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

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496