Editor’s Note: This post was originally published on Seattle 2.0, and imported to GeekWire as part of our acquisition of Seattle 2.0 and its archival content. For more background, see this post.
By Alyssa Royse
In the debate about online privacy, we tend to focus on the idea of our data being tracked and somehow used against us. (Even when it could increase the efficiency of our time online, but, whatever.) In these discussions, “they” are bad and “we” are good.
We rarely discuss how to hide our tracks when we are doing something that we don’t want anyone to know about. There is a new startup, generating buzz, called Secret Social that is creating a place for people to gather and have social conversations in total secrecy, online. This is the most ridiculous idea I have heard. For a lot of reasons. (All of which are pure conjecture, because the site isn’t up yet, and I didn’t earn a beta invite – more on that later.)
Conjecture aside, the core idea is a good illustration of how technological innovators and entrepreneurs lose sight of reality. It may be possible to create technology that keeps secrets. It will never be possible to create people who do. Technology is only as good as the people who will use it.
SECRECY vs. PRIVACY
First, let’s make a distinction between secrecy and privacy. Privacy is the assumption that no one is watching your every move online, much like you assume that no one is watching every step that you take in the material world. Neither of these things is a reasonable, or safe, assumption.
- Other people CAN see you online, just like they can see you walking down the street. Out in public is out in public, whether in the world or on the Web.
- Online, someone else owns all the “streets” and “shops” and “parks” that you go to – they are all businesses that you are patronizing. We now gather on Facebook much like we used to gather in parks, but someone owns Facebook, so why would you assume that you have a “right” to go into their park, that they built and maintain, but say, “don’t look at me?” Nope. Your privacy is not a sustainable business model for them. If you want to keep using the “park,” someone’s gotta pay for it. Most do that by selling advertisers access to your eyeballs while you’re in their park. (SELLING your data to third parties is a different thing, they should not be able to do that without your consent.)
Secrecy is a different beast. People keep secrets for a variety of reasons. The majority of those are probably related to doing something that we all know is a very bad idea.
From watching the teaser on the Secret Social site, their value proposition is that they are creating a way for groups to create a temporary place to have secret discussions online.
From a business perspective, they are promising something that they can’t deliver. As long as you are interacting with HUMANS there is no way that your secrecy is assured. For those things that we do in secret – plan surprise parties, discuss our romantic lives – there are a plethora of tools that we already use (email, DLs, Social Networks, forums, group SMS, and IM all come leaping to mind.) So I have serious reservations about the business logic here.
Pixels + Posting ≠ Privacy
WORDS CAN REALLY HURT YOU
Part of me is stunned that anyone would propose building a business that is dependent on people to not “tattle.” In just the last few months, I’m pretty sure that Brett Favre, Scott Lee and Julian Assange would all agree that people don’t keep secrets. Especially if they can get a leg-up by telling your tales – whether it’s cash, promotion or social graces.
The idea that someone else will keep your secret is rooted in a common goal, a mutually vested interest in protecting the secret. But goals and interests change. I’m sure that when Tiger Woods was sending sexy text messages to his mistresses, he believed that their interest in being his mistress was strong enough incentive not to piss him off. That changed. Heidi Fleiss certainly had a vested interest in protecting the names of her clients, until her interest in getting out of jail was greater.
So what if, as Secret Social says it will, the data disappears when you’re done with it? In the mean time, someone can take a screen shot of it. Or start a steamy secret encounter with someone, and then give their login credentials to anyone else to “out” it. Anyone who wants to can TALK about it, and there are likely enough dirty details in the dialog to convict you in the minds of your peers. At the very least, someone can write down your every word and you can engage in a game of “your word against theirs.” Anything you say can be used against you in a court of common sense.
Moreover, assuming you are in a closed ecosystem, how much could you reasonably accomplish? You couldn’t send around a planning document for a surprise party because then there would be “evidence.” You couldn’t exchange photos with the hottie you’re chatting up on Craigslist, because then there would be evidence. Simply put, you couldn’t do much of anything functional that wouldn’t immediately defeat the seal of secrecy.
I can’t imagine a purpose for this that isn’t somewhat nefarious in nature. Gossiping? Much safer to do that in person and maintain some level of plausible deniability. (Or not at all, and maintain some level of personal integrity.) Complaining about problems with people? How about actually creating a dialog with them to solve a problem rather going behind their back to create a bigger problem?
Your best bet is to assume that anything you pixelate and share in any way, in any place, is going to wind up publicly viewable. As long as there are humans involved, that’s the most likely scenario.
SecretSocial.com
But back to the company at hand. To be clear, I HAVE NOT SEEN IT. I COULD BE TOTALLY WRONG about the specifics of SecretSocial.com. Their concept simply triggered an age-old fear in me, that people believe they can be safe from their own lies and actions, and that they have a god-given or constitutional right to privacy. Wrong.