WMF — Social networking, privacy and the press Chris Bryant MP, chair. Age old debate — public interest vs. interest of the public. Is there a difference between placing yourself in public domain, and being placed in it?
New issues for legislators and regulators. Internet not tomorrow’s chip paper. Stories preserved for years.
Media climate of permanent moral outrage has level of permanent vituperation. Blogs worse than Daily Mail from that POV.
Caveat publisher? Poses questions about stalkers too. MPs expenses published — addresses too? I’ve had one stalker sent to prison and another removed from my flat. I have a brother who’s a teacher — he’s aware of problems for anyone in a position of responsibility.
Very difficult to know what rights and responsibilities are. Legislators will have to look at this in next 2–3 years.
Tom Ilube, CEO Garlik
Phase transition not evolution in online info. Info can be joined up in ways people don’t understand. Mash ups, APIs etc. Smart technical people could create WhereMPslive.com. We hear social and think nice — but this is business. Model is collect users and info and then sell them stuff.
Nothing bad about it, but it is the model.
Soc networking for DNA is latest hot site. Soc networking sites know the power comes from the social graph — the map of yourself that is the valuable data, not the Facebook photo.
Nature of privacy is changing fundamentally. We can’t go back.
Simon Bucks, Society of Editors. 50+ Facebooker. [I get name check for gardening.] Status updates are interesting. Sharing is useful. Friendfeed now rolls it all up — this year’s Twitter.
From Soc of Eds, Web 2.0 is social and interactive. To get something back, you have to give. If you share something, assumption is you mean it to be seen.
Darwins learned that when they posed for a photo in a Panamanian estate agents. He was supposed to be dead. She had the insurance money.
Reject need for more legislation. Reporters won’t reject more info when it’s offered them. Reporters are using online info as a starting point, but huge no. of fake Facebook accounts. Primary responsibility with individual. With kids, parents/schools need to teach that just as they teach road safety.
Re: UGC, moderation is prob thorniest issue. Can’t pre-moderate all text put on UGC sites. Legal view Sky takes is better to reactively moderate, and review and remove. News orgs would pre-mod images and video. Distinction between UGC and news pages.
Giles Wilson, BBC News website, Features ed
We still pre-mod. Many requests from people wanting comments removed — e.g. a comment on cannabis legalisation.
List of questions for journalists to ask before they use soc media info.
- Are pix true? Is it right person?
Does ease of access = lack of sensitivity?
How public was it? Was person hiding in the open?
Consider impact of BBC’s re-use.
Are you ignoring copyright?
Death knock questions on use of material taken as read in old journalism. PA supplied photo of dead girl to BBC having obtained permission from parents.
- Nature of photo makes a difference.
- Is person victim or perpetrator?
- Does photo come from tribute site?
- Does other media use of photo change anything? E.g. ITV faces different regs from Daily Mail.
Mark Thomson, Carter-Ruck
Most clients aren’t aware of privacy settings. There is a privacy law now and misuse by non-parties to a conversation would probably be actionable. Extent of publication important. Reproduction of emails on a news site beyond implied consent of email conversation.
Indications that real issue is cross-platform accessibility. Intimate sexual info may be protectable. I believe info is being misused. Copyright an issue too.
For networking sites, big issue for UK claimant lawyers is their base outside UK jurisdiction. Media should be obliged to check first on usage on accuracy and objection to use. Many issues would be resolved with that simple step — so include it in the PCC code.
Children putting info out there w/o informed consent.
James Leavesley, Youmeo.com
500,000 users, out for 16–24 market. Users not aware ‘personal brand’ — e.g. actions by them and their friends.
Technology is driving behaviour and education is needed. Challenge for education. Young people learn through doing.
We allow people to hide their names behind online ids. Safety guidelines on our site are important. They should involve their parents [Me — 16–24 year olds! Are you for real?!]. Looking at changes to people profiles.
Chris Banatvala, Ofcom
Statutory duty to promote media literacy. No web regualtory power. [Shows German vid]
Implied consent on internet. Editorial choice and rules regulatable. Self disclosure online, implied consent more difficult.
- Legitimate expectation of privacy?
- Infringement of privacy?
- Has it been infringed?
Online publication means implied lowered expectation of privacy. Privacy and safety not top priority for adults researched.
We need informed users. Industry must give them the tools. Warning of privacy options when you join? Statutory regulation not the way forward.
Q&A
Q: Any attempts to internationalise sanctions?
CB: No direct remit. Little sanction ability. Therefore self-regulation a must.
MT: Unlikely to get trans-jurisdictional control. 1st amendment dominates US regulatory régime. Most trans-national businesses will comply with local regs.
CB: Key not sanctions but quick self-regulatory mechanisms.
Q: (Pam Briggs) People ignore click-thru privacy. Can you show them trail they’re leaving?
TI: We’re trying to give you a picture of what you look like. Difference between expressions of concern and then people’s usage. Showing consumers their profile has brief shock effect but no long term behavioural impact.
JL: Formal training and education the answer. And learning virally.
Q: What should we be so afraid of?
TI: Companies not ‘evil’, but info is valuable.
CB: Why do people have a Boots loyalty card?
Q: Changes will be massive. There is no way any of the data held online can be kept private…
CB: Big cultural differences, e.g. France. And generational.
SB: Soc networking means broadband. Genie is out of the bottle. Brutal learning process, but has to happen.
JL: These are global platforms. I see cultural convergence. Technology is driving behaviour.
Q: (Trinity Mirror) Privacy protection came from a desire to protect people from state. Now in a different environment. People are invading their own privacy. Can you imagine wife of former PM releasing tell-all autobiog 40 yrs ago? Info is widely available — people need education.
MT: Why not ask?
Q: You would be off to get an injunction. Celebs go to the courts without notice to get injunctions which they then serve.
ENDS 1245
