In late April, at the annual Facebook developer conference in San Francisco, chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg announced a pilot program with Yelp, Microsoft Docs and Pandora to “personalize” user experiences using information from Facebook profiles.  All users are automatically opted-in to this setting.  The company also launched social plug-ins for all websites where users can log in using their Facebook usernames to see friends’ activity on that given website.

In response, some top Google engineers deactivated their accounts and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) requested the Federal Trade Commission to review the policies and mandate privacy protections.  Although several of the site’s members have complained in online forums, a majority of users remain unaware until they log on to a partner site.  Facebook did not respond to requests to discuss these new tools.

“It’s clear that Facebook has proven its willingness to change its privacy policy but it isn’t always as clear about what that means,” said Rebecca Jeschke of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocate for enhanced online privacy.

Making Facebook ubiquitous with the Web has long been cited as the ultimate goal by the organization’s top executives, but the challenge is balancing this desire with privacy protections.  Its critical mass of users prevents people from deactivating accounts, mitigating the threat of a mass exodus, and perhaps tipping the scale towards less privacy.

“Facebook knows that there is a lot they can do before people are willing to walk away,” said Chris Hoofnagle, lecturer in residence at UC Berkeley School of Law.

In the 1990s the Clinton government decided to let marketplace competition drive the development of online privacy policies, assuming the best practice would rise to the top.  This policy also assumed consumers would educate themselves on each website’s privacy policy before deciding whether to stay or provide personal information.

Instead, consumers never paid attention – perhaps they assumed the government had mandated protections – leading to an absence of competition, and in some cases, a complete aversion to the notion itself.

“We’ve seen in recent years an insistence, mainly among technology companies, that young people don’t care about [privacy] anymore,” said Hoofnagle.

But a study released mid-April, co-authored by Hoofnagle, refutes these claims, showing that youth – regardless of their activity on social networking sites – value privacy as much as their elders.  And, interestingly, these youth behave online under an assumption of more privacy than actually exists.

In the survey, conducted jointly by UC Berkeley School of Law and the Annenberg School for Communication at University of Pennsylvania, individuals were asked to rate nine statements as true or false.  The statements were all true, and referenced the right of firms to sell and use consumer data without asking for explicit permission.  This came as a surprise to most youth surveyed, as 88 percent answered two or less correctly.

Protection of privacy has historically been associated with government and issues of surveillance, but private sector companies now hold so much personal data and raises questions about how much private information is available to other people and to advertisers.

“You don’t necessarily know what kind of sophisticated assessments people can make with the information you put out there,” said Jeschke of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, citing a popular study where MIT researchers identified an individual’s sexual orientation by piecing together disparate pieces of online data.  According to Jeschke people need to complete a “gut check” on new tools and policies to ensure they are comfortable with how much personal information enters the public sphere.

The policy options going forward on advertising are unclear, Hoofnagle said.  The key issue of contention will be the advertising industry’s desire to collect all information on consumer behavior online – which sites are visited, in what order, for how long and which content is accessed – and giving consumers the right to not be tracked at all.

Today, consumers can opt-out of tailored advertising through networks like the Network Advertising Initiative, but that does not mean you are no longer being tracked.  It only means that you will not be subjected to the advertisements.

“They want to be able to collect everything as a principle,” Hoofnagle said.  “The [personal privacy] control mantra is a bit loaded.  What if control means I don’t want to be tracked at all? I think they would say no.”

Public health experts say the social media website could provide early warnings of epidemics and pandemics. By monitoring “tweets,” or messages posted on Twitter, authorities can track the spread of diseases and use the information to create emergency response plans.

A team of experts in London studied tweets posted between May and December 2009, the height of the H1N1 pandemic, and counted more than 25,000 tweets that read “I have flu” or “I have swine flu,” according British media reports. A Twitter search of the same phrases today will still net thousands of results.

Experts conducting the study determined public health officials could use Twitter and other social media such as MySpace and Facebook to detect the onset of a pandemic. Tracking tweets could also improve response times in an emergency and help public health workers design a response plan that appropriately fits the severity of a disease outbreak. The World Health Organization has been widely criticized for exaggerating H1N1 and wasting resources in its response.

H1N1 was the first large-scale test of social media for many public health agencies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used social media to a greater extent than ever before during the outbreak through multiple Twitter accounts, Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, YouTube and dozens of Widgets.

