In the contemporary digital world, social media has taken over several lives of people, mainly social media users, making them feel insecure about the information they share through these online communication channels. This emerging new phenomenon of engaging in social media presents significant risks associated with the privacy of personal information due to increased levels of leakages involving personal sensitive information. In particular, the databases used by social media firms are at risk of these leakages because the social media firms do not run updated databases, leading to leakages of private data and information of the users. For instance, in a report published by Forbes magazine, the personal data of approximately 87 million Facebook users was leaked by the Cambridge Analytica Leak from the firm’s database due to ineffective control of its databases (Chaykowski 1). Even though the data leakages are causing increased mistrust among social media users, the respective social media firms are not trying to resolve this challenge. In this context, this essay contends that in the contemporary digital age, social media companies present significant privacy threats to personal information because of a lack of control of shared information between different social media databases, the lack of working together by social media platforms to regulate databases from authorized storage, access and use of private information of users and because of the absence of implementing appropriate structures of governance and responsibility in addressing the issues voiced by users concerning data leakages.
The problem of data leakages from social media databases is primarily caused by a need for more efforts by the respective social media firms to help resolve this challenge by regulating data shared with third-party entities. In particular, one of the reasons that cause leakage of private data from social media databases includes lack of prevention of use and access to personal information like emails and phone numbers by third-party users offered access to these databases. In support of this contention, Chaykowski showed that Facebook’s private data leakage was a result of allowing access to the use of the users’ email addresses and phone numbers to the Russian-backed entities that aimed to spread political division across the United States during the 2016 US general elections (1). In this context, data was extensively leaked through the Cambridge Analytical Leak, resulting in the widespread leakage of approximately eighty-seven million Facebook users’ private information, including their phone numbers and electronic mail addresses. Additionally, Chaykowski showed that data from nearly 50 million Facebook users during the previous year was inappropriately shared with the Cambridge Analytica (1). This statement highlights the lack of efforts by social media to regulate data sharing with third parties, resulting in the leakages of their user’s private information from their databases to third-party users. Therefore, the need for more efforts in regulating data shared with third parties by the respective social media platforms contributes to the challenge of privacy concerns associated with the leakage of private information from the sites’ databases.
Data leakage from social media databases results from a lack of working together by the respective social media sites to control private data sharing between different social media sites. Cerruto et al.’s study showed that information frequently available on social media networking sites like Facebook includes information concerning phone numbers, dates of birth, email addresses, and training and education information (18). Third parties or hackers can easily access this information, making it vulnerable to potential privacy risks. Moreover, privatized information in one social media channel like Facebook can be retrieved by other channels like LinkedIn, such as information concerning email addresses (Cerruto et al. 19). In this context, data from one database of any given social media platform can be easily retrieved in another social media communication channel by individuals aiming to cause harming using that information. This evidence suggests a need for more cohesion between social media communication platforms in working together to address the challenge of data leaks through social media databases.
Data breaches and leakages from respective social media platforms are also associated with a need for the respective social media companies’ efforts to implement governance structures and responsibility in addressing the issues voiced by users concerning data leakages. In this context, Cheng et al. found that social media firms like Twitter reflect ineffective information responsibility and governance by neglecting to address voiced concerns involving regulating existing data protection mechanisms and access by third-party vendors (9). This contention implies that the current leakage of private information from social media databases results from a need for more efficient social media responsiveness in dealing with the challenge of the respective social media platforms. Moreover, social media platforms embody a social and moral benevolence approach, in which they act in favor of others, such as third parties, for the advancement of their necessary and legitimate interests, usually by using collection intersection techniques that preserve local features and which allows modification of sensitive data rendering it at risk for of access to third parties (Cheng et al. 8). Therefore, the negligence of social media companies’ efforts to implement structures of governance and responsibility in addressing the issues voiced by users concerning data leakages is a significant challenge contributing to the data privacy problem associated with social media communication channels.
Even though the problem of data leakages through databases presents a significant concern for social media users, critics contend that social media companies use security and privacy setting features to deter access to personal information by third parties. For instance, Nawaz et al. argued that social media users like Instagram and Facebook allow users to hide their posts from third-party access and attackers by preventing access to friends’ lists, dislikes, or comments (15). This evidence is used to demonstrate the effort of social media networking sites to control access to private information by other online social media users. Additionally, the authors indicate that social media platforms use authentication mechanisms for preventing authorized access of confidential information by other users, such as Captcha and sending verification codes to authenticate user information to social media users (Nawaz et al. 16). This statement supports the fact that social media users use personal data of clients like phone numbers to authenticate their social media accounts. However, this approach needs to explain social media firms’ efforts to protect their databases from accessing their users’ private information like emails and phone numbers by third-party entities like enterprises and other social media networking sites.
