Reader's Response Draft 3

In the article “The Perlis of Over-sharing”, Emm (2014) asserts that the precautions should be taken to prevent personal information from leakage. He explains, users might focus too much on the Internet’s convenience and neglect the danger of sharing unnecessary events online. Emm stresses that over-sharing might not only cause personal consequences, but will also threaten the organization they work for. The author also states that users might be in low-guard when using mobile devices as they are not cybercriminals’ preys. In short, users should be cautious when making use of Internet.

“Internet has become an integral part of our lives. More and more of what we do is dependent on it. But at the same time it also exposes the minutiae of our daily lives to those who have ability to gather the details.” Emm relates the dependency on Internet with the perils of over-sharing as providers of the applications are able to access to users’ information when the applications are being used. In such case, users are unconsciously over-sharing as they are providing information in order to enjoy the convenience but not to share with others. In such extend, I do not agree with considering this as over-sharing’s consequence as these details are provided as they are promised to be kept confidential. Users are merely providing limited information for accessing purpose, so it cannot be said that the use of applications results in over-sharing then information leakage as this action is not over-sharing at the very first place.

The case “if someone steals your smartphone or tablet, they get access to all your information too” is not likely to happen, as there are security settings designed to prevent such tragedies. For example, users may set up “two-factor authentication” for their iCloud, which means users have to supply two factors to log in, instead of logging in with password using mobile device only (Dan miller, 2014). For socialising media wise, there are actually self-destructing social media services existing. For example, Snapchat is a popular self-destructing service for photos and videos. Shared photos can only last for about ten seconds.  Secret.li allows you to decide who can view your photo and a self-destruct timer can be set for the image to delete automatically (Kihara, 2014).

However, consciously over-sharing, which is sharing unnecessary events, without filtering or setting access limitation, does cause terrifying consequences. As personal consequences, which is what Emm says in “what prying eyes can see as our data travels over the Internet”, a burglary victim Lavern Cheatheam, shared that "You think posting and checking in wherever you go is fun, but you are actually letting people know -- hey I am gone. Go over there and take what you want." Experts comment on social media-burglary cases that sharing too much online could make you a target for burglars (abc7NEWS, 2014).

“Our over-sharing in social networks could also jeopardise the security of the organisation we work for.” Emm asserts that over-sharing cause non-personal consequences too. It is true as data stored on the corporate network is also at risk because it is more accessible than ever, and some employees might not be alert and could easily leak out these important details just when they are sharing status on social media and this can tip off the would-be attackers then put their company at risk (Cisco, 2008). It happened, in February 2011 Hewlett-Packard showed off its new tablet computer, which it hopes will be a rival to Apple's iPad but this did not cause a great effect due to the leakage of its design in mid-January 2011 (The Economist, 2011).

(600 words)

References:

ABC7 news (2014). Burglars use social media to find next victims. [ONLINE] Available at: http://abc7news.com/travel/burglars-use-social-media-to-find-next-victims/448107/

Cisco (2008). Data Leakage Worldwide: Common Risks and Mistakes Employees Make. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/enterprise-networks/data-loss-prevention/white_paper_c11-499060.html

Dan Miller (2014). How to set up two-factor authentication for iCloud. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.macworld.com/article/2449450/how-to-set-up-two-factor-authentication-for-icloud.html

Kihara Kimachia (2014). Self-Destruct: The Future Of Personal Communication . [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/self-destruct-the-future-of-personal-communication/

The Economist (2011). The leaky corporation. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/18226961

Reader's Response Draft 2

In the article “The Perlis of Over-sharing”, Emm (2014) asserts that the precautions should be taken to prevent personal information from leakage. He explains, users might focus too much on the Internet’s convenience and neglect the danger of sharing unnecessary events online. Emm stresses that over-sharing might not only cause personal consequences, but will also threaten the organization they work for. The author also states that users might be in low-guard when using mobile devices as they are not cybercriminals’ preys. In short, users should be cautious when making use of Internet.

The consequences of over-sharing asserted by Emm can be divided into personal and non-personal two catogeries. The personal consequences can be further catogerised into conscious and unconscious. In “what prying eyes can see” and “mass of information that we choose to put”, it is clearly shown that Emm agrees that sharing without filtering and without setting limitation of access, which I would include in conscious over-sharing, causes every single detail in our daily life exposed to the public and it might threaten users’ safety as mentioned “ a criminal knows where you live”.

However, from the example “exposes the minutiae of our daily lives to those who have ability to gather the details” shows that even when we are merely using the social media and never intend to share these information with anyone, the providers are able to get access to them. “App requests permission to read SMS and MMS messages”, it always happens when we have to rely on social media to communicate, shopping online, i-banking or to provide personal details to create an account. Therefore, the providers that offer convenience to us at the same time are able to gather our data. In such case, we are unconsciously over-sharing as we are providing information in order to enjoy the convenience but not to share with others, it is a must to share for the consumers and it is the providers’ obligation to prevent leakage. In such extend, I do not agree with considering this as over-sharing’s consequence as these details are provided when they are promised to be kept confidential. Therefore, it cannot be said that the users are over-sharing as they are merely providing limited information for accessing purpose. However, users are at the same time aware that the fact of sharing personal information with the providers, which contributes to the conscious sharing. Yet, it still cannot be considered over-sharing, as said before, they are only sharing certain details for some purpose. 

