One of the more common themes in Hollywood is the notion that there is some secret authority network watching our movements and controlling what happens to us. The Matrix trilogy suggested that just about all of us were plugged into an artificial system of interaction that a shadowy Architect had put together, as a nefarious substitute for genuine existence. The Adjustment Bureau featured a series of agents of Fate who run around with Moleskine notebooks that automatically update as people move forward in time, trying to keep the Master Plan intact. We enjoy stories like these, in part because we wonder whether or not our destiny is planned for us, and in part because of the fear that this sort of authority would create. However, in real life, the idea that someone is watching all of our movements creates hostility and anger, and learning that Facebook is tracking its users’ online movement, even when those users are not logged into Facebook, Because this tracking took place without explicit user consent, without informing users of the practice, and because it potentially exposed users to identity theft and other data loss, it is wrong for Facebook to track user browsing when the user is not logged into the Facebook site.
Analysis Using Rationale
First of all, it is clear that Facebook user cookies were tracked without the consent of those users. Many Facebook users have found out about the tracking that has come with the “Timeline” feature and have sent messages to their friends about this tracking – and how to turn it off. The solution does not take long, but the fact is that tracking requires consent to be ethically (if not legally) acceptable, and Facebook did not seek that consent from its users. David Vaile, the executive director of the Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre and UNSW, called this a “breathtaking and audacious grab for whole life data.” Going even further, Vaile said that Facebook in fact has a malicious agenda of trying to “normalize gross and unsafe overexposure” (Moses, 2011). By making this more acceptable to the average consumer, Facebook can gain more revenue from its advertisers by promising a more accurate profile of its users. However, by doing this without user consent, Facebook is using information that, while technically not only the user’s, is certainly not Facebook’s to take without permission.
Not only did Facebook not get user consent to track cookies outside of the application website, the company did not even inform users of the practice. Instead, while it did create a way for users to stop the tracking, Facebook neither informed users of the practice nor gave them instructions for disabling it. The concept known internally at Facebook as “Zuck’s Law,” which suggests that consumers becoming comfortable sharing twice as much information through the Internet each year (Moses, 2011) has brought Facebook a considerable boost in overall value. As analyst Eden Zoller indicates, it is Facebook’s goal to become “the premier platform on which people experience, organize and share digital entertainment” (Moses, 2011). While that is an admirable goal, it is wrong to attain that goal by tracking user information in a sneaky way.
As with any information that is available online, there is always a risk that secure information will become compromised. By tracking user information through browser use, there is the possibility that the data that Facebook collects could become compromised, potentially threatening the online security and even the identities of users involved. This risk could be tangible, in the form of the expenses that go along with identity theft, or intangible, in the form of spam and harassment that could come if the data falls into the hands of scam artists. While Facebook, again, does have an admirable business model and ultimate goal, it is wrong to use potentially harmful means to achieve that goal.
There are opponents of this line of thinking. After all, Facebook has created a way for users to turn off the tracking – or users could just use Chrome to surf Facebook, and Firefox or IE to surf the rest of the web. The fact that users haven’t taken advantage of these opportunities isn’t Facebook’s fault. However, the fact that still remains that, because the information belongs to the users initially, it is Facebook’s ethical duty to inform them that it is screening that data.
Other opponents would say that Facebook’s intent was merely commercial, not malicious. There are decades of tort law, though, that argue that intent is not necessary to create liability or harm. Because Facebook’s actions are creating potential harm, intent is not necessary to make this sort of tracking unacceptable.
One final objection is the notion that consent by the user is not a legal necessity when the user is working on an unsecured wireless network, and that it is not within Facebook’s responsibilities to safeguard these networks. However, just because information is exposed does not mean that it is right to take it.
Analysis Using Classical Ethical Theory
Turning to classical ethical theory, Kant might fall on the side of Facebook on this case. Because motive and intent are important for Kantian ethics, and it is difficult to prove malicious intent on Facebook’s part, Kant might wonder why there is such a hue and cry about a practice by a website that people willingly join – and join for free. It only makes sense that a for-profit website that offers free memberships will have to make its money somewhere, and adding different practices that may not harm the consumer at all do not go against Kant’s notions of intent and motive.
Consequentialists might fall more on the side of the user, though. While Facebook may indeed benefit financially from this situation, it is also true that other consequences involve unexpected exposure of ostensibly private information. Even if this does not cause tangible harm, the fact that a possibility of harm has been created is a negative consequence. As a result, consequentialists would argue against this practice by Facebook.
Conclusion
Tracking cookies is an important part of revenue generation for websites. However, it is unethical for Facebook to track member movements without their knowledge and consent. If Facebook wants to continue to do this, it should develop a way to secure that knowledge and consent first, and to disable that tracking for people who do not want to allow it. As a private company, it has the right to bar people who do not agree from membership; however, it is more important for the company to establish the option, from an ethical point of view.
Works Cited
Moses, A. (2011). Facebook tracks you even after logging out. The Sydney Morning
Herald 26 September 2011. Web. Retrieved 11 January 2012 from
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/facebook-tracks-you-even-
after-logging-out-20110926-1ksfk.html
