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

The Future of the Left: A new start requires a new economy

Creating a "sharing economy" can get the left out of its post-crunch malaise, says Stewart Lansley.

Despite the opportunity created by the 2008 crisis, British social democracy is today largely directionless. Post-2010 governments have filled this political void by imposing policies – from austerity to a shrinking state - that have been as economically damaging as they have been socially divisive.

Excessive freedom for markets has brought a society ever more divided between super-affluence and impoverishment, but also an increasingly fragile economy, and too often, as in housing, complete dysfunction.   Productivity is stagnating, undermined by a model of capitalism that can make big money for its owners and managers without the wealth creation essential for future economic health. The lessons of the meltdown have too often been ignored, with the balance of power – economic and political – even more entrenched in favour of a small, unaccountable and self-serving financial elite.

In response, the left should be building an alliance for a new political economy, with new goals and instruments that provide an alternative to austerity, that tackle the root causes of ever-growing inequality and poverty and strengthen a weakening productive base. Central to this strategy should be the idea of a “sharing economy”, one that disperses capital ownership, power and wealth, and ensures that the fruits of growth are more equally divided. This is not just a matter of fairness, it is an economic imperative. The evidence is clear: allowing the fruits of growth to be colonised by the few has weakened growth and made the economy much more prone to crisis.

To deliver a new sharing political economy, major shifts in direction are needed. First, with measures that tackle, directly, the over-dominance of private capital. This could best be achieved by the creation of one or more social wealth funds, collectively held financial funds, created from the pooling of existing resources and fully owned by the public. Such funds are a potentially powerful new tool in the progressive policy armoury and would ensure that a higher proportion of the national wealth is held in common and used for public benefit and not for the interests of the few.

Britain’s first social wealth fund should be created by pooling all publicly owned assets,  including land and property , estimated to be worth some £1.2 trillion, into a single ring-fenced fund to form a giant pool of commonly held wealth. This move - offering a compromise between nationalisation and privatization - would bring an end to today’s politically expedient sell-off of public assets, preserve what remains of the family silver and ensure that the revenue from the better management of such assets is used to boost essential economic and social investment.

A new book, A Sharing Economy, shows how such funds could reduce inequality, tackle austerity and, by strengthening the public asset base, rebalance the public finances.

Secondly, we need a new fail safe system of social security with a guaranteed income floor in an age of deepening economic and job insecurity. A universal basic income, a guaranteed weekly, unconditional income for all as a right of citizenship, would replace much of the existing and increasingly means-tested, punitive and authoritarian model of income support. . By restoring universality as a core principle, such a scheme would offer much greater security in what is set to become an increasingly fragile labour market. A basic income, buttressed by a social wealth fund, would be key instruments for ensuring that the potential productivity gains from the gathering automation revolution, with machines displacing jobs, are shared by all.  

Thirdly, a new political economy needs a radical shift in wider economic management. The mix of monetary expansion and fiscal contraction has proved a blunderbuss strategy that has missed its target while benefitting the rich and affluent at the expense of the poor. By failing to tackle the central problem  – a gaping deficit of demand (one inflamed by the long wage squeeze and sliding investment)  - the strategy has slowed recovery.  The mass printing of money (quantitative easing) may have helped prevent a second great depression, but has also  created new and unsustainable asset bubbles, while austerity has added to the drag on the economy. Meanwhile, record low interest rates have failed to boost private investment and productivity, but by hiking house prices, have handed a great bonanza to home owners at the expense of renters.

Building economic resilience will require a more central role for the state in boosting and steering investment programmes, in part through the creation of a state investment bank (which could be partially financed from the proposed new social wealth fund) aimed at steering more resources into the wealth creating activities private capital has failed to fund.

With too much private credit used for financial speculation and property, and too little to small companies and infrastructure, government needs to play a much more direct role in creating credit, while restricting the almost total freedom currently handed to private banks.  Tackling the next downturn, widely predicted to land within the next 2-3 years, will need a very different approach, including a more active fiscal policy. To ensure a speedier recovery from recessions, future rounds of quantitative easing should, within clear constraints, boost the economy directly by financing public investment programmes and cash handouts (‘helicopter money’).  Such a police mix – on investment, credit and stimulus - would be more effective in boosting the real economic base, and would be much less pro-rich and anti-poor in its consequences.

These core changes would greatly reform the existing Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism and provide the foundations for building support for a new direction for progressive politics. They would pioneer new tools for building a fairer, more dynamic and more stable economy. They could draw on experience elsewhere such as the Alaskan annual citizen’s dividend (financed by a sovereign wealth fund) and the pilot basic income schemes launching in the Netherlands, Finland and France.  Even mainstream economists, including Adair Turner, former chairman of the Financial Services Authority, are now talking up the principle of ‘helicopter money’. For these reasons, parts of the package are likely to prove publicly popular and command support across the political divide. Together they would contribute to a more stable economy, less inequality, and a more even balance of power and opportunity.

 

Stewart Lansley is the author of A Sharing Economy, published in March by Policy Press and of Breadline Britain, The Rise of Mass Impoverishment (with Joanna Mack).