For the non-personal over-sharing, as users share the events of the company they working in, although one post does not matter much, but would-be attacker gather all the data from various posts on various social medias and acquire the important content about particular company.

Emm also comments on the use of mobile devices as “a false sense of security when using a mobile device”, he explains, as we sync our data onto online backup system such as iCloud , there is a possibility for others to gain access to our information once they obtained our mobile devices. Emm includes this example in the case of over-sharing, however, syncing onto these systems is meant to be private and safe, even the providers have no authority to access, this scenario is because of losing hardware, a security problem, but not because of sharing over and unnecessarily online, therefore I do not agree with Emm’s assertion as this should not be considered as a consequence of over-sharing.

(581 words)

Reader's response

                In the article “The Perlis of Over-sharing”, Emm (2014) asserts that the precautions should be taken to prevent personal information from leakage. He explains, we might focus too much on the Internet’s convenience and neglect the danger of sharing unnecessary events online. Emm stresses that over-sharing might not only cause personal consequences, but will also threaten the organization we work for. The author also states that we might be in low-guard when using mobile devices as they are not cybercriminals’ preys. In short, we should be cautious when making use of Internet.

                Throughout the whole article, Emm supports his main idea, which is over-sharing causes exposure of our personal details with a few key points and examples from different aspects. Among these points, he discusses about the action of over-sharing and the consequences of it.

Over-sharing can be categorized into two streams, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary over-sharing merely means sharing without filtering, such as posting selfies and status on social media like Instagram and Facebook. Emm mentions in the second paragraph that Internet is now playing an important role in our daily life and we are growing dependent on it. In second paragraph, “it also exposes the minutiae … data that we share”, it implies Emm agrees with the point to some extends, making use of apps does cause over-sharing problem. As we use these apps to aid us in daily life, they bring convenience to us, but at the same time, our data, for example, our buying preference and our whereabouts, is being collected without our awareness. Therefore, it is considered involuntary over-sharing as we did not intend to share these data with others.

On the other hand, the consequences asserted by Emm can be divided into personal and non-personal two catogeries. The personal consequences can be further catogerised into conscious and unconscious. Sharing our photos and recent updates online is considered sharing consciously as we do intend to share with others and to show these details to others, as mentioned in “what prying eyes can see” and “ the mass of information that we choose to put”, it is clearly shown that Emm agrees that sharing without filtering and without setting limitation of access causes every single detail in our daily life exposed to the public and it might threaten our safety as mentioned “ a criminal knows where you live”.

However, from the example “exposes the minutiae of our daily lives to those who have ability to gather the datait shows that even when we are merely using the social media and never intend to share these information with anyone, the providers are able to get access to them. “App requests permission to read SMS and MMS messages”, it always happens when we have to rely on social media to communicate, shopping online, i-banking or to provide personal details to create an account. Therefore, the providers that offer convenience to us at the same time able to gather our data. In such case, we are unconsciously over-sharing as we are providing information in order to enjoy the convenience but not to share with others, it is a must to share for the consumers and it is the providers’ obligation to prevent leakage. However, we are at the same time aware that we are going to share our personal information with the providers, which contributes to the conscious over-sharing.

For the non-personal over-sharing, as we share the events of the company we working in, although one post does not matter much, but would-be attacker gather all the data from various posts on various social medias and acquire the important content about particular company.

Emm also comments on the use of mobile devices as “a false sense of security when using a mobile device”, he explains, as we sync our data onto online backup system such as iCloud , there is a possibility for others to gain access to our information once they obtained our mobile devices. Emm includes this example in the case of over-sharing, however, syncing onto these systems is meant to be private and safe, even the providers have no authority to access, this scenario is because of losing hardware, a security problem, but not because of sharing over and unnecessarily online, therefore it should be considered as a consequence of over-sharing.

Reader response outline

main focus- over-sharing causes exposure/leakage of our personal information
thesis- over-sharing:~voluntary: sharing without filtering (photos/details of life)
                                ~involuntary: the social media used are available for the providers to monitor and gain access to our conversation and information

        - consequences: ~personal: 1.sharing personal and important information unconciously
                                                        ex. shopping, i-banking, creating account
                                                      ~reveal important information
                                                      ~rely on the convenience brought by internet
                                                   _concious: aware of sharing with the provider
                                                   _unconcious: have to provide info in order to ...., but not to share*
                                                                         so whose fault?
                                                    2.sharing conciously
                                                        ex. selfie, blogpost
                                                     ~reveal details of daily life
                                                    _without filtering
                                                    _without setting limit of access

                                                    3.**syncing onto ICLOUD/GOOGLE is not over-sharing
                                                        _losing hardware/mobile device: security problem
                                                        _meant to be private and safe.FAULT: not well developed security system?
                                ~non-personal: organizations/company
                                                          ex. sharing events of them
                                                        _maybe one does not mean much, but would-be attacker would gather all the informations from these social media and get important contents of them.

Summary-The Perlis of Over-sharing

In the article "The Perlis of Over-sharing", Emm(2014) asserts that the precautions should be taken to prevent personal information from leakage. He explains, we might focus too much on the Internet's convenience and neglect the danger of sharing unnecessary events online. Emm stresses that over-sharing might not only cause personal consequences, but will also threaten the organization we work for. The author also states that we might be in low-guard when using mobile devices as they are not cybercriminals' preys. In short, we should be cautious when making use of Internet.

David. E. (2014, March 21). The perils of over-sharing in social networks. Huffpost Tech. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/