A shift occurred in recent cases of information being exposed online, such as the WikiLeaks saga and Anonymous/LulzSec hacks: the means of dissemination became as big a news story as the leaked details themselves. Not only does it demonstrate the vulnerability of virtually all data, but that once a message is out there, it's very hard to get it back in the bottle.
The latest example involves the response by social media users to a gagging order against Greenpeace, which saw individuals worldwide tweeting, sharing, and posting images on the environmental group's behalf.
The buzz of activity followed a Greenpeace protest at Scottish oil company Cairn Energy, which is exploring for oil and gas off the coast of Greenland. Cairn sought an injunction against Greenpeace, barring it from tweeting, posting or otherwise spreading images or content on the sit-in, during which activists (some dressed as polar bears) demanded to see the company's oil spill response plan to drilling in the Arctic.
However, the old resort of going to the courts to prevent information leaks no longer holds sway in the social media world, where freedom of expression is the first commandment. Apart from the hacking skills of groups like Anonymous, the vastness of the social Web means even the most obscure snippet of information can spread across the world in a matter of seconds.
I'm all for exposing environmentally questionable practices and companies, but the incident does raise a few questions about the limits of information disclosure. Granted, Cairn is digging for fossil fuels in an incredibly fragile ecological area, melting sea ice and dislocating ice bergs along the way, not to mention risking a spill that in such a freezing and remote location could prove catastrophic. So it's tempting to say it had it coming.
But there's also the issue of organisations' right to protect sensitive information relating to shareholders, partners and employees - which was Cairn's stated reason for the gagging order.
Professional ethics systems have long seen journalists, lawyers and doctors weigh up the right of access to information, the potential for harm, and the protection of privacy. These groups, whose ethical judgments are by no means irreprehensible, at least have some sort of framework to work within. Social media has no such set of guidelines or sense of accountability. It's an information free-for-all, and as long as the subject is topical and easy to share, it's fair game.
Once the message is out there, it's very hard to get it back in the bottle.
Lezette Engelbrecht, online features editor, ITWeb
Of course, concerns around mass access to privileged information have accompanied practically every major leap in communication, from the printing press to the Internet. But social media has brought multi-platform public publishing to the masses like never before.
Which is what makes the warning by one UK law firm at once laughable and chilling: "If people start tweeting and putting the pictures on Facebook, they could be in contempt of the Scottish courts." It's ridiculous because trying to trace and convict all the links in the social media chain is a futile task. It's frightening because it could see backlash by companies and governments that makes it near impossible to access information in the first place.
If the pervasiveness of social media means there's no way to protect information once it's exposed, then organisations may go to new extremes to prevent potential leaks. It may lead to a more restricted, paranoid environment than before, because the “anything goes” approach to information has made it too risky to share anything.
Online eavesdropping
Governments have already begun keeping a closer watch on social networks, by extending their surveillance activities to this space. The Chilean government, for example, announced last month that it will begin monitoring comments on social networking sites.
Authorities have employed local company BrandMetric to monitor conversations, comments and even the geographic location of users, to alert it when there are "significant changes" in people's views on a topic.
The Chilean government throws around a lot of references to “measuring public perception” and staying in touch with the needs of the people. But no one's buying the argument that a government has to spy on private conversations to get a sense of what's important to its citizens.
Then there's the CIA's “Open Source Centre”, which gathers information from blogs, chat rooms and social networking sites, as reported by watchdog body the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The group also revealed that the US government is busy developing software to create fake social media profiles, as a way to manipulate public opinion by promoting propaganda. It's also useful for say, tracking down people with dissident views, and then getting the fake social networkers to run smear campaigns against them.
Like their official counterparts, companies have also gone on the offensive, employing a host of products to keep their finger on the social media pulse.
Cisco's SocialMiner software gives its corporate users real-time feedback on customers' status updates, forums and blogs, so they can be a fly on the wall the next time friends rant about a dodgy product or bad service.
If this stockpiling of personal information by governments and companies is coupled with tighter restrictions on their own data, we could soon see a time when flouting an injunction won't merely be a case of social media mischief. Those seen in contempt of court for sharing information could easily be located, contacted, and brought to book for an errant tweet.
For companies at least, the reputation damage resulting from going after social media users is likely to outweigh any of the benefits. There's also a need to expose the environmental destruction organisations are keeping under wraps, and social media makes an effective partner for the task. However, the zeitgeist tends to shift from one extreme to another, and the further social media pushes the boundaries, the greater the risk that the pendulum will begin its swing in the opposite direction.
Share