Saturday, 31 December 2011
Friday, 30 December 2011
Thursday, 29 December 2011
Facebook is stalking you
Do you know how much Facebook knows about you?
Mark Zuckerberg doesn't want to exhibit your personals, and Facebook is not evil - yet the world's media will always throw a party whenever the mighty Zucker or his infernal creation get into trouble. Given its vast popularity, everyone who uses the site is entitled to feel a touch violated when news of grubby tactics are unveiled. A full list of the many criticism can be found here.
Yet no former concern, no matter how big or unethical, has ever knocked Facebook off it's throne. This is due in part to the various customisations that Facebook allows its users - despite never really being that public with them. If you'd like to make your Facebook a touch more secure, follow these steps:
Explore your options
Again, Facebook isn't evil. In fact it's very good, and lets it's users control the vast majority of their profile - but hardly anyone gives it a good look. To access a whole world of settings and options, click on the drop down arrow in the top right of the blue bar. Have a look around. Read stuff. Click stuff. You won't break anything, and you might discover certain settings and features you never knew even existed on your wonderful book of faces.
Staying off Google
You went to a party. You met a boy who you quite liked the look of, but due to him/you being a bit socially inept you didn't exchange numbers or Twitter accounts. But as luck would have it, you were sober enough to remember his name - so you do the natural thing any curious 21st century singleton would: you Google him (take a moment to think how rude that might sound if said pre-1990s... Google *giggle*). This is one of the many joys of Facebook - you get to stalk people, but in a nice way. You can glance over an individual's shoulder and observe their life - just to make sure they're suitable to father your children/trust on a date. This, or so The Social Network would suggest, is one of the main reasons why Facebook became so popular in colleges in the first place. A lot of people actively want to be discovered and pondered over. The sickos.
However, there are other ramifications to this Googleable status. Say you've got a job interview on Monday. You feel good about it. You've done your preparations and you know your stuff. You've practiced your hand shake and ironed your best shirt. You are an indestructible force of interview-perfection, despite that wild one you had on Friday. Ah that was a good night - from what you can remember of it. You're pretty sure your friend took some photos of it but it's fine, just a bit of banter with the lads. But how will you explain the banter of that photo to your prospective interviewer should they choose to Google you five minutes before the interview? Fun might result in a straight no - or worse, no interview at all.
Making yourself un-Googleable *snigger* is very, very easy. Simply click on the drop down arrow in the top right of the blue bar, next to 'Home'. Click it, and select "Privacy settings". This leads to a page with various options - for now, select 'Edit Settings' next to "Apps and Websites". The final option on this page is entitled 'Public Search' - simply hit 'Edit Settings', untick the 'Enable public search' and boom, you've disappeared from Google. As this can be done and undone, you can take yourself off in the wake of any big interviews or probation periods, and put yourself back on should Mr Right need to hunt you.
Keeping secure
If you want to know if you're secure when Facebooking-it-up, have a look at the web address in your browser. If the "http://www.face etc" comes after a nice little happy green padlock, all is well and good. If not, you can take steps to secure your time online.
As before, click the arrow on the top right, but this time select "Account settings". On the left, the second option is "Privacy" - click it. The top option is "Secure browsing". Edit this option, and give it a good tick. There. Bet you feel safer already.
"PEOPLE WANT TO STEAL MY FACE" and such
The page we navigated to above (Security settings under "Account settings") also contains a lot of very useful features to make sure you're nice and secure. A VERY useful one for anyone with half an ounce of paranoia about their person is the third option - Login Approval (when did "Log in" become one word? My computer tells me I can "Log off" rather than "Logoff". Logoff sounds like quite a good put down...). Here, you can set up a security code which you will need to enter every time you access Facebook from a new computer/device/IP address. This will stop any dirty little tyke from sneaking onto your beloved Facebook and running off with all your details - even if they've stumbled across your normal password. Yay.
Ending your sessions
If you're a bit of a traveler, it's worth having a look at the various locations you still have 'active' Facebook sessions. "I still have active Facebook sessions?!" I know, I didn't know either.
