Yesterday my family distributed a news article about the role social networks play in burglaries. I’ve provided the link here for any reader’s benefit. I started to reply via email to this, but I realized it really was a bigger response than that, so I decided to write it here, for the benefit of anyone who happens to find it interesting.
The link: http://www.mediabistro.com/alltwitter/social-burglars_b14237
DISCLAIMER
To a degree, it could be said just by posting online, I’ve increased the likelyhood of a stranger stalking me, or burglarizing my home, or otherwise invading my privacy. After all, my name is publicly noted and I’m sure anyone could “Google” me to find out more about me if they so desired. But more on that, later.
Also, note that I’ve broken down my thoughts here into digestible bits.
THE STUDY
While I don’t refute the study, I think the findings of 50 admitted criminals asked their opinion about social networking risk doesn’t seem very reliable evidence of anything other than the ubiquitousness of social networking.
In fact, the real message I feel we should have taken away from the study itself is that burglaries are typically repeat incidences or otherwise performed by people who already know you. Also a big part of the findings – that even a basic alarm system would be a deterrent.
So I will concede that if you “friend” everyone you meet, even when you hardly know them, you are definitely exposing yourself to risk. I’ll also concede that social networks that are more “public” such as twitter, foursquare and others expore you more than those that have privacy controls such as Facebook, and the study provides no distinction – so it’s easily mis-read that people commonly use Facebook to burglarize homes.
If you read the study, it also states that Google Street View was a common tool used by criminals. This makes sense, as you can “see” the home from the street without ever having to be on the street. Considering the study was made in the UK, that’s not much surprise that Google Street View would be attacked as European governments have for some time been fighting Google Street View for anti-privacy reasons. For years though, even before Street View, you could also see the home from a satellite, and I’m sure that also helped burglars who choose to use digital technology to “case the place”.
THE POINT
These new “social networking sites” are no more evil or dangerous than rock and roll was in the 50s, or drive-ins, or underage drinking. Nefarious activity could be attributed to all of these things, as well as various levels of personal risk, depending on how you look at it. Social network is just that new thing that scares people, because we’ve all become accustomed to locking our doors and hiding our identities because we live in such a dangerous world. Being smart and savvy isn’t new, and neither is being ignorant or oblivious. Should we ban automobiles because people drive drunk? There can be no good without evil, and no evil without good – this is fundamental, so all we can do is make informed decisions and be smart.
My opinion is that what makes the world dangerous is lack of communication. The less we talk to one another, the more dangerous our society becomes. I’ve spoken online and anonymously in the past to someone who hated me and my kind, solely because that’s what they were taught, or otherwise picked up from their environment. In a few minutes, I was able to communicate with this person at no risk to myself, a conversation such as that would have been impossible in person. The result of the conversation was that I was able to see their point of view and they mine, and while I do not know whether the experience changed their life it enriched my own.
THE REAL IMPACT ON SOCIETY
I don’t think social networking sites are tearing apart the fabric of society. Rather I’d argue that in nearly every way, it’s these social networking products that are rebuilding it, or otherwise holding it together. Education is social now – Wikipedia being as popular as Google for finding out information, and often even more reliable, because Wikipedia does not advertise and thus is not motivated to create content that generates “keywords” for search discovery purposes.
Yesterday Steve Jobs passed away. Hundreds of millions of people expressed their feelings about the man in a nearly simultaneous wave of social networking posts minutes after the news was heard. Prior to twitter, and the other social networking tools, news such as this would have been spread by “authorities” of information, and the reaction of real people would have been “reported” by a reliable source. News across the world would have spread over weeks and not minutes. It was a major event – a man died who was a public figure, a business mogul of his day, akin to a Thomas Edison or John Rockefeller, and we all knew minutes after it occurred.
Try to comprehend for a moment hundreds of millions of people in a matter minutes sent their thoughts about the event into the digital ether and social networks captured that moment in history.
When I was in Europe recently, I tried to check-in wherever I could. I wanted to share my photos, my experience, and my feelings about the places I was, and the things I was seeing. There are many people, including close friends and family that will never experience these things for themselves, and just as I have been able to travel to lands far away or see events where I was not present from my own friends, I am eager to share these things with the world.
THE IMPORTANCE OF SHARING
If we didn’t share, there would be no books, and no blogs, and no photos, and no movies, and no stories… If we didn’t share, there would be no knowledge, no science, no insight and no inspiration. Sharing is the basis for our entire existence, so there’s no reason to be afraid of it, simply because sharing your ideas, thoughts or opinions may expose you to others. This is true of anyone who shares. If you open a book, it gives you the author’s name. It gives you where they live, sometimes even a photo of their home. Google fills in the rest of the details. You can choose to follow this person online, and if they so choose to share it, find out when they are out of town, and then rob them. But is that reason for them to stop doing what they they do?
FINAL THOUGHTS
Because a few people decide to use technology for bad purposes, we shouldn’t stop using it. There can be no good without bad, and no bad without good, but when it comes to the internet – and the moral choices it presents… the good inevitably outweighs the bad or put another way, the cream eventually rises the top. As technology evolves and brings us closer together, there’s going to be more people wanting to use it for harm, so protect yourself by arming yourself with knowledge (such as not to click links in email without knowing what they are) and using an alarm or other deterrent (such as virus checkers, etc.), but don’t be afraid of what’s happening around you – embrace it, because it’s not going to stop evolving anytime soon.
Posted by Jim 

