The new social networks: a stalker’s dream?

New sites that literally put you on the map.

In the six pages of coverage given to the new social networking phenomena Foursquare and Gowalla in the latest issue of Wired magazine, the words "privacy", "safety" or "security" do not make a single appearance. Yet these are just two new social networking sites that don't just want to know what you are doing as Twitter and Facebook do -- they want to mark your exact location on a map, with pinpoint accuracy. Scary? No, it's terrifying.

For someone who has complained about the potential invasion of privacy already foisted on an often unwitting public by social networking sites -- which fall back on the argument that people have opted in to their services and so aren't concerned about privacy -- the thought of people telling the world their exact location at any point in time is hugely concerning.

The privacy storm that engulfed Facebook recently, prompting it to update its privacy settings and procedures, has so far swept right past these new darlings of the tech industry: Foursquare, Gowalla, Brightkite and Loopt, to name a few. After all, they could turn out to be the next Twitter or Facebook, and make their founders and investors instant millionaires.

How social networking got location-savvy

With Foursquare and Gowalla, you create a free account on the website in a few clicks, and perhaps download a small application to your laptop, smartphone or, dare I say, iPad. You can then "check in" to the site when you are out and about, or just idling at home. "I'm in Starbucks," you might say. "I'm in Starbucks again," you might say the next day. But here's the really good bit: the systems use the GPS chip in your phone to map your exact location, and then show that map to anyone in your social network.

If you check in to a particular location like a Starbucks more than anyone else, you get a badge -- an electronic one, of course -- to say you're a regular, or even the "mayor" of that Starbucks. If you show that badge to the staff at a Starbucks in the US, they'll even give you $1 off any Frappuccino. Whoop.

Before we ask why anyone would want to keep telling the world where they are, let alone show them on a detailed map for a paltry discount on a coffee, let's just look at some of the obvious implications.

"I'm cold and I've lost my mum," a young girl says, mapped precisely to a remote avenue in a vast park, near dusk. "I'm at home on my own all weekend -- the old man's on a trip!" a young lad says, with an accompanying map. "Just parked my brand new Ferrari on 6th Street, hope it's still there when I come out of my meeting LOL."

So what are the checks and balances, the safety measures that these sites have taken to ensure that their users don't do anything that puts the individual at risk? Well, you may ask. Foursquare and Gowalla -- the two leading the geolocation social networking charge -- won't let anyone under 13 years of age join their sites. They are adamant about that, and incredibly strict. Not.

On Foursquare, for instance, you have to enter your date of birth when you sign up, to show you are over 13. The site doesn't check that against a database to ensure you aren't lying about your age, but still, it's something, right? Gowalla won't let you join if you are under 13, either, but it doesn't even ask for your age when you sign up.

Of course, not just anyone can see your location when you "check in" to these sites remotely, only those in your network. Safe as houses, right? Nope. Kids may well be flattered that a good-looking 15-year-old wants to be in their Gowalla network -- only, that good-looking 15-year-old might in fact be a thirty- or fortysomething-year-old called Derek.

Even without faked identities, there's the fact that many won't have the time or energy to carry out rigorous approvals of everyone in their network. They certainly won't read any fine print about using such sites safely.

Taking privacy seriously

I asked Foursquare -- which has 1.5 million users and counting -- about my safety concerns. Am I missing something? Apparently not. "We take our users' privacy very seriously," their spokesperson assured me, "and we've taken several steps to ensure that users are able to control how and when they share information with other people.

"First of all, a user's location is never automatically shared -- they need to choose to check in when they're at a particular venue, and the only people that can see their check-ins are those people that they've accepted as Foursquare friends.

"When they check in, they can decide whether or not they want to tell their friends they've checked in, and whether or not they'd like to publish this information to their Facebook and Twitter accounts," they added. "They can also choose to check in 'off the grid', which means that their friends will be able to see that they've checked in and they can receive badges and points for the check-in, but their location won't be shared."

In other words, when you "check in", you need to make sure you check in "off the grid", that is, "opt out" of the mapping aspect of such sites. I've written before about the difficulty in expecting anyone to opt out of anything. Suffice to say it's not foolproof, even if someone understands the risks.

So, what's the benefit of these new geolocation-based social networks -- why are they the talk of Silicon Valley, on the front cover of Wired magazine, and counting user growth in the tens of thousands a day? As in the Starbucks example, users are encouraged to earn badges by "checking in" at a location more than anyone else. You could collect badges for checking in more times than anyone else, logging in late at night (I kid you not), being the first to register a place, or even doing a long journey that you log in to the system.

It's hoped more companies like Starbucks will reward users who come back often -- though there's nothing to stop you "checking in" thousands of times without ever actually buying a coffee.

Life becomes a game, played out on a Google map.

Your friends -- your real friends, at least -- might like to know you're in town and fancy a beer. They might appreciate you telling them you had great service at a particular restaurant in their neighbourhood. They might not have known about a little antiques shop down that alley behind the cinema. All of which is good, and interesting, and potentially valuable. And all of which you could tell your friends without showing your location on a map -- indeed, without joining a social networking site at all. As they say on Twitter, #privacy, man.

Jason Stamper is NS technology correspondent and editor of Computer Business Review.

Special subscription offer: Get 12 issues for £12 plus a free copy of Andy Beckett's "When the Lights Went Out".

Jason Stamper is editor of Computer Business Review

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.