Arguments Supporting Social Networking as Risky - Essay Example

Sharing Personal Information on Internet Is Risky Chosen Sharing Personal Information on internet is risky especially due to social networking and hacking related issues Essay Structure Introduction 4 Arguments Supporting Social Networking as Risky 5 Interactions that are not face-to-face cause different social dynamics that complicate how people relate. 5 Sharing personal information may lead to organized attacks towards you or your associates. 6 Disclosure of personal information is detrimental to child safety and facilitates bullying. 6 There is no trust in the disclosure of private information. 7 Counter-Arguments for Social Networking 7 Risks of personal information are dependent on the quantity of disclosed information. 7 Returns for personal information disclosure offset the risks of their compromised privacy. 8 A platforms economic value is not determined by how intimate the users revelations are, but by their willingness to present themselves, interact and participate. 8 The use of OSNs is a habit that drives the daily social lives. 8 Refutations for the Counter-arguments 9 Hacking 10 Why hacking is a crime 10 Hijackers access to usernames and passwords 10 Use and abuse of ones social security number 10 Hackers sell peoples information to third parties. 11 Counter-Arguments for Hacking 11 Breaking into someones computer is a personal challenge. 11 Use of phishing by the hackers 11 Increased use of phreaking by online predators 12 Refutations for the Counter-arguments 12 Conclusion 13 References 15 Sharing Personal Information on Internet Is Risky Introduction Online social networking sites (OSNs) refer to virtual groups of people that have grown tremendously in fame in the past few decades. The digital world is pushing an increased number of people into second lives. The masses have to battle with privacy of their information, as interactions, online involvement, and communication reveals secretive information. The web traffic information directed to college students, business, and online companies report a huge number of visitors sharing different types of information. People share various data without taking into consideration the risks that come with personal information sharing. For example, information shared involves personal photos taken from smartphones and computers that are GPS embedded allowing other people to determine the individual’s location. Essentially, fraudsters and kidnappers can easily use this kind of information to locate where the owner resides, kidnaping them, and asking for ransom. On the other hand, computer hacking involves infringement on the other peoples privacy and cause destruction of computer-based software, files and, website pages. The hackers have the belief that sharing information is paramount. Hence, it is their ethical duty to facilitate the process of sharing information. The hackers also have a conviction that system cracking is fun. Therefore, exploitation is ethically acceptable. They hold that so long as they have not committed theft or vandalism, the practice is reasonable. Many dangers prevail in the privacy issues. Such dangers include data misuse, unauthorized access to information, child safety risks and bullying, and harmful psychological impacts of OSNs. Despite the dangers associated with internet platforms, people still disclose massive quantities of personal information, which is a risky behaviour. Arguments Supporting Social Networking as Risky Interactions that are not face-to-face cause different social dynamics that complicate how people relate. Boyd (2007, p.20), argues that OSNs are public networks with four main properties that do not embrace face-to-face communication, public life, replicability, diligence, searchability, and unseen audiences. These social dynamics in this context are fundamentally different and sophisticate the manner in which people interact. Although the OSNs all have online interfaces that aim for interactions and common communications, patterns of usage and specific goals, differ across varied services (Acquisti and Gross, 2006, p.36). Acquisti and Gross (2006, p.37), note that the commonly used models depend on the presentation of the contributors profiles. They also rely on visualization of the network to others and location of the users. These interfaces allow users to converse across economic, political, and geographic boundaries. It is risky to share personal information on OSNs because once you post personal information it is no longer private or personal. Social networks engage millions of people who continuously check what other people are posting. People from all over the universe access this information; some of whom the owner of the information has never met in person or even shared a face-to-face conversation. After downloading the information from the social networking sites, the original owner has no authority over it, and it is liable to use without ones knowledge (Piccoli and Ives, 2013, p.365). Piccoli and Ives (2013, p.365), argues that after accessing a persons information, the user can direct it to illegal purposes making it riskier to the original owner. For example, a user can easily vague a persons online private information such as personal addresses to commit a robbery. In this context, the original owner suffers the risk of arrest from the legal authorities. Sharing personal information may lead to organized attacks towards you or your associates. Online sharing of personal information can give impersonators a leeway to trick you or someone close to you into downloading malware or provide entry to restricted sites. Personal information sharing gives strangers a chance to know you, and without your knowledge, they pretend and fake up stories that lure you into their traps. Once they have access to your personal information, the fraudsters manipulate the systems within the computer or the smartphones damaging personal files. Restricted sites within a personal computer store important data and the chance that allows strangers to access it brings about risk of losing the information. The risk of attack rises with increase in the information shared, internet users therefore, need to refrain from risky internet too much disclosure of personal information. Disclosure of personal information is detrimental to child safety and facilitates bullying. On OSN platforms, people must reveal their personal information. Displaying private information on the OSN-profiles facilitates effectivity, teenagers and adolescents tend to disclose their data to show out their maturing individualities. This phenomenon can facilitate illegal communication to teenagers from ill-mannered children traffickers. The traffickers can trick these teenagers and end up bullying or kidnapping them. The children fall victims of child trafficking for money