![Social networking sites
Research performed by psychologists from Edinburgh Napier University indicated that
Facebook adds stress to users' lives. Causes of stress included fear of missing important
social information, fear of offending contacts, discomfort or guilt from rejecting user requests
or deleting unwanted contacts, the pressure to be entertaining, and having to use appropriate
etiquette for different types of friends. Many people who started using Facebook for positive
purposes have found that the website has negatively impacted their actual lives.
Misleading campaigns
In May 2011 emails were sent to journalists and bloggers making critical allegations about
Google's privacy policies; however it was later discovered that the anti-Google campaign,
conducted by PR giant Burson-Marsteller, was paid for by Facebook in what CNN referred to
as "a new level skullduggery" and which Daily Beast called a "clumsy smear." While taking
responsibility for the campaign, Burson-Marsteller said it should not have agreed to keep its
client's (Facebook's) identity a secret. "Whatever the rationale, this was not at all standard
operating procedure and is against our policies, and the assignment on those terms should
have been declined," it said in a statement.
Student-related issues
Student privacy concerns
Students who post illegal or otherwise inappropriate material have faced disciplinary action
from their universities, including expulsion. Others posting libellous content relating to
faculty have also faced disciplinary action.
Effect on higher education
On January 23, 2006, The Chronicle of Higher Education continued an ongoing national
debate on social networks with an opinion piece written by Michael Bugeja, director of the
Journalism School at Iowa State University, entitled "Facing the Facebook".[145] Bugeja,
author of the Oxford University Press text Interpersonal Divide (2005), quoted
representatives of the American Association of University Professors and colleagues in
higher education to document the distraction of students using Facebook and other social
networks during class and at other venues in the wireless campus. Bugeja followed up on
January 26, 2007 in The Chronicle with an article titled "Distractions in the Wireless
Classroom",[146] quoting several educators across the country who were banning laptops in
the classroom. Similarly, organisations such as the National Association for Campus
Activities,[147] the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,[148]
and others have hosted seminars and presentations to discuss ramifications of students' use of
Facebook and other social networking systems.
The EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative has also released a brief pamphlet entitled "7 Things
You Should Know About Facebook" aimed at higher education professionals that "describes
what [Facebook] is, where it is going, and why it matters to teaching and learning".
13](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/main-120418082600-phpapp01/85/social-networking-13-320.jpg)
social networking
- 1. Social networking sites Social networking sites SUBMITTED BY: AMEEN PI 1
- 2. Social networking sites CONTENTS TITLE PAGE INTRUDUCTION 1 DEFINITION OF SOCIAL NETWORKING 1 HISTORY OF SOCIAL NETWORKING 3 NETWORK AND NETWORKING STRUCTURE 7 BENIFITS 8 DISADVANTAGES 9 PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS 10 12 SOCIAL NETWORKING THREATS 14 CONCLUSION REFERENCES 15 2
- 3. Social networking sites INTRODUCTION Since their introduction, social network sites (SNSs) such as MySpace, Facebook, Cyworld, and Bebo have attracted millions of users, many of whom have integrated these sites into their daily practices. As of this writing, there are hundreds of SNSs, with various technological affordances, supporting a wide range of interests and practices. While their key technological features are fairly consistent, the cultures that emerge around SNSs are varied. Most sites support the maintenance of pre-existing social networks, but others help strangers connect based on shared interests, political views, or activities. Some sites cater to diverse audiences, while others attract people based on common language or shared racial, sexual, religious, or nationality-based identities. Sites also vary in the extent towhich they incorporate new information and communication tools, such as mobile connectivity, blogging, and photo/video-sharing. Scholars from disparate fields have examined SNSs in order to understand the practices, implications, culture, and meaning of the sites, as well as users' engagement with them. This special theme section of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication brings together a unique collection of articles that analyze a wide spectrum of social network sites using various methodological techniques, heoretical traditions, and analytic approaches. By collecting these articles in this issue, our goal is to showcase some of the interdisciplinary scholarship around these sites. The purpose of this introduction is to provide a conceptual, historical, and scholarly context for the articles in this collection. We begin by defining what constitutes a social network site and then present one perspective on the historical development of SNSs, drawing from personal interviews and public accounts of sites and their changes over time. Following this, we review recent scholarship on SNSs and attempt to contextualize and highlight key works. We conclude with a description of the articles included in this special Social Network Sites: A Definition We define social network sites as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. While we use the term "social network site" to describe this phenomenon, the term "social networking sites" also appears in public discourse, and the two terms are often used interchangeably. We chose not to employ the term "networking" for two reasons: emphasis 3
