In your Facebook status, list 12 albums that have stayed with you over the years, and that mean something to you personally. Then tag some friends to pass on the trend. Sounds easy enough right? There is actually more involved to this simple request than one may think.

These new trends of nominations have taken over Facebook for the past couple of weeks now. It all started with the outrageous “neknominations”, in which people videotaped themselves shamelessly consuming alcohol, passing it along to their friends as a challenge.

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

Thankfully this form of nominations slowly transitioned into another more productive form “feed the deed”, where people instead filmed themselves doing a good deed. Somewhere along the way, the nomination trend has landed to where we are now, which some may call “recnoms” or “album nominations”.

As stated in the beginning of the article, this form of nomination requires Facebook users to list 12 albums that have some sort of sentimental meaning to them. This is a more expressive form where Facebook users can share their personal taste in music. It seems like an easy task to complete, but in reality is actually quite difficult. Just like in the neknomination videos, viewers constantly judged participators by their actions and choices. Having participators openly know that they are being judged based on their music creates a sense of fear as well as stereotypical issues.

Different genres of music all have their own titles, which includes a huge variety of country, indie, r&b, hip hop/rap, EDM/house, classical, and so on. These genres of music are usually categorized and affiliated with different social groups based on stereotypes. We have all thought of these stereotypes in our heads and linked music choices to certain social groups. Some commonly heard categories include “Hipsters” who are identified with listening to indie rock or obscure alternative music, the “Mainstream” who typically listen to Top 40 or whatever is played on the radio repeatedly, or even the “Partiers or clubbers” who blast their EDM or house trap music.  These are only a few common associations that are not written in stone.

The fear that is brought upon participators with listing their choice of 12 albums is simply which social group they will be affiliated with based on their choices. No one wants to be associated with a social group that they don’t feel a part of.

Though some are the opposite and do not experience fear, but see this as an opportunity to try and label themselves as part of a social group that they want to be associated with. This is starting to become problematic since even though music is meant to be expressive, it should not necessarily be expressive of ones social status.

So instead of worrying about everyone judging you based on your personal preferences, remember to be true to yourself. Music is a representation of you, not your social group. The daunting task of your Facebook nomination really can be just as easy as the instructions sound.

Or you could just forget the whole thing all together by not posting anything, and you can enjoy your own music without sharing it with the rest of your online world.

Aurora Coltman
Silhouette Intern

On my second day of co-op, myself, my fellow co-op student and a couple of my staff peers settled down in the office for a run-down on some of the rules surrounding the office. Eventually the first question came: “Do you have a Twitter account?” Followed quickly by the second dreaded question “Do you have a Facebook account?” I was forced to give that same honest answer as for the first: nope. At which point, those gathered got the gist of things.

I proceeded to explain that all I lay claim to in terms of normal teen social media mumbo jumbo is a Gmail account. I don’t even own a cellphone. This was all greeted with gasps, whoops of delight, fist bumps and high-fives all around. Now, I am not new to this experience.  It can be a feat explaining time and time again that I’m off the grid, but it’s rewarding to see that many people still appreciate my being... old-fashioned.

Still, it is a little exasperating for me when people at my school make comments like, “That is so weird; why aren’t you on Facebook?” or “Oh, have your parents not let you make an account?” as if it’s not a personal choice and as if I wouldn’t just make one anyways. Even odder are the people who say things like, “How admirable! I wish I could just let go of everything too!”

I tend to gape at this exclamation. It is comments like that one there – a very common one may I add – that reveal to me just how deeply our society has burrowed into the social media scene. I often have issues determining whether social media is a parasite on our society, or if we’re the parasite on social media.

I’m sure you’ve all had the experience of shaking your hands in front of the face of someone too sucked into a screen. And it makes you wonder, what has us so utterly dependent on social media? Is it a craving for human interaction somehow not gained with the action of being in the same room? Because, last time I checked, I isolate myself whenever I want a bit of me time on my laptop. It’s an interesting philosophical, if not the biggest question out there.

What can be said though, is that social media is a large part of what defines our society now, and… is that an issue? Again: who knows.

However, I can honestly say that it might be. I consider it one.

Social media circles were shaken on Monday as private messages on Facebook sent between 2007 and 2009 were mysteriously appearing on users’ public timelines.

The website, is denying all instances of the leak, explaining that many users are mistaken and are confusing older public messages for private messages.