“People were interested in getting the message in a very timely manner, and Twitter allows us to do that,” said Holli Seitz, CDC social media specialist.

While the CDC has made social media a viable channel for disseminating public health information, it hasn’t yet reached the point of using social media to prepare for health emergencies.

“They’re not there yet,” said Margo Edmunds, instructor of Emergency and Risk Communication at John Hopkins University in Maryland. “This is very leading edge.”

Although some universities are using social media to study real-time disease outbreak, U.S. public health agencies have lagged behind academia, Edmunds said. Facebook and Twitter are still blocked on computers at some state public health agencies, perceived as social tools for teens and college students, Edmunds said.

“Twitter and Facebook, they’re just not seen as serious tools,” Edmunds said. “People just haven’t caught up.”

Other public health agencies don’t have the communication infrastructure in place to even participate in social media. The Illinois State Department of Health has no presence in social media. Illinois Emergency Management Agency, responsible for preparing the state for disasters and terrorist attacks, has a Facebook account that was activated after H1N1.

“We’re really new to the whole Twitter arena,” said Patti Thompson with the emergency management agency. “We’re trying to develop [our social media] so we could start using it during emergencies.”

The value of social media in disseminating information quickly during emergencies has been proven. Following the U.S. Airways emergency landing in the Hudson River, the earthquake that devastated Haiti and the car bomb planted in Times Square, tweets provided breaking news far ahead of many main stream media.

The prospect of social media surveillance is a new frontier, and one that has potential to improve the public’s health and safety. DIY City, an online group that develops and implements projects to improve cities around the world, recognized that potential and set up SickCity last year at the onset of H1N1. SickCity is an experimental tracking system that monitors Twitter conversation for key phrases that indicate someone is sick. By plotting the location of the tweets, SickCity determines the top-ten sickest cities.

Through social media, people eagerly share their personal lives with large audiences, and public health workers have access to that information in a more intimate and immediate way than ever before.

“People will share anything, if they think getting the information out will help them,” Edmunds said.

Propaganda and and rumors about the H1N1 pandemic were spread through social media sites like Twitter

CHICAGO — Is Twitter spreading rumors? Are Facebook status updates accurate?

On social media sites, anyone can say anything with little to no repercussions. Through real-time messaging and instantaneous updates, social media has created an environment ripe for misinformation and inaccuracies.

It’s a challenge for public health officials worldwide, who use or plan to use social media in public health emergencies. Public health agencies are in the early stages of developing a social media identity; many local and state agencies don’t have Facebook or Twitter accounts. As they develop social media strategies, public health agencies are grappling with ways to drown out the rumors and propaganda spread through social media.

Anyone can tweet about a health emergency, and often times their credibility is unknown

“One of the wonderful things about social media is that it can be used by anyone,” said Holli Seitz, CDC social media specialist. “It does present some challenges about accuracies.”

World Health Organization officials have said anti-vaccination campaigns on social media impeded public health response to the H1N1 pandemic, according to reports from international news agency AFP. The WHO and the CDC used social media actively during H1N1, but they had to compete with other individuals and groups spreading rumors through Twitter and Facebook.

“[Social media] is a platform and anyone can use it who wants to,” said Margo Edmunds, instructor of Emergency and Risk Communication at John Hopkins University in Maryland.

Misperceptions and conflicting messages were rampant during the H1N1 pandemic. One Twitter user wrote that H1N1 is a “deadly trap” invented by the government and the H1N1 vaccine “it is one of the most dangerous vaccines ever devised.” In January, Natural News, an online natural health publication, tweeted, “The great swine flu hoax of 2009 is now falling apart at the seams.” Other social media users tried to capitalize on the pandemic, such as one Twitter account that advertised a “Swine Flu Survival Guide” for $74.

To ensure their messages are heard, public health agencies have to first establish their credibility on social media sites, Edmunds said. Traditionally, public health agencies have avoided media interaction. Once agencies become known to the social media community and brand themselves as the authorities, the public will more likely turn to them for information during a pandemic or emergency.

“I think that public health has to be much more interactive,” Edmunds said. “It’s about relationship building before you have a crisis.”

Communicating with a mobile population through social media will allow agencies to maintain an open dialogue, providing information not just when health officials think it’s salient, but when the public demands it. And – particularly important to a cash-strapped industry like public health – social media is free.

“I think it’s the future for making people aware of what’s going on,” Edmunds said.