- 4. Social networking sites and scope. "Networking" emphasizes relationship initiation, often between strangers. While networking is possible on these sites, it is not the primary practice on many of them, nor is it what differentiates them from other forms of computer-mediated communication (CMC).What makes social network sites unique is not that they allow individuals to meet strangers, but rather that they enable users to articulate and make visible their social networks. This can result in connections between individuals that would not otherwise be made, but that is often not the goal, and these meetings are frequently between "latent ties"(Haythornthwaite, 2005) who share some offline connection. On many of the large SNSs, participants are not necessarily "networking" or looking to meet new people; instead, they are primarily communicating with people who are already a part of their extended social network. To emphasize this articulated social network as a critical organizing feature of these sites, we label them social network sites." While SNSs have implemented a wide variety of technical features, their backbone consists of visible profiles that display an articulated list of Friends 1 who are also users of the system. Profiles are unique pages where one can "type oneself into being" (Sundén, 2003, p. 3). After joining an SNS, an individual is asked to fill out forms containing a series of questions. The profile is generated using the answers to these questions, which typically include descriptors such as age, location, interests, and an "about me" section. Most sites also encourage users to upload a profile photo. Some sites allow users to enhance their profiles by adding multimedia content or modifying their profile's look and feel. Others, such as Facebook, allow users to add modules ("Applications") that enhance their profile. The visibility of a profile varies by site and according to user discretion. By default, profiles on Friendster and Tribe.net are crawled by search engines, making them visible to anyone, regardless of whether or not the viewer has an account. Alternatively, LinkedIn controls what a viewer may see based on whether she or he has a paid account. Sites like MySpace allow users to choose whether they want their profile to be public or "Friends only." Facebook takes a different approach—by default, users who are part of the same "network" can view each other's profiles, unless a profile owner has decided to deny permission to those in their network. Structural variations around visibility and access are one of the primary ways that SNSs differentiate themselves from each other. After joining a social network site, users are prompted to identify others in the system with whom they have a relationship. The label for these relationships differs depending on the site—popular terms include "Friends," "Contacts," and "Fans." Most SNSs require bi- directional confirmation for Friendship, but some do not. These one-directional ties are sometimes labeled as "Fans" or "Followers," but many sites call these Friends as well. The term "Friends" can be misleading, because the connection does not necessarily mean friendship in the everyday vernacular sense, and the reasons people connect are varied (boyd, 2006a). 4
- 5. Social networking sites The public display of connections is a crucial component of SNSs. The Friends list contains links to each Friend's profile, enabling viewers to traverse the network graph by clicking through the Friends lists. On most sites, the list of Friends is visible to anyone who is permitted to view the profile, although there are exceptions. For instance, some MySpace users have hacked their profiles to hide the Friends display, and LinkedIn allows users to opt out of displaying their network. Most SNSs also provide a mechanism for users to leave messages on their Friends' profiles. This feature typically involves leaving "comments," although sites employ various labels for this feature. In addition, SNSs often have a private messaging feature similar to webmail. While both private essages and comments are popular on most of the major SNSs, they are not universally available. Not all social network sites began as such. QQ started as a Chinese instant messaging service, LunarStorm as a community site, Cyworld as a Korean discussion forum tool, and Skyrock (formerly Skyblog) was a French blogging service before adding SNS features. A History of Social Network Sites The Early Years According to the definition above, the first recognizable social network site launched in 1997. SixDegrees.com allowed users to create profiles, list their Friends and, beginning in 1998, surf the Friends lists. Each of these features existed in some form before SixDegrees, of course. Profiles existed on most major dating sites and many community sites. AIM and ICQ buddy lists supported lists of Friends, although those Friends were not visible to others. Classmates.com allowed people to affiliate with their high school or college and surf the network for others who were also affiliated, but users could not create profiles or list Friends until years later. SixDegrees was the first to combine these features. SixDegrees promoted itself as a tool to help people connect with and send messages to others. While SixDegrees attracted millions of users, it failed to become a sustainable business and, in 2000, the service closed. Looking back, its founder believes that SixDegrees was simply ahead of its time (A. Weinreich, personal communication, July 11, 2007). While people were already flocking to the Internet, most did not have extended networks of friends who were online. Early adopters complained that there was little to do after accepting Friend requests, and most users were not interested in meeting strangers. 