Numerous students are reporting otherwise.

Philip Savage, Assistant Professor of Communications Studies at McMaster University and researcher of communication law and policy, says that Canada has safeguards in place to combat digital privacy breaches.

“[There] is legislation in Canada to protect your rights as an individual in matters of privacy. PIPEDA sets out rules around the obligations of any government of commercial enterprise around collecting and sharing information on people,” said Savage.

PIPEDA, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, explicitly outlines the rules surrounding the collection and distribution of personal, private information.

Section 4.7.1 states that an organization’s “security safeguards shall protect personal information against loss or theft, as well as unauthorized access, disclosure, copying, use or modification. Organizations shall protect personal information regardless of the format in which it is held.”

“You cannot have your private correspondence shared, regardless of the Terms of Service that you may have signed,” said Savage in reference to clause 16.3 in the Facebook terms of service.

The terms state, in part, “We do not guarantee that Facebook will always be safe, secure or error-free or that Facebook will always function without disruptions, delays or imperfections.”

An organization’s terms of service, accepted or otherwise, cannot supersede Canadian regulations as long as they operate within the country.

The personal information act does not differentiate between breaches of information as both technical fouls and ethical missteps, and clearly outlines that “an organization may collect, use or disclose personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider are appropriate in the circumstances,” which would be employed, for example, in the case of releasing to police officers relevant information in a criminal investigation or about people who are at risk for suicide and abuse.

This is not the first breach of privacy in Facebook’s recent history, as the social media icon was involved in a lengthy investigation in May 2008 regarding “22 separate violations of PIPEDA,” surrounding the collection and disclosure of information on the site. The accusation was brought forward by the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, CIPPIC, an organization spawned of the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law.

Leslie Regan Shade, Associate Professor of the Faculty of Information at the University of Toronto, provided her insights into a history rife with legal issues. “Facebook has always played a cat and mouse game with privacy laws and data commissioners. CIPPIC found that many of the issues that were brought to Facebook’s attention were resolved, and it set a global precedent for Facebook,” said Shade. While the issues were resolved within the one-year time limit set by the Assistant Privacy Commissioner, CIPPIC continued to have concerns with the default settings for users not being reflective of the intent behind the initial resolution.

“If you do not file a complaint, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner may not begin an official investigation in the near future,” said Shade.

Even more recently, Facebook underwent intense scrutiny by the Federal Trade Commission in the U.S. on their propensity to reveal private information that users were told would be kept private. The resulting case was settled on the premise that Facebook would undergo regular auditing every two years for the next twenty years as a countermeasure to their quickly shifting privacy atmosphere.

“I think whenever you have huge amounts of information gathered, that there will be mishaps,” said Savage. It is an organizations’ responsibility to have both technical protection in place and accountable individuals available when such a privacy breach is discovered, as outlined by PIPEDA.

Savage believes that this is an issue that needs to be investigated by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, headed by Jennifer Stoddard, the Commissioner herself.

“The Office has been proactive in investigating breaches of privacy in the past, such as the photo tagging issue on Facebook where users were being tagged without their prior consent,” he said.

He then added that the Office was also instrumental in changing Google’s policy in their maps application to include the distortion of faces and sensitive addresses such as women’s shelters.

A statement released by the privacy commissioner’s office on Tuesday elaborated the minister’s current investigation into privacy leaks by popular websites. Research conducted by the office found that “approximately one in four of the sites tested,” had “significant privacy concerns.”

Stoddard has contacted eleven unnamed organizations to inquire into their privacy practices and work with them to ascertain their compliance with PIPEDA and related laws.

“It is time for a more considered, government-driven inquiry into protecting privacy. The means by which PIPEDA and other privacy safeguards are enforced are not resourced enough,” said Savage.

In the meantime, Savage urges students to read the nature of their agreements with organizations, and complain to their service providers if they feel their privacy has been violated.

Society today is completely obsessed with the ‘next big thing’, that unattainable stroke of genius that always seems to bestow itself upon someone you wouldn’t expect. A prime example is Facebook, a multi-billion dollar company created by a drunk college student in his dorm room – or so the story goes.

Since its creation in 2004, Facebook has become a household name and is arguably the most successful social networking site out there. Facebook appeared to be going strong when the company announced it would be going public, but when stock prices hovered around the initial public offering price of $38 instead of rising, people began wondering what this could mean for the company. Is it possible that Facebook is actually dying out?

