5 things you need to know about online privacy policies

Ever since Google tweaked it's privacy policy on January 24, online confidentiality and its future has been the topic of a raging public debate, making it hard for an average Internet user to decide what he should and should not share on an online platform. Experts say that the key here is to understand each of the terms and policies before you sign in.

HOW IS DATA RETAINED?

The data retention policy allows the online provider to hold personal information about you. But the question is, for how long will they hold your data?

Data, here includes personal information such as your name, address, date of birth, photographs and transaction information such as when did you last log into your account, from which device, from which IP address, whose profiles did you visit etc.

It's ridiculous to ask "what bits of the privacy policy" should you read, says Graham Cluely, a senior consultant with security software developer Sophos.

"Because the only sensible answer is 'all of it.' Only you can decide if you're comfortable with it, so read it and you decide."

WHAT ARE THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS?

It is important to understand under what circumstances will the website share your personal information with the Central and State government agencies. For instance, Facebook would have to share your information with the Ministry of Home Affairs since Facebook has an office in Hyderabad and comes under the purview of the Indian IT Act.

"But Twitter could deny user information to the Egyptian government during the 2011 Arab protests as it did not fall under the Egyptian jurisdiction," says Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOUR ACCOUNT IS DELETED?

Experts say that deleting your account is not the end of it all as social networks usually store your personal information even after you delete the account. For instance, Google stores your data for nearly nine months even after you delete your GMail account.

Similarly, Twitter stores your IP address and personal information for a certain period after you delete your account.

WHAT PERSONAL DATA IS SHARED WITH PRIVATE ORGANISATIONS?

Apart from the information you share while creating the account, social networks also process and share personal data such as photographs, likes and events with their business partners and social-media analytics and monitoring agencies.

"So the basic rule is don't upload anything to the Internet which you don't want your mother-in-law or your boss to see, as you can't necessarily trust the various sites to keep them securely," says Graham Cluely.

"Further, think carefully about what other information you may be sharing online - such as your location".

WHAT CAN AN INDIVIDUAL DO?

The easiest thing is to customise every aspect of your privacy policy, according computer security firm Kaspersky Labs. For instance, on social networks such Google Plus, Facebook and Twitter, you may limit the information you display to certain groups of people.

"India needs to have a broad and horizontal law that establishes online privacy as a right. Unlike in European countries, India doesn't have a privacy commissioner who can state the principles, interpret the data and question the online providers," says Sunil Abraham.

After Twitter, Google to now censor content

Google will now block posts or blogs from being available to users based on a country's local laws, in a move similar to Twitter's country-specific censorship that sparked off an outrage among critics across the globe.

Web critics have slammed the move saying, 'the change marks a new trend in the Internet companies bowing to the demands of authoritarian regimes'.

Google, however, claimed that the move would actually allow more freedom of speech, The Daily Mail reports.

The search giant said the blogs would be visible from everywhere else in the world, but invisible in one country.

"This will allow us to continue promoting free expression while providing greater flexibility in complying with valid removal requests in local law," the company said.

According to the paper, both Google and Twitter claimed that their move would simply allow their services to co-exist with regimes, rather than being banned outright.

"We believe that access to information is the foundation of a free society. Where content is illegal or breaks our terms of service we will continue to remove it," the paper quoted a Google spokesperson, as saying.

Google's blogging service named Blogger was launched in 1999, and has previously been banned outright in repressive regimes such as Syria, Iran and China.

Blog services and social sites such as Twitter and Facebook were crucial to the recent 'Arab Spring' revolts in countries such as Egypt, acting as a conduit for news and carrying messages of freedom and democracy.

Mark of one man on public Facebook

 Since the moment he dropped out of Harvard University, Mark Zuckerberg has stayed remarkably focused on two things: Facebook, and being the boss of Facebook.

Early on he was convinced of the vast potential of the social network he built in his dorm room, say friends, investors and detractors. He pushed his team to be fast and take risks. He resisted efforts to change the way Facebook looked and worked, even if, in the beginning, it meant giving up revenue.

Most important, he arranged the ownership of Facebook so as to give himself extraordinary power to steer the company. By the time Facebook filed for a $US5 billion public offering Wednesday, Zuckerberg had managed to hold on to more than a quarter of the shares in the company, and his agreements with other investors enhanced his voting power to almost 60 per cent of total shares.

That's a greater measure of control than Bill Gates had at Microsoft when it went public in 1986 (49 per cent), and far greater than the co-founders of Google had in 2004 (16 per cent each). Typically, say Silicon Valley veterans, a first-time entrepreneur gets to the public market with a far smaller stake in his or her creation. Zuckerberg's arrangement leaves little room for investors to have much input on the company's direction.

Zuckerberg's success is an object lesson in what works in the crowded, competitive Silicon Valley: remain in charge, stave off potential predators and expand the company so quickly that no one can challenge the boss.

"He always knew before the rest of us what Facebook could be," said Paul Madera, managing director at Meritech Capital Partners, who invested in the company in 2005. "Mark's vision on the purity of the product really did benefit from his control and ownership. It wasn't subject to committee decisions. It was all Mark."

The power that Zuckerberg wields over the company has already drawn scrutiny. "You're willing to take someone's money but not willing to invite their participation," said Charles M. Elson, a professor of corporate governance at the University of Delaware. "It makes meaningless the notion of investor democracy."

Elsen added that Zuckerberg's arrangement is similar to moves by founders of other technology companies, including Google, to create special classes of stock that grant them extra voting power.

Facebook declined to make executives available for interviews before the offering.

The focus on staying in charge began early. Sean Parker, one of Zuckerberg's first and most important advisers, helped him with that. Parker had learnt a hard lesson himself about losing control: he was ousted by the backers of a company he founded, an online address book called Plaxo. Parker helped ensure that would never happen to Zuckerberg.