1997 to 2001 From 1997 to 2001, a number of community tools began supporting various combinations of profiles and publicly articulated Friends. AsianAvenue, BlackPlanet, and MiGente allowed 5
- 6. Social networking sites users to create personal, professional, and dating profiles—users could identify Friends on their personal profiles without seeking approval for those connections (O.Wasow, personal communication, August 16, 2007). Likewise, shortly after its launch in1999, LiveJournal listed one-directional connections on user pages. LiveJournal's creatorsuspects that he fashioned these Friends after instant messaging buddy lists (B. Fitzpatricpersonal communication, June 15, 2007)—on LiveJournal, people mark others as Friendsto follow their journals and manage privacy settings. The Korean virtual worlds site Cyworld was started in 1999 and added SNS features in 2001, independent of these othersites (see Kim & Yun, this issue). Likewise, when the Swedish web community LunarStorm refashioned itself as an SNS in 2000, it contained Friends lists, guestbooks, and diary pages (D. Skog, personal communication, September 24, 2007). The next wave of SNSs began when Ryze.com was launched in 2001 to help people leverage their business networks. Ryze's founder reports that he first introduced the site to his friends—primarily members of the San Francisco business and technology community, including the entrepreneurs and investors behind many future SNSs (A. Scott, personal communication, June 14, 2007). In particular, the people behind Ryze, Tribe.net, LinkedIn, and Friendster were tightly entwined personally and professionally. They believed that they could support each other without competing (Festa, 2003). In the end, Ryze never acquired mass popularity, Tribe.net grew to attract a passionate niche user base, LinkedIn became a powerful business service, and Friendster became the most significant, if only as "one of the biggest disappointments in Internet history" 6
- 7. Social networking sites Timeline of the launch dates of many major SNSs and dates when community sites re- launched with SNS features. A Global Phenomenon While MySpace attracted the majority of media attention in the U.S. and abroad, SNSs were proliferating and growing in popularity worldwide. Friendster gained traction in the Pacific Islands, Orkut became the premier SNS in Brazil before growing rapidly in India (Madhavan, 2007), Mixi attained widespread adoption in Japan, LunarStorm took off in Sweden, Dutch users embraced Hyves, Grono captured Poland, Hi5 was adopted in smaller countries in Latin America, South America, and Europe, and Bebo became very popular in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia. Additionally, previously popular communication and community services began implementing SNS features. The Chinese QQ 7
- 8. Social networking sites instant messaging service instantly became the largest SNS worldwide when it added profiles and made friends visible (McLeod, 2006), while the forum tool Cyworld cornered the Korean market by introducing homepages and buddies (Ewers, 2006). Blogging services with complete SNS features also became popular. In the U.S., blogging tools with SNS features, such as Xanga, LiveJournal, and Vox, attracted broad audiences. Skyrock reigns in France, and Windows Live Spaces dominates numerous markets worldwide, including in Mexico, Italy, and Spain. Although SNSs like QQ, Orkut, and Live Spaces are just as large as, if not larger than, MySpace, they receive little coverage in U.S. and English-speaking media, making it difficult to track their trajectories. Expanding Niche Communities Alongside these open services, other SNSs launched to support niche demographics before expanding to a broader audience. Unlike previous SNSs, Facebook was designed to support distinct college networks only. Facebook began in early 2004 as a Harvard-only SNS (Cassidy, 2006). To join, a user had to have a harvard.edu email address. As Facebook began supporting other schools, those users were also required to have university email addresses associated with those institutions, a requirement that kept the site relatively closed and contributed to users' perceptions of the site as an intimate, private community. Beginning in September 2005, Facebook expanded to include high school students, professionals inside corporate networks, and, eventually, everyone. The change to open signup did not mean that new users could easily access users in closed networks—gaining access to corporate networks still required the appropriate .com address, while gaining access to high school networks required administrator approval. (As of this writing, only membership in regional networks requires no permission.) Unlike other SNSs, Facebook users are unable to make their full profiles public to all users. Another feature that differentiates Facebook is the ability for outside developers to build "Applications" which allow users to personalize their profiles and perform other tasks, such as compare movie preferences and chart travel histories. Impression Management Like other online contexts in which individuals are consciously able to construct an online representation of self—such as online dating profiles and MUDS—SNSs constitute an important research context for scholars investigating processes of impression management, self-presentation, and friendship performance. In one of the earliest academic articles on SNSs, boyd (2004) examined Friendster as a locus of publicly articulated social networks that allowed users to negotiate presentations of self and connect with others. Donath and boyd 8