gain or sexual benefits. The situation brings about fear for the growing generation since they have the vigor to explore the universe without being cognizant of inherent deleterious effects. Information sharing therefore needs strict regulations to avoid risky instances of bullying and trafficking. There is no trust in the disclosure of private information. Within the OSNs context, there is no illustrated agreement about the relationships between perceived privacy and trust (Krasnova, Spiekermann, Koroleva, and Hildebrand, 2010, p. 120). The user of the OSN has no profound control over the outcome of the information once posted. In addition, Krasnova et al. (2010, p. 114) states, that "trusting beliefs mitigate risk perceptions." Since there are no rules or regulations set for one to own control over the final use of the data posted, it is paramount for one to refrain from posts of such personal information. In his Comprehensive Interpretation of Privacy, Clarke (2006, p. 5), notes the significance of regulating the use of personal data. It is thus risky to share personal information online while having minimal control or influence over its usage. Counter-Arguments for Social Networking Risks of personal information are dependent on the quantity of disclosed information. Although risks related to disclosure of personal information are many, the risks are reliant on the volume of the information disclosed (Beldad, de Jong, and Steehouder, 2011, p. 222). Although people suffer ambiguous risks online, they are conscious of the vulnerabilities to invasions of privacy and risks of unguaranteed access to information. However, this is eminent, as more people are getting aware that personal data sometimes find use in financial gain. Inadequate protection of OSNs personal information is raising concerns. The OSNs users are increasingly becoming aware of openly publishing information that has a potential of abuse by crooks, bullies, stalkers or even friends. There are increased threats over the sharing of personal information on OSNs thus more people should refrain from sharing such kinds of data. Returns for personal information disclosure offset the risks of their compromised privacy. Materials based on the gains of disclosure conceptualize the benefits in a "reward against risk" calculation. The exchange theory states that interpersonal interactions rely on the subjective evaluation of the gains and expenses. The theory further argues that, users realize that returns concerning disclosure outweigh the compromised privacy. People seem to contravene their privacy of personal data if benefits perceived outstands the costs. There are plentiful benefits associated with disclosure, for example, enjoyment, self-presentation, and an opportunity to display favourable information only. The SONs have positive impacts on people, for example, privacy issues and information disclosure is increasingly taking the interest of the users and researchers. The rapid development and continued use of OSNs and other online platforms need ongoing attention from the researchers and users. A platforms economic value is not determined by how intimate the users revelations are, but by their willingness to present themselves, interact and participate. Krasnova et al. (2010, p.113) notes that the users distinctive method of expressing disclosure is in terms of the volume of information (breadth) and degree of intimacy (depth). Depth is content-dependent and highly subjective making disclosure problematic to value. However, displaying huge volumes of personal data on the OSNs platforms link to the extent the negative effects. The more the information displayed, the more the negative effects on the OSNs user. The use of OSNs is a habit that drives the daily social lives. Limayem, Hirt, and Cheung (2013, p. 719) state that internet use among college students is a routine. Lankton, McKnight, and Thatcher (2012, p. 12) use the habit theory to explain that habits initiate intention automatically making users to create more feeling directed towards a specific behaviour regarding preceding habits. It is essentially detrimental to users since the use of the interaction interfaces are addictive and can trigger automatic activities. Refutations for the Counter-arguments Refutation to the counter-argument that risks regarding personal information are dependent on the volumes disclosed. Beldad and Steenhouder (2011, p.222) argue that personal information disclosure over the internet depend on the shared volumes. While this is possible, it is unethical for the third party users to access peoples information without their prior consent. In this regard, the various OSNs have set codes of conduct and user agreements that guide the usage of that particular platform. The situation creates a favorable environment for the user to dispense large volumes of information knowing that they are safe. Refutation to the counter-argument that returns offsets the risks regarding personal information disclosure OSNs provide a range of benefits to its users. However, there are more risks to disclosure of personal information via these social platforms. As opposed to other platforms of sharing information, the internet is more dangerous to share personal information. For example, access and sell of the data to other third parties who may use it for personal gain without approval of the owner. Refutation to the counter-argument concerning a platforms economic value The platforms’ economic value entirely depends on the depth and breadth of the information shared (Krasnova et al., 2010, p.13). The SONs need to have the best interest of the customer at hand. Further, there will be reduced illegal access to the peoples private information hence reducing risks posed. Refutation to the counter-argument that the OSNs habit drive daily social lives Habit formation can lead to addiction of internet use, this offer even a greater risk because the time of exposure is increased. College students, as shown by Limayem et al., (2013, p. 719) routinely use the internet. Discouragement of students from excessive use of the OSNs is essential. Access of certain social platforms in many colleges and universities conform to set regulations that limit the use of such services. Hacking Why hacking is a crime Hijackers access to usernames and passwords Anyone that is connected and accessing the internet can fall prey to threats that hackers and computer predators pose (Limayem et al., 2013 p.736). Limayem et al continues to argue that the villains use spam emails, phishing frauds, and instant messaging tools to lure you into dangerous malware. On achieving this, they compromise the security of the computer. Additionally, the hackers access private information in a direct manner if a user has not enabled the computers firewall. They can also check on the chat conversations and web pages. The hackers