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

Getty
Show Hide image

What type of Brexit did we vote for? 150,000 Conservative members will decide

As Michael Gove launches his leadership bid, what Leave looks like will be decided by Conservative activists.

Why did 17 million people vote to the leave the European Union, and what did they want? That’s the question that will shape the direction of British politics and economics for the next half-century, perhaps longer.

Vote Leave triumphed in part because they fought a campaign that combined ruthless precision about what the European Union would do – the illusory £350m a week that could be clawed back with a Brexit vote, the imagined 75 million Turks who would rock up to Britain in the days after a Remain vote – with calculated ambiguity about what exit would look like.

Now that ambiguity will be clarified – by just 150,000 people.

 That’s part of why the initial Brexit losses on the stock market have been clawed back – there is still some expectation that we may end up with a more diluted version of a Leave vote than the version offered by Vote Leave. Within the Treasury, the expectation is that the initial “Brexit shock” has been pushed back until the last quarter of the year, when the election of a new Conservative leader will give markets an idea of what to expect.  

Michael Gove, who kicked off his surprise bid today, is running as the “full-fat” version offered by Vote Leave: exit from not just the European Union but from the single market, a cash bounty for Britain’s public services, more investment in science and education. Make Britain great again!

Although my reading of the Conservative parliamentary party is that Gove’s chances of getting to the top two are receding, with Andrea Leadsom the likely beneficiary. She, too, will offer something close to the unadulterated version of exit that Gove is running on. That is the version that is making officials in Whitehall and the Bank of England most nervous, as they expect it means exit on World Trade Organisation terms, followed by lengthy and severe recession.

Elsewhere, both Stephen Crabb and Theresa May, who supported a Remain vote, have kicked off their campaigns with a promise that “Brexit means Brexit” in the words of May, while Crabb has conceded that, in his view, the Leave vote means that Britain will have to take more control of its borders as part of any exit deal. May has made retaining Britain’s single market access a priority, Crabb has not.

On the Labour side, John McDonnell has set out his red lines in a Brexit negotiation, and again remaining in the single market is a red line, alongside access to the European Investment Bank, and the maintenance of “social Europe”. But he, too, has stated that Brexit means the “end of free movement”.

My reading – and indeed the reading within McDonnell’s circle – is that it is the loyalists who are likely to emerge victorious in Labour’s power struggle, although it could yet be under a different leader. (Serious figures in that camp are thinking about whether Clive Lewis might be the solution to the party’s woes.) Even if they don’t, the rebels’ alternate is likely either to be drawn from the party’s Brownite tendency or to have that faction acting as its guarantors, making an end to free movement a near-certainty on the Labour side.

Why does that matter? Well, the emerging consensus on Whitehall is that, provided you were willing to sacrifice the bulk of Britain’s financial services to Frankfurt and Paris, there is a deal to be struck in which Britain remains subject to only three of the four freedoms – free movement of goods, services, capital and people – but retains access to the single market. 

That means that what Brexit actually looks like remains a matter of conjecture, a subject of considerable consternation for British officials. For staff at the Bank of England,  who have to make a judgement call in their August inflation report as to what the impact of an out vote will be. The Office of Budget Responsibility expects that it will be heavily led by the Bank. Britain's short-term economic future will be driven not by elected politicians but by polls of the Conservative membership. A tense few months await. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.