In conclusion, this essay shows that the issue of private data leakages from databases arises from the social media companies’ lack of control of shared information between different social media databases, lack of working together by social media platforms to regulate databases from authorized storage, access, and use of private information and the absence of implementing appropriate structures of governance and responsibility in addressing the issues voiced by users concerning data leakages. In this context, all social media platforms must unite and develop universal strategies for sharing information between respective databases to address the challenge of private information leakages. Additionally, social media platforms should implement appropriate governance structures and responsibility for reporting and managing their individual social media users’ concerns about confidential information protection. Finally, social media users should not tailor their data protection and privacy policies to end-users only but to other third parties such as Cambridge Analytica, which renders this information vulnerable to external online attackers not associated with these enterprises.
Works Cited
Cerruto, Francesca, et al. “Social network data analysis to highlight privacy threats in sharing data.” Journal of Big Data 9.1 (2022): 19. https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=ff113b12-4036-4ffd-93d6-6c59f046528f%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=edsdoj.77bf412d39b2439499675d8663109a7b&db=edsdoj Accessed 9 Nov. 2023.
Chaykowski, Kathleen. “Facebook says data on 87 million people may have been shared in Cambridge analytica leak.” Forbes, 4 Apr. 2018, https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/viewarticle/render?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bJNt6uvSrCk63nn5Kx94um%2bSa%2blt0ewprBLnq64TLGwr02exss%2b8ujfhvHX4Yzn5eyB4rOrTq%2bnsEu2rrJPpOnnfLvbtEnk2eJ6r6PiSLLcq0y3r7NFttjjTKuv4323rK9Qs9uzUd%2b28H3i3%2fE%2b6tfsf7vb7D7i2Lt68t6kjN%2fdu1nMnN%2bGu6ewULavsFCyqKR%2b7ejrefKz5I3q4vJ99uqkf%2fPb8Yy7yvCN4wAA&vid=10&sid=e61fcdb1-d04f-4995-8be4-9ee96185e59a@redis Accessed 9 Nov. 2023.
Cheng, Long, Fang Liu, and Danfeng Yao. “Enterprise data breach: causes, challenges, prevention, and future directions.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 7.5 (2017): e1211. https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/viewarticle/render?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bJNt6uvSrCk63nn5Kx94um%2bSa%2blt0ewprBLnq64TLGwr02exss%2b8ujfhvHX4Yzn5eyB4rOrTq%2bnsEu2rrJPpOnnfLvbtEnk2eJ6r6PiSLLcq0y3r7NFttjjTKuv4323rK9Qs9uzUd%2b28H3i3%2fE%2b6tfsf7vb7D7i2Lt94unteeec8nnls79mpNfsVePa8Yff36yH7KexTbausk%2burbI%2b5OXwhd%2fqu37z4uqM4%2b7yPuXr44vys9KK89sA&vid=11&sid=e61fcdb1-d04f-4995-8be4-9ee96185e59a@redis Accessed 9 Nov. 2023.
Nawaz, Naeem A., et al. “A comprehensive review of security threats and solutions for the online social networks industry.” PeerJ Computer Science 9 (2023): e1143. https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/viewarticle/render?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bJNt6uvSrCk63nn5Kx94um%2bSa%2blt0ewprBLnq64TLGwr02exss%2b8ujfhvHX4Yzn5eyB4rOrTq%2bnsEu2rrJPpOnnfLvbtEnk2eJ6r6PiSLLcq0y3r7NFttjjTKuv4323rK9Qs9uzUd%2b28H3i3%2fE%2b6tfsf7vb7D7i2Lt94unih%2bic8nnls79mpNfsVePa8Xzt4KxQ4ty1S%2bCvs3uxrbJM4Krgereq4k20quR%2btKnjTq7b3z7k5fCF3%2bq7fvPi6ozj7vI%2b5evji%2fKz0orz2wAA&vid=12&sid=e61fcdb1-d04f-4995-8be4-9ee96185e59a@redis Accessed 9 Nov. 2023.
write