Mark Zuckerberg is the 25-year-old co-founder of Facebook.  Facebook is the social networking site on which users are invited to post status updates, photographs, videos, links, and any other tidbit of information they wish to share with their friends, their friends’ friends, or the world (depending on their privacy settings).

As it has grown in popularity, Facebook has endured frequent and continued criticism regarding the weakness of its privacy policies and its habit of changing the privacy policy without notifying users. Until recently, the company’s response to such criticism has been to say that they will announce proposed privacy changes for comment by Facebook users and will take those comments into account when changing the settings and policies. It has not been the most transparent process, but their agreement to work with the public was at least a nod to legitimate concerns about the privacy changes.

As of late, it seems Facebook has grown weary of its feigned concern over criticisms of its privacy policies.  In an interview in January, Zuckerberg diplomatically explained that privacy is not what it used to be:

People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that has evolved over time… But we viewed that as a really important thing, to always keep a beginner’s mind and what would we do if we were starting the company now and we decided that these would be the social norms now and we just went for it.

Though he did not say so outright, journalists interpreted these comments to mean that, at least according to Zuckerberg’s worldview, privacy is dead. Not quite Nietzsche, but controversial in its own right. Now comes word from Zuckerberg’s inner circle that “privacy is dead” may have been exactly what Zuckerberg meant.

In a recent conversation with a Facebook employee, New York Times tech writer Nick Bilton asked what Zuckerberg thinks about privacy. The Facebook employee laughed, then said, “He doesn’t believe in it.”

According to Bilton, the comment was made glibly in an apparently off-the-record conversation.

Nevertheless, based on Zuckerberg’s previous comments, as well as Facebook’s actual privacy policies, “privacy is dead” may be an accurate characterization of the philosophy of Facebook, a company with a direct interest in the proliferation of publicity.

It may also be true.

In a previous post on this blog, Michael Siri contemplated using the Harvard 3L e-mail controversy as evidence of the death of privacy. He ultimately thought the substance of that controversy deserved its own discussion, but his initial thoughts about its relationship to privacy were correct. Controversial opinions, images, and information have a way of making their way to the public sphere, even when they were intended to be private (see Tiger Woods, Michael Phelps).

That private information can so quickly become public tells us all we need to know about the ultimate destination of information intentionally made public, even if your “public” is a limited group of friends or colleagues. Stories of Facebook and MySpace pages used as evidence in litigation are now common (HT: Overlawyered). Plaintiffs’ lawyers now routinely warn personal injury plaintiffs to abandon social networking sites during the pendency of their lawsuit. (Then again, some provide this advice on their law firm’s Facebook page, perhaps sending mixed messages.) Accessing social networking profiles is now also common for employers and college admissions offices.

With the pervasiveness of social networking in the business, academic, and legal arenas, the question of privacy’s proper role has itself become academic. Our opinions about the importance of privacy notwithstanding, Zuckerberg and Facebook are right. Privacy is dead. In lieu of flowers, please send friend requests.

Powered by Bookmarkify™