- 9. Social networking sites (2004) extended this to suggest that "public displays of connection" serve as important identity signals that help people navigate the networked social world, in that an extended network may serve to validate identity information presented in profiles. While most sites encourage users to construct accurate representations of themselves,participants do this to varying degrees. Marwick (2005) found that users on three different SNSs had complex strategies for negotiating the rigidity of a prescribed "authentic" profile, while boyd (in press-b) examined the phenomenon of "Fakesters" and the ways in which profiles could never be "real." The extent to which portraits are authentic or playful varies across sites; both social and technological forces shape user practices. Skog (2005) found that the status feature on LunarStorm strongly influenced how people behaved and what they choose to reveal—profiles there indicate one's status as measured by activity (e.g., sending messages) and indicators of authenticity (e.g., using a "real" photo instead of a drawing). Another aspect of self-presentation is the articulation of friendship links, which serve as identity markers for the profile owner. Impression management is one of the reasons given by Friendster users for choosing particular friends (Donath & boyd, 2004). Recognizing this, Zinman and Donath (2007) noted that MySpace spammers leverage people's willingness to connect to interesting people to find targets for their spam. Networks and Network Structure Social network sites also provide rich sources of naturalistic behavioral data. Profile and linkage data from SNSs can be gathered either through the use of automated collection techniques or through datasets provided directly from the company, enabling network analysis researchers to explore large-scale patterns of friending, usage, and other visible indicators (Hogan, in press), and continuing an analysis trend that started with examinations of blogs and other websites. For instance, Golder, Wilkinson, and Huberman (2007) examined an anonymized dataset consisting of 362 million messages exchanged by over four million Facebook users for insight into Frending and messaging activities. Lampe, Ellison, and Steinfield (2007) explored the relationship between profile elements and number of Facebook friends, finding that profile fields that reduce transaction costs and are harder to falsify are most likely to be associated with larger number of friendship links. These kinds of data also lend themselves well to analysis through network visualization (Adamic, Buyukkokten, & Adar, 2003; Heer & boyd, 2005; Paolillo & Wright, 2005). SNS researchers have also studied the network structure of Friendship. Analyzing the roles people played in the growth of Flickr and Yahoo! 360's networks, Kumar, Novak, and Tomkins (2006) argued that there are passive members, inviters, and linkers "who fully participate in the social evolution of the network" (p. 1). Scholarship concerning LiveJournal's network has included a Friendship classification scheme (Hsu, Lancaster, Paradesi, & Weniger, 2007), an analysis of the role of language in the topology of Friendship 9
- 10. Social networking sites (Herring et al., 2007), research into the importance of geography in Friending (Liben-Nowell, Novak, Kumar, Raghavan, and Tomkins, 2005), and studies on what motivates people to join particular communities (Backstrom, Huttenlocher, Kleinberg, & Lan, 2006). Based on Orkut data, Spertus, Sahami, and Buyukkokten (2005) identified a topology of users through their membership in certain communities; they suggest that sites can use this to recommend additional communities of interest to users. Finally, Liu, Maes, and Davenport (2006) argued that Friend connections are not the only network structure worth investigating. They examined the ways in which the performance of tastes (favorite music, books, film, etc.) constitutes an alternate network structure, which they call a "taste fabric." What benefits can you have? No one can deny that despite all those negative opinions about Social Networks they do have a strong impact on us and taking into consideration how fast their popularity is growing, it is not difficult to predict that this influence will become even more perceivable in the nearest future. So once we can do nothing but watch the development of Social Networks we had better look for and find the advantages they possess rather than point out their negative sides all the time (don’t be so skeptical, they do have positive sides). In general the main vocation of a Social Network is to be a virtual platform where people can communicate and share information with their friends. As you can see there is no danger in this mission, the vice versa. Nevertheless, nowadays