Log on (or Logon, even) to Facebook from the work computer and forget to end the session? Or in the public library? Or your mate's phone? Fear not. Again, head to "Account Settings"; "Security settings", and select the final option of "Active sessions". Here you can close down all of the various sessions you might have going on around the world without even knowing about it, you big social hussy.
How DARE you recognise my face
Facebook's facial recognition system has caused a fair amount of criticism in the past. I've had it get me in trouble before, awkwardly tagging certain people with the identity of ex girlfriends (I don't think they noticed), as well as somehow managing to confuse race and gender when automatically tagging people. Every now and again I also get informed I've been tagged, giving me that little buzz of 'new photo time', only for the bubble to burst when I find my identity now belongs to some ugly punk with similarly curly hair.
To stop this from happening, click on the arrow (again), and select "Privacy settings". Then head to "How tags work". The final two options are "Tag suggestions" and "Friends can check you into places" - two things you might want to maintain control over.
To stop this from happening, click on the arrow (again), and select "Privacy settings". Then head to "How tags work". The final two options are "Tag suggestions" and "Friends can check you into places" - two things you might want to maintain control over.
Getting the adverts off your back
Facebook adds can be very helpful. They can identify your habits, your tastes, your preferences - feeding you a stream of goodies that you might really like to know more about. But they can also be insanely frustrating, when a random mention of 'that' place/celeb/brand results in a bundle of odd adds popping up all over the place. This is due to cookies, or more specifically, the clever activities of Facebook cookies.
If you don't know what an internet cookie is, try reading this. In short, a cookie is simply a tiny piece of information that a website lovingly deposits on your computer to allow for faster browsing, more personalised use of the internet and a feeling of warm familiarity whenever you use your favourite sites. They are, as their name suggest, wonderful little bites of deliciousness that makes the world feel a little bit more friendly. Facebook cookies are more educated than the average biscuit, in that they keep going even when you aren't on Facebook, keeping tabs on all of your shopping searches and other comings and goings. If you'd like to turn them off, here's how (as found in Wired, issue 01.12, p. 104):
Firefox users - Go to Preferences, then Privacy. Hit "Remove individual cookies", underlined at the bottom of the tab. Enter "Facebook" in the search bar - you'll see the cookies used by Facebook. Select these and hit "Remove cookies".
Chrome users - Go to Preferences, then "Under the hood" on the left hand tab. Under "Privacy", go to "Content settings". Go to "Cookie and data exceptions" and add "facebook.com".
Internet Explorer users - A bit of a bitch to be honest. You can't disable individual third-party cookies. To block all of them (which might be detrimental to your use of other sites), go to "Tools" (the cog on the right), "Internet options", "Privacy", then "Advanced" (ooooh, advanced... Microsoft love to be a bit patronising don't they...). Choose to block or receive a prompt when someone tries to track your web movements.
The best thing to do is to explore your Facebook, and to acknowledge that it's run by nice people who don't want to abuse your trust. They want you to trust them, because they don't want you to leave them - they're just a bit backward in being forward about the powers you really have.
Happy Facing, and keep safe.
Friday, 23 December 2011
The problem with journalism
I want to be a journalist.
This is a desire I hold with many individuals of varying skill, ideology and ambition. For those of us who chase this desire it is a trade we are in awe of, such is the power and scope of the modern media machine. It entertains, it informs, it educates. It captures and amplifies everything in the world around us. As a journalist you get to encounter the world, and tell the rest of the world about it.
But then what does that make a journalist? Are they an entertainer? Are they a mouthpiece for new information? Are they educators? Do they create new opinion, or multiply and reinforce an opinion already held by the masses? For myself, hoping to form a credible career in journalism, I find myself a touch lost as to what the world expects of the journalist. The media has many playgrounds in which to capture the imagination of the masses: TV, radio, newspapers, websites, blogs, twitter feeds (this blog is not journalistic in its aspirations, but an attempt to entertain and provoke speculation by accident). And yet as the sphere of media influence continues to expand with more technology, more data, more avenues requiring analysis and reportage, it would strike me that too many journalists aren't really doing journalism. And that is why I want to be a journalist.
