The recent success experienced by social networking websites on the Internet has brought them under great scrutiny. One of the main issues that has arisen from these sites is the issue of personal privacy. Part of the reason that privacy is such an important issue on social networking websites is due to the amount of information that users post on them. People are posting detailed personal information about themselves in places that can be accessed by millions of people. With the amount of information that is available it could prove to be very useful, but it could also become very dangerous. The question then arises, are the risks worth the benefits? As decreased privacy allows for more interaction and socialization, it also opens to door for more harm to be done. Instead of looking at how these websites protect or don’t protect their users, I think it is more valuable to look at how people feel about their privacy on the web. What do these feelings tell us about people’s priorities when it comes to safety, and how do we use them to solve the paradox of privacy?

When examining social networking sites the language that is used to describe them reveals a lot about people’s attitudes towards them. In examining closely the issue of privacy as it relates to social networking sites one concept continually emerges. The concept is of the personal information contained in these sites as a mine containing valuable resources. In an article for NewScientist.com Paul Marks states, “No plan to mine social networks via the semantic web has been announced by the NSA, but its interest in the technology is evident”(Marks). His use of the word “mine” equates the information to gold, or some other precious material. It clearly emphasizes the potential value of the information, but does not say specifically what it is. In addition, in an article for The Register it was written, “In 2003 US Congress stopped Pentagon projects being operated by retired admiral John Poindexter which aimed to mine public and private records for information on individuals suspected of terrorist activity”(The Register). Once again the term “mine” is used, and this time the value is explained as the ability to fight terrorism. In this case the information is only useful to those who are harvesting it, which would be the government.

While the myriad of information can be used for good, it can also be used to cause harm. For all of the advantages that social networking sites offer, they also offer great opportunity for identity fraud, and other deceptions. It is natural then some people would use social networking sites in order to harm people and their reputations. Annalee Newitz, for SecurityFocus describes an incident where a person’s account was compromised. In her explanation she remarks, “The attacker didn't stop there -- she or he also plundered his friends' "locked" entries” (Newitz). The language that Ms. Newitz uses tells a great deal about the situation. Continuing with the idea that a person’s personal information contained in these sites is valuable, she says that the entries were “plundered”. This metaphor calls to mind the image of a long-bearded pirate hijacking treasure out on the open seas. It would not be that far fetched to picture someone “sailing the seas” of the Internet in search for someone’s personal information that could contain some value for them.

Perhaps even more revealing than the idea of plundering personal information is the fact that the person is referred to as an “attacker”. This is very important because it helps to bring the crime being committed for cyberspace into the real world. It shows how people put so much value on their personal information, that even though all of this happens in cyberspace, the effects of an Internet crime are very real. It also reveals how imperative defense is for social networking sites. With all of these so called “attackers” out there, it is important for people to be well protected so that they do not end up getting hurt. Finally, the idea of the attacker helps to relieve the person being attacked of any blame. When a person is attacked randomly on the street it is considered as bad luck, but no one claims that it is his or her own fault, the blame lies with the attacker. This is important because it absolves users of some responsibility online. It is not their fault for posting sensitive information for the public to see, it is the person’s fault that took advantage of them.

Despite all of the references to “mines” and “plundering” the drawbacks of having so much personal information available for all to see are significant. Paul Marks also states that, “The ever-growing online social networks are part of the flood of Internet information that could be mined: some of the top sites like MySpace now have more than 80 million members.” (Marks). When he says this, in addition to using the “mine” as a metaphor for the information, he introduces the idea of a flood as a metaphor. It is no mistake that the Internet information is being described as a “flood”. With the sheer volume of users that social networking sites have their records are expectedly overwhelming. It is easy to see a person getting overtaken by the violent sea of personal information. In addition to conveying the magnitude of the information it also implies its potential for danger. With all this personal information being available for anyone to access it creates a large opportunity for people to take advantage of unsuspecting users. Finally, the image of a flood helps to illustrate how little control anyone has over the entire situation. Since each user posts all the information individually, it is near impossible to control the content that is available for others to see.

The final important metaphor that I came across when examining social networking sites was the idea of “connecting the dots”. This gives us another important insight into how social network users are viewed in society. Marks makes the claim that, “the NSA is pursuing its plans to tap the web, since phone logs have limited scope. They can only be used to build a very basic picture of someone's contact network, a process sometimes called "connecting the dots" (Marks). In this metaphor the people of social networking sites are considered “dots” from a simple drawing game. This further diminishes the person’s value as a human being, and removes any emotion. While there is a lot of sympathy for other people out there, there is no sympathy for “dots” on a page. The other notion that is taken from the “connect the dots” metaphor is the illustration of how easy it is for people to be connected to one another online. In a world where all too often people focus on how they are different from one another, these online websites help demonstrate how much people have in common, and how easy it can be to connect with someone else.

In conclusion, it is apparent that people place great value on the information that they post on the Internet, but at the same time they are often careless about what and how they post. This current trend of continued transparency among people on the Internet is already starting to have consequences. One of the most notable backlashes of too much personal information has stemmed from the introduction of a new feature on Facebook.com. The feature allows for users to receive updates whenever one of their contacts makes any changes in their profile. The typical response to the new feature has been negative as many users feel that it is giving them too much information, and they do not want it. "The new features are almost like it's trying to make me be a stalker even though I don't want to"(www.epic.com). People are starting turn on social networking sites because they are giving them too much of a good thing. While the reason they joined the sites was to connect with other people, they don’t want to be that close with that many people. How far people will allow their privacy to be invaded remains to be seen, but the future of social networking sites surely rests on how much information people are willing to share with one another.