such kind of websites has gone far from their initial destination and that is the main reason why people are ambiguous about their usefulness. In any case Social websites have fulfilled humans’ long – standing dream that is the opportunity for quick and reliable information. In addition they enable people to create and strengthen relationships. Social Networks join people with common interests under one roof and makes the communication much easier especially for those who have difficulties in interacting with people face to face. However you should always remember that once you enter the world of Social Networking it will become rather difficult for you to get out of it. So be so prudent in order not to be caught in the net of Social networking. Social networking is a recent invention that has the Internet still at the edge of its seat due to its popularity with people. This is mostly because it really is for the people. Bringing every kind of social group together in one place and letting them interact is really a big thing indeed. Everything about it lies on the advantages and disadvantages of social networking, and what it can do for you. Low Costs Definitely, it's cheaper to use online social networking for both personal and business use because most of it is usually free. While personal use is rather simple for anyone, the business functions are underestimated by many. In a social networking site, you can scout out potential customers and target markets with just a few clicks and keystrokes, adding a boost to your usual advertisements and promotional strategies. It lets you learn about their likes and dislikes, which is tremendous. If you want to fine tune your business, then this is the way to go, whether on a budget or not. 10
- 11. Social networking sites Builds Credibility You definitely can gain the customers' confidence if you can connect to them on both a personal and professional level. Despite having to do a bit of work, it definitely pays off as you can be tapped for an offer if someone catches wind of your products or services. As long as you don't pursue them too aggressively, you will do well here. Connections You are friends with people who have other friends, and so on. There is potential in such a common situation. By using a social networking site, you can do what you can and get connected with these people to form a web of connections that can give you leverage if you play your cards right. As long as you give as well as you receive, then they will most likely stick with you. These connections are definitely valuable in the long run. DISADVANTAGES Lack of Anonymity You are putting out information about your name, location, age, gender, and many other types of information that you may not want to let others know. Most people would say be careful, but no one can be certain at any given time. As long as people can know who you exactly are, then some can find ways to do you in. Scams and Harassment There is a potential for failure of security in both personal and business context. While many sites apply certain measures to keep any of these cases of harassment, cyber-stalking, online scams, and identity theft to an absolute minimum, you still may never know. Time Consuming If this is not your kind of thing, that it would just be a waste of time for you. The key to social networking is that it is supposed to be fun, whether you are just doing it for kicks or clicking around for business purposes. That should be reasonable enough for anyone, but there are those people who don't see the point. For them, it can be a disadvantage. Now there is something to really think about. Nothing is without a blemish, but those of this type of networking shouldn't really be that much of a concern regarding your safety. As long as you go along without making big mistakes, then it is all good. You can take advantage of the Internet phenomenon that continues up to this day. Once you understand the advantages and disadvantages of social networking, then you can cruise through without fail. 11
- 12. Social networking sites Privacy concerns In August 2007, the code used to dynamically generate Facebook's home and search page as visitors browse the site was accidentally made public, according to leading internet news sites A configuration problem on a Facebook server caused the PHP code to be displayed instead of the web page the code should have created, raising concerns about how secure private data on the site was. A visitor to the site copied, published and later removed the code from his web forum, claiming he had been served legal notice by Facebook.Facebook's response was quoted by the site that broke the story: “ A small fraction of the code that displays Facebook web pages was exposed to a small number of users due to a single misconfigured web server that was fixed immediately. It was not a security breach and did not compromise user data in any way. Because the code that was released powers only Facebook user interface, it offers no useful insight into the inner workings of Facebook. The reprinting of this code violates several laws and we ask that people not distribute it further. ” In November, Facebook launched Beacon, a system (discontinued in September 2009 where third-party websites could include a script by Facebook on their sites, and use it to send information about the actions of Facebook users on their site to Facebook, prompting serious privacy concerns. Information such as purchases made and games played were published in the user's news feed. An informative