I want to be a journalist because I don't believe that journalism is currently good enough. For an eye watering summary of the wrongs and ills of modern British journalism, Google the Leveson Inquiry. Read the first few articles on it, or even the first few paragraphs. Allow your emotions to seep into your response - form your own opinion, be it one that agrees with the portrayal you read or one that objects to the manner in which it is written. That is what journalism is currently capable of doing. Of lying. Of controlling. Of ruining the life of any individual held in the public eye to be interesting, and thus fair game. At the moment, the media is waiting to see what the outcome of this thorough and very public grilling will be - and I hope it won't be an easy one. But there is a bigger culprit behind the stories. There are far more powerful individuals who will be affected by the outcome of this inquiry. It is us. The readers. The buyers of the media.
The power of good journalism is terrifying. The power of bad journalism is more terrifying still. While a politician cannot reach every home in their constituency, the media can. While a man or woman would struggle to enter your home to tell you about what they think about Israel, the media can. The controlling force that media plays to isn't simply the editor, nor the corporation chairman, nor the advertiser, but the reader. We are in charge of our pennies. We are in charge of the remote control. We are consumers, and we still have the capacity to make informed decisions as to what we consume.
At this year's Keswick christian convention, a panel consisting of a theologian, christian journalist and politician discussed the current state of the media. Their discussion was not challenging, insightful or even slightly profound. The only revealing moment of the discussion which has stuck with me was a brief anecdote from the christian journalist, who works as a reporter for the Daily Mail. When asked if he was in control of the stories he wrote, he replied that his hands were very much tied by the forces that ruled the paper: what did people want to read, and would thus have them buy the paper. He compared two stories he had written for the paper, one concerning the ill treatment of a circus elephant, the other of a father and son who had been reunited after eight years apart due to their country's civil war. The human story, one of accessible scope with its sweeping emotional content and happy ending, received no letters or comments from the readership. The story about the elephant sparked the biggest reaction of any story the reporter had ever written. People wanted to know more about the circus, more about the elephant, more about what the reporter felt about it. No one felt compelled to ask about the boy and his father, or the reporter's experiences that related to collecting that story.
The example above generalises in a way that probably harms my own argument, but it's the most recent personal example I had to lend substance to my point. There are more obvious examples on the front page of most red-topped papers every day of the week. Another story about Pippa Middleton's bum. Another story about Katie Price. Another story about a footballer's affair. Another picture of a girl getting out of a taxi. There are many, many journalists who would rather write about something else. There are many who wouldn't. The point is, that when there's only enough room on the page for one story, and more than one story waiting for the press, the story that will win is the one about sex, money, privacy, scandal. Good news makes bad news. Bad news makes very good news.
I want to be a journalist because I want the media to have a good name. This will probably mean that I'm never a successful journalist - but that doesn't dull my desire. I hope that I can be a journalist in a post-Leveson environment, where the media aren't self regulated and the readership actively challenges what they read. I don't want to see the tabloids go, and I hope that my comments aren't misconstrued as a value judgement of those who enjoy celebrity gossip. My frustration is that seemingly far too many stories about scandal, about privacy, about sex, far too often forget the human element of a story - or event attempt to hid it. Every word written or broadcast has an impact, and journalism has to be held accountable for that.
I want to be a journalist because I want people to know more about other people. I don't want to be a journalist that helps people to forget that other people are still people.
This is a desire I hold with many individuals of varying skill, ideology and ambition. For those of us who chase this desire it is a trade we are in awe of, such is the power and scope of the modern media machine. It entertains, it informs, it educates. It captures and amplifies everything in the world around us. As a journalist you get to encounter the world, and tell the rest of the world about it.
