Does privacy actually exist online

Google is set to work out a major throw to their Terms of Service that will allow the company to use the drug substance ab user name and profile pictures of its Google Plus account members in reviews, advertising, and other technical contexts. This, coupled with Facebooks recent annunciation that they are removing a compass that previously allowed users to be undiscoverable through their Graph Search, raises the question oes seclusion actually exist online? In the case of Google, the company says it plans to only s lapin user names and profile hotos in conjunction with content users have chosen to help curate. For example, they may use the +1 you gave your favorite local bakehouse in an ad that the bakery runs through Google, or your rating of an phonograph album on your favorite bands Google Play page may she shared with those in your Google Plus circles.Although users will be able to opt out and encounter whether their image and name appear in ads via the Shared Endor sements setting, this is a major change for the platform that tack togethers it more closely in line with Facebooks ofttimes scrutinized seclusion policies. Its also a move that s likely to trouble oneself users who flocked to Google from Facebook because of privacy concerns and raises the question of what Google may be planning for the future.Not to be outdone, Facebooks announcement that everyone will be searchable after the removal of an old privacy setting is raising many eyebrowsand rightfully so. Were removing the setting because it isnt as useful as it was before, read an announcement from Facebook when I recently logged in to my personal account. So, naturally, choosing to slay the setting altogether is better than attempting to mprove this tool which would enable account holders to constraint who can view their profiles? Apparently so.Both companies seem to be exploitation the job that users are in book of what they share, and therefore are presenting an implied en dorsement of sorts that they believe they have the rights to use for monetary or promotional gain. While it is dead on target that status updates about a restaurant you like, a snapshot at an event you went to, or what youre listening to, watching, or reading are put there by the users themselves, shouldnt it also hold true that the information we hare about ourselves should still remain our information?Although there are laws, two state and federal, currently in place that are supposed to shelter internet users, these controls are not assurance that we are sheltered from companies using our personal information in ways we did not intend. Frequently these laws, and close to frequently the privacy policies of internet companies, put an increasing amount of control in the hands of internet users, who unfortunately, often have inadequate study in and knowledge of the digital landscape.This puts teens, the elderly, and other marginal web users at risk, as they are uninformed and u neducated to make the appropriate choices take to protect their personal information on the internet. Even for more forward-looking internet users such as myself, it often difficult to understand my online privacy rightsnot to mention that internet companies are not always transparent. As social media becomes more, well, social, companies like Google and Facebook should be taking the needed steps to make their privacy measures easier to comprehend and user friendly.In the example of Facebooks most recent privacy privacy shortcuts. Okay, sure, but how? With the ambiguous nature of online privacy now and the jargon of its top providers, digital literacy is an increasing must. Who should be responsible though? Should the require be placed on internet companies? Should it be left to the online user? Without a precise solution, the future of online privacy is clouded and the sole make up for the time being is to stay enlightened and precautiousotherwise your semi-private musings ma y tress up in a not-so- private place.