notice about this action appeared on the third party site and gave the user the opportunity to cancel it, and the user could also cancel it on Facebook. Originally if no action was taken, the information was automatically published. On November 29 this was changed to require confirmation from the user before publishing each story gathered by Beacon. Photo recognition and face tagging Facebook enabled an automatic facial recognition feature in June 2011, called "Tag Suggestions". The feature compares newly uploaded photographs to those of the uploader's Facebook friends, in order to suggest photo tags. Facebook has defended the feature, saying users can disable it. Facebook introduced the feature in an opt-out basis European Union data-protection regulators said they would investigate the feature to see if it violated privacy rules. Psychological effects Envy Facebook has been criticized for making people envious and unhappy due to the constant exposure to positive yet unrepresentative highlights of their peers. Stress 12
- 13. Social networking sites Research performed by psychologists from Edinburgh Napier University indicated that Facebook adds stress to users' lives. Causes of stress included fear of missing important social information, fear of offending contacts, discomfort or guilt from rejecting user requests or deleting unwanted contacts, the pressure to be entertaining, and having to use appropriate etiquette for different types of friends. Many people who started using Facebook for positive purposes have found that the website has negatively impacted their actual lives. Misleading campaigns In May 2011 emails were sent to journalists and bloggers making critical allegations about Google's privacy policies; however it was later discovered that the anti-Google campaign, conducted by PR giant Burson-Marsteller, was paid for by Facebook in what CNN referred to as "a new level skullduggery" and which Daily Beast called a "clumsy smear." While taking responsibility for the campaign, Burson-Marsteller said it should not have agreed to keep its client's (Facebook's) identity a secret. "Whatever the rationale, this was not at all standard operating procedure and is against our policies, and the assignment on those terms should have been declined," it said in a statement. Student-related issues Student privacy concerns Students who post illegal or otherwise inappropriate material have faced disciplinary action from their universities, including expulsion. Others posting libellous content relating to faculty have also faced disciplinary action. Effect on higher education On January 23, 2006, The Chronicle of Higher Education continued an ongoing national debate on social networks with an opinion piece written by Michael Bugeja, director of the Journalism School at Iowa State University, entitled "Facing the Facebook".[145] Bugeja, author of the Oxford University Press text Interpersonal Divide (2005), quoted representatives of the American Association of University Professors and colleagues in higher education to document the distraction of students using Facebook and other social networks during class and at other venues in the wireless campus. Bugeja followed up on January 26, 2007 in The Chronicle with an article titled "Distractions in the Wireless Classroom",[146] quoting several educators across the country who were banning laptops in the classroom. Similarly, organisations such as the National Association for Campus Activities,[147] the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,[148] and others have hosted seminars and presentations to discuss ramifications of students' use of Facebook and other social networking systems. The EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative has also released a brief pamphlet entitled "7 Things You Should Know About Facebook" aimed at higher education professionals that "describes what [Facebook] is, where it is going, and why it matters to teaching and learning". 13
- 14. Social networking sites Some research on Facebook in higher education suggests that there may be some small educational benefits associated with student Facebook use, including improving engagement which is related to student retention. Furthermore, using technologies such as Facebook to connect with others can help college students be less depressed and cope with feelings of loneliness and homesickness. According to one case study, students surveyed who were regular Facebook users had, on average, lower grades than those who were not. Social networking threats. 1. Social networking worms: Social networking worms include Koobface, which has become, according to researchers, "the largest Web 2.0 botnet." While a multi-faceted threat like Koobface challenges the definition of "worm," it is specifically designed to propagate across social networks (e.g., Facebook, mySpace, Twitter, hi5, Friendster and Bebo), enlist more machines into its botnet, and hijack more accounts to send more spam to enlist more machines. All the while making money with the usual botnet business, including scareware and Russian dating services. 