But then what does that make a journalist? Are they an entertainer? Are they a mouthpiece for new information? Are they educators? Do they create new opinion, or multiply and reinforce an opinion already held by the masses? For myself, hoping to form a credible career in journalism, I find myself a touch lost as to what the world expects of the journalist. The media has many playgrounds in which to capture the imagination of the masses: TV, radio, newspapers, websites, blogs, twitter feeds (this blog is not journalistic in its aspirations, but an attempt to entertain and provoke speculation by accident). And yet as the sphere of media influence continues to expand with more technology, more data, more avenues requiring analysis and reportage, it would strike me that too many journalists aren't really doing journalism. And that is why I want to be a journalist.
I want to be a journalist because I don't believe that journalism is currently good enough. For an eye watering summary of the wrongs and ills of modern British journalism, Google the Leveson Inquiry. Read the first few articles on it, or even the first few paragraphs. Allow your emotions to seep into your response - form your own opinion, be it one that agrees with the portrayal you read or one that objects to the manner in which it is written. That is what journalism is currently capable of doing. Of lying. Of controlling. Of ruining the life of any individual held in the public eye to be interesting, and thus fair game. At the moment, the media is waiting to see what the outcome of this thorough and very public grilling will be - and I hope it won't be an easy one. But there is a bigger culprit behind the stories. There are far more powerful individuals who will be affected by the outcome of this inquiry. It is us. The readers. The buyers of the media.
The power of good journalism is terrifying. The power of bad journalism is more terrifying still. While a politician cannot reach every home in their constituency, the media can. While a man or woman would struggle to enter your home to tell you about what they think about Israel, the media can. The controlling force that media plays to isn't simply the editor, nor the corporation chairman, nor the advertiser, but the reader. We are in charge of our pennies. We are in charge of the remote control. We are consumers, and we still have the capacity to make informed decisions as to what we consume.
At this year's Keswick christian convention, a panel consisting of a theologian, christian journalist and politician discussed the current state of the media. Their discussion was not challenging, insightful or even slightly profound. The only revealing moment of the discussion which has stuck with me was a brief anecdote from the christian journalist, who works as a reporter for the Daily Mail. When asked if he was in control of the stories he wrote, he replied that his hands were very much tied by the forces that ruled the paper: what did people want to read, and would thus have them buy the paper. He compared two stories he had written for the paper, one concerning the ill treatment of a circus elephant, the other of a father and son who had been reunited after eight years apart due to their country's civil war. The human story, one of accessible scope with its sweeping emotional content and happy ending, received no letters or comments from the readership. The story about the elephant sparked the biggest reaction of any story the reporter had ever written. People wanted to know more about the circus, more about the elephant, more about what the reporter felt about it. No one felt compelled to ask about the boy and his father, or the reporter's experiences that related to collecting that story.
The example above generalises in a way that probably harms my own argument, but it's the most recent personal example I had to lend substance to my point. There are more obvious examples on the front page of most red-topped papers every day of the week. Another story about Pippa Middleton's bum. Another story about Katie Price. Another story about a footballer's affair. Another picture of a girl getting out of a taxi. There are many, many journalists who would rather write about something else. There are many who wouldn't. The point is, that when there's only enough room on the page for one story, and more than one story waiting for the press, the story that will win is the one about sex, money, privacy, scandal. Good news makes bad news. Bad news makes very good news.
I want to be a journalist because I want the media to have a good name. This will probably mean that I'm never a successful journalist - but that doesn't dull my desire. I hope that I can be a journalist in a post-Leveson environment, where the media aren't self regulated and the readership actively challenges what they read. I don't want to see the tabloids go, and I hope that my comments aren't misconstrued as a value judgement of those who enjoy celebrity gossip. My frustration is that seemingly far too many stories about scandal, about privacy, about sex, far too often forget the human element of a story - or event attempt to hid it. Every word written or broadcast has an impact, and journalism has to be held accountable for that.
I want to be a journalist because I want people to know more about other people. I don't want to be a journalist that helps people to forget that other people are still people.
Monday, 19 December 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)