. Nonetheless, Facebook’s recognizable pattern of intruding on their users
is suspicious. While Facebook continues to participate in unethical actions, then apologizes,
often leads users to perceive a distrustful relationship.
The second aspect of Kant’s categorical imperative refers to treating humanity as an end,
never as a means. Treating humanity, as an end would be to properly release information guiding
Facebook’s users to understand their privacy settings. In this case, manipulating and intentionally
challenging users ability to understand their privacy settings would be using humanity as a
means. Facebook is using humanity as means, instead of an end by tracking, hiding opt out
options, forcing face recognition, and continuing this pattern of deceitfulness.
Kant’s deontological ethics concerns how ethics are based upon the action and not the
person. Kant would accentuate how Facebook has a duty to serve the public. Facebook, as a
social networking site requires personal information from its users. This includes a full name,
Case Study 5-B: Facebook Violating Users Privacy
Hurt-6
birthday, location, education level, relationship status, and interest. Although only one’s name
and birthday is required to create an account, Facebook will continue to question it user’s other
psychographics and demographics. One of Facebook’s duties to the public is to be trustworthy of
obtaining all this information. Facebook also has a duty to ask for consent when measuring one’s
behavior or using their information. In Kant’s perspective both of these would be unethical. Not
only are Facebook’s actions unethical, but also their intentions of violating their user privacy.
Conflict in Values: Privacy vs. Ownership vs. Trust
The conflict in values revolves around privacy and how a users ownership to personal
information can be a violation of trust. Once a person signs up to be a member of Facebook; do
they truly have ownership over their personal information, even the information they post? Often
unaware users trust Facebook to protect their personal information rather than expose or
manipulate it. Is it more important for Facebook to be considered a trust-worthy social
networking site, or is it more important for Facebook to intrude on the privacy of their users for
their own benefits? As technology continues to advance Facebook is taking advantages of their
users, by attaining private information without consent, tracking users behaviors without consent,
and creating new confusing features without a detail explanation as to what they are. As The
Information Commissioner’s Office in Britain spokesperson, Greg Jones tells reporters, “he
expected Facebook to be “upfront” with its customers on how their personal information was
being used”(Patterson & Wilkins, 1998, 124). At the rate Facebook is intruding customer’s
privacy, there will no longer be any privacy over social networking sites.
Conclusion
Based on my analysis, this case is unethical. Privacy is expected as a given right to
humans. It is interpreted in the U.S Constitution, under the Fourth Amendment. In this case study
Case Study 5-B: Facebook Violating Users Privacy
Hurt-7
it is evident the largest social network Facebook is intruding upon it’s members privacy, as well
as violating trust and ownership for their own personal gains. Even though signing up to become
a member of Facebook is not forced, members should still be informed of the repercussions
when their privacy and behaviors are monitored. Through technology, privacy continues to be
violated and it is up to social networking sites such as Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter to be
responsible for their users information. In American culture norms are always changing, and
people tend to become desensitize to certain values due to lack of awareness. The definition of
privacy is at risk; this is why Facebook will be held accountable for respecting and gaining
relationship trust with their members.
Case Study 5-B: Facebook Violating Users Privacy
Hurt-8
Works Cited
Kiltzman, R. (2014). Did Facebook’s experiment violate ethics? Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/02/opinion/klitzman-facebook-experiment/
Patterson, P., & Wilkins, L. (1998). Media Ethics: Issues and Cases. New York: McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc. (Case 5-B, 123-125).
Statistic Brain Research Institute. (2013). Retrieved from
http://www.statisticbrain.com/twitter-statistics/