2. Phishing bait: Remember FBAction? The e-mail that lured you to sign into Facebook, hoping you don't pick up on the fbaction.net URL in the browser? Many Facebook users had their accounts compromised, and although it was only a "tiny fraction of a percent," when you realize Facebook has over 350 million users, it's still a significant number. To its credit, Facebook acted quickly, working to blacklist that domain, but lots of copycat efforts ensued (e.g., fbstarter.com). Facebook has since gotten rather adept at Whack-A-Mole. 3. Trojans: Social networks have become a great vector for trojans -- "click here" and you get: * Zeus -- a potent and popular banking Trojan that has been given new life by social networks. There have been several recent high-profile thefts blamed on Zeus, notably the Duanesburg Central School district in New York State late in 2009. * URL Zone -- is a similar banking Trojan, but even smarter, it can calculate the value of the victim's accounts to help decide the priority for the thief. 4. Data leaks: Social networks are all about sharing. Unfortunately, many users share a bit too much about the organization -- projects, products, financials, organizational changes, scandals, or other sensitive information. Even spouses sometimes over-share how much their significant other is working late on top-secret project, and a few too many of the details associated with said project. The resulting issues include the embarrassing, the damaging and the legal. 5. Shortened links: People use URL shortening services (e.g., bit.ly and tinyurl) to fit long URLs into tight spaces. They also do a nice job of obfuscating the link so it isn't immediately apparent to victims that they're clicking on a malware install, not a CNN video. These shortened links are easy to use and ubiquitous. Many of the Twitter clients will automatically shorten any link. And folks are used to seeing them. 14
- 15. Social networking sites 6. Botnets: Late last year, security researchers uncovered Twitter accounts being used as a command and control channel for a few botnets. The standard command and control channel is IRC, but some have used other applications, P2P file sharing in the case of Storm, and now, cleverly, twitter. Twitter is shutting these accounts down, but given the ease of access of infected machines to Twitter, this will continue. So Twitter will become expert at Whack-A- Mole too... 7. Advanced persistent threats: One of the key elements of advanced persistent threats (APT) is the gathering of intelligence of persons of interest (eg, executives, officers, high-net- worth individuals), for which social networks can be a treasure trove of data. Perpetrators of APTs use this information to further their threats, placing more intelligence gathering (eg, malware, Trojans), and then gaining access to sensitive systems. So while not directly related to APTs, social networks are a data source. Less exotic, but no less important to individuals is the fact that information on your whereabouts and activities can give more run-of-the-mill criminals an opportunity. 8. Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF): While it isn't a specific kind of threat, more like a technique used to spread a sophisticated social networking worm, CSRF attacks exploit the trust a social networking application has in a logged-in user's browser. So as long as the social network application isn't checking the referrer header, it's easy for an attack to "share" an image in a user's event stream that other users might click on to catch/spread the attack. 9. Impersonation: The social network accounts of several prominent individuals with thousands of followers have been hacked (most recently, a handful of British politicians). Furthermore, several impersonators have gathered hundreds and thousands of followers on Twitter, and then embarrassed the folks they impersonate (eg, CNN, Jonathan Ive, Steve Wozniak and the Dalai Lama), or worse. Twitter will now shut down impersonators attempting to smear their victims, but at Twitter's discretion. Admittedly, most of the impersonators aren't distributing malware, but some of the hacked accounts certainly have (eg Guy Kawasaki). 10. Trust: The common thread across almost all of these threats is the tremendous amount of trust users have in these social applications. Like email, when it hit the mainstream, or instant messaging when it became ubiquitous, people trust links, pictures, videos and executables when they come from "friends," until they get burned a few times. Social applications haven't burned enough people yet. The difference with social networks is that the entire purpose of them is to share, a lot, which will result in a steeper learning curve for users. Translation, you'll have to get burned a few more times. 15
- 16. Social networking sites Conclusion We have seen that the social networking is having so many advantages and disadvantages. If we make use of them sensibly they would be a great tool for us. we should make use of it sensibly. In a business perspective, it is a great medium for the promotion of our product and services. We can also make our thoughts to reach others through this medium. Social network tools have changed the way we interact in our personal lives and are in the process of transforming our professional lives. Increasingly, they play a significant role in how business gets done. But they're also high risk. With hundreds of millions of users, these tools have attracted attackers more than any other target in recent years. 16
- 17. Social networking sites REFERENCES 1) http://www.authorpalace.com/internet-marketing/site-promotion/advantages-and- disadvantages-of-social-networking-sites.html 2) http://lauramdavies.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/timeline-a-history-of-social- networking-sites/ 3) www.google.com 4) http://www.tlmarketing.net/ 5) http://features.techworld.com/security/3230701/top-10-social-networking-security- threats/ 17