Ultimately, social networking relies on trends just like everything else in the world, but the hardest part about locating new trends is that most people can’t seem to think fast enough. By the time the rest of the world catches on to a popular fad, the early adopters have already moved on, leaving the remainder of the population to stumble after them.

These days, it’s teenagers who are at the front of this cycle, which really shouldn’t be a surprise. The combination of a small attention span and quick-to-judge attitude creates the perfect group to sift through new concepts and ideas and to decide what will catch on and what won’t. This theory is especially true when it comes to social networking trends, and teens are well qualified to pass judgment: 73 per cent of North American youth, aged 12-17, are on a social network, and 63 per cent of them access these sites every day.

Surprisingly, teenagers seem to be using Facebook less and less every day. Teens who used to update their status every hour are now only logging in every couple days to catch up with their ‘friends’, more often out of obligation than for entertainment. They’re moving on to other social networking sites like Twitter, which, according to Forrester Research, was the most popular social networking site among young people in 2011. Facebook is still extremely popular, and will most likely remain that way for the foreseeable future, but it seems to be shifting from younger audiences to the middle-aged. As teens navigate away from Facebook, their parents, and sometimes even grandparents, are just discovering it.

Facebook won’t be obsolete in a matter of months; in fact, it will probably be around for a very long time. There are over 900 million active Facebook users, and that number isn’t going to drop significantly in the next year. After all, talking about ourselves makes us feel good; it activates a part of our brain that acknowledges rewards, and that’s why we’re so hooked on social networking. The odds are, even when people complain about the newest layout, lack of features or privacy issues, they won’t actually terminate their Facebook account.

But young people in particular are beginning to grow bored with Facebook, and are moving on to other sites like Twitter and Tumblr. This migration of interest in teenagers is similar to the drop in Myspace’s popularity a few years ago in favour of Facebook. If this is any indicator of Facebook’s future I think it’s safe to assume that, like shoulder pads and spandex before it, the site is a slowly sinking ship.

 

Andrew Terefenko

Opinions Editor

 

You were certain. Absolutely sure that nobody would ever find out about that sexist comment you privately messaged to your friend six months ago. Then the reality of modern interview practices hits you like a freight train and you find yourself embarrassed and jobless.

Where did this startling new trend emerge? America, land of the mostly free, of course. Deep in the bowels of Baltimore, Maryland, a job prospect found himself at odds when his to-be-employer asked for his Facebook username and password, so his techies could delve into his account and vet him thoroughly. He called this practice “akin to giving them my house keys.” Well said.

The man refused, as one might given the circumstances, but the event definitely turned some heads as major litigation began the conceptual process to disallow this disgusting practice. Due to the Wild West-like nature of Internet regulation, this is going to become much more common before the good word comes down and either bans or ignores it.

I’ll go ahead and save you some trouble, then, future employers. Seven months ago I messaged my sister a humourous picture encouraging women to stay in the kitchen. A week after that I liked a borderline racist comment discouraging continuing immigration practices in Canada. Yesterday I joined a Facebook group that promised to end the run of a prominent religious group if it reached one million members. Does that information rub you the wrong way? That is, of course, the reason I set my profile to private, so your sensitive, hiring ears and eyes don’t have to be exposed to the ugliness that is my secret online world.

The house key analogy is quite poignant. By providing your account login credentials it is tantamount to inviting your employer into your digital home, to root through your stuff and try to find any dirt that might compromise your hiring prospects. They will look through your messages, private and otherwise, your groups, your profile information and, in most cases, every single photo that you may or may not have intended to be viewed by random people.

Who are we to say no? Not everyone can afford walking out of the rare job interview stage on principle alone. Most of us will submit to this process and thoroughly de-weed our accounts beforehand, but is that really the response we should be giving? We have prided ourselves on being a society of unmitigated freedom, prosperous in privacy from coast to coast. When we have to trim the fat of our private lives, we are ceding the right to control our actions and submitting to frighteningly Orwellian practices.

Tomorrow I will probably do something equally unacceptable in the eyes of human resource executives, but thankfully they will never have to know because I will not give them that opportunity. I will do many things for a job, but compromising my digital integrity, if you would like to call it that, is not one of them.

Because only a dumbass would give a stranger their house keys.