can disguise themselves and lure one to reveal sensitive personal and information. Use and abuse of ones social security number Once the hackers have access to the privately owned information, for example, social security number, hospital numbers or bank details, they easily use the detail without ones knowledge. The act is a breach of personal social security. Predators may use the hospital numbers to get treatment and settle bills using the bank accounts of a person that they have hacked their computers. Circumstances such as these bring about losses without the knowledge of the security cardholders. Hackers sell peoples information to third parties. An unprotected computer is susceptible to hacking from online predators. Hackers use powerful software to penetrate into the internet users and access privatized information. Once the hackers have accessed the information, they sell it to other third parties who use it for illegal businesses that later haunt the legitimate owner. Counter-Arguments for Hacking Breaking into someones computer is a personal challenge. Hackers tend to support their arguments that they have a challenge to exercise their expertise. The situation facilitates them to troll on the internet trying to send links to people so that they can gain access to their computers. Success in breaking into many computers brings prestige to the hackers. However, more individuals realize the existence of more ill intentioned people using the internet. They are increasing purchasing software to keep their data safe while they use the internet. Use of phishing by the hackers Technology is becoming more complicated each day. Beldad et al (2010, p. 228) argues that the hackers are therefore learning new methods that they use to send phishing emails. Such emails look legitimate coming from real persons or organizations. The situation tricks the users making them click on the links allowing the predators to access their privatized information. Despite this situation, more software is in the market to automatically detect and block such illegitimate phished emails. Increased use of phreaking by online predators Phreaking is simply gaining unwanted access to telecommunication systems. The hackers trick internet users to provide secure phone numbers, which allow them direct access to private-public network phones (Krasnova et al., 2010, p. 118). It is evident that implementing the new technologies can bar fraudsters from tricking users and gaining access to public networks. The fraudsters are also countering this situation by remaining focused and equal to the task. Regarding this, they developed countering technologies that aid them to gain access. The situation is difficult but more internet users are getting aware and can retain their phones as private as possible. Refutations for the Counter-arguments Refutation for the counter-argument that breaking into someones computer is a personal challenge Defending ones opinion, that access to another persons computer is fun and exercise of expertise is derogative. It is unprofessional as an IT expert to access and alter peoples files and important documents in the systems. It is not fun to cause a person pain by either accessing or deleting files within their computers without their consent. These files may of profound importance and as such, it is uncouth to find your way into the personal systems without assent. Refutation to the use of phishing by hackers Professionalism outlaws any use of malicious files and links to lure internet users into the set trap that would harm their systems. As Beldad et al., (2010, p.228) asserts, hackers trick people to click on links that look legitimate in order for them to hack into the system. Although the development of sophisticated software is underway to counter the problem, the hackers are busy finding their ways out into the systems. Creating awareness to the users by the legitimate companies is required to ensure that all internet users stay safe from the hackers. Refutation to increased use of phreaking The internet service providers are working towards the elimination of phreaks. Legitimate companies provide warnings on their sites against online predators. The situations is a plus to the internet providers as more internet users aware not to fall prey to the predators. It is also the responsibility of an internet user to be cautious on what links need access to their computer systems. Conclusion While sharing personal information is paramount to the development of lasting and intimate relations, it is crucial to determine the underlying negative effects. As far as disclosure of personal information come with plentiful benefits such as enjoyment, they also allow users to access this information and use it for their destined ill intentions. The internet predators or hackers, on the contrary, enjoy breaking into peoples computers and accessing privatized information. For personal data to be safe, internet users need to embrace the new technologies that are developed. Susceptible clients also need to refrain from reckless sharing of personal information, for example, phone numbers that would otherwise allow the fraudsters access the public networks. References Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. 2006. Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, andprivacy on the Facebook. In Privacy enhancing technologies (pp. 36-58). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Beldad, A, de Jong, M, & Steehouder, M 2011, A Comprehensive Theoretical Framework for Personal Information-Related Behaviors on the Internet, Information Society, 27, 4, pp. 220-232, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 March 2015. Boyd, D. 2007. Why youth social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenagesocial life: 20-24. Clarke, R. (2006, July). What’s privacy. In Proc. of the Workshop at the Australian Law Reform Commission. Krasnova, H., Spiekermann, S., Koroleva, K., & Hildebrand, T. 2010. Online social networks: why we disclose. Journal of Information Technology, 25(2), 109-125. Lankton, N, McKnight, D, & Thatcher, J. 2012, The Moderating Effects of Privacy Restrictiveness and Experience on Trusting Beliefs and Habit: An Empirical Test of Intention to Continue Using a Social Networking Website, IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management, 59, 4, pp. 654-665, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 March 2015. Limayem, M, Hirt, S, & Cheung, C 2007, How Habit Limits The Predictive Power Of Intention: The Case Of Information Systems Continuance, MIS Quarterly, 31, 4, pp. 705-737, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 March 2015. Piccoli, G, & Ives, B 2003, Trust And The Unintended Effects Of Behavior Control In Virtual Teams, MIS Quarterly, 27, 3, pp. 365-395, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 March 2015. Read More