Sample Chapter

Excerpt 1:

The Missing Manual
Read the beginning of Chapter 3 “The Missing Manual”: open text with images as a pdf file.

Extract 2:

Privacy: What goes on facebook and what not? ..
the beginning of Chapter 4, “issues and challenges to master”
A conversation between Petra and Peter, Paula and Petro over the question of with whom they share their information on Facebook.
Peter: I have no idea who because of what I read. Have I never cared drum.
Paula: Are you stupid? The settings to change privacy, that’s the first thing you have to do!
Petro: Exactly.
Petra: But really. How do you do that?
Paula: I always share everything with my friends.
Peter: I always take “friends of friends”, those are not so many.
Paula: Nonsense, which are full many.
Petra: Some things I do not share. If I publish my phone number because next to my profile picture, I have no control over who what does with the number.
Paula: And something like “religion”, which is really nobody’s business, I think.
Peter: I think the excitement somehow exaggerated. I can control exactly what I whom divulge.
Petra: Wrong, you can not. Most of the information about you I got not from you but from your friends. You post even though no pictures of you, but your friends already. And if someone writes somewhere: “horny, with Petro hung up yesterday at three,” then you have not even checked what there who knows about you.
Petro: Facebook knows full lot. As I have since logged knew that already, whom I know. Before I even was ever registered there!
Paula: For me has a girlfriend once posted a picture of us in a bathing suit. The others then have changed so that we were there naked on it. The girlfriend has deleted the photo again immediately, but the nude photo was somehow already landed elsewhere.
Peter: One just needs to somehow weigh what you posting here and what is not.
Petra: I think you have to be very attention to data protection.
Peter: If what others write about me, then that’s not about privacy. It’s about respect!

Why privacy?

“Privacy” is a term with the Facebook little can begin. If you are looking in the Facebook Help for “Privacy”, hardly gets results. The search term with which one progresses there is “privacy”. The English term “privacy” is also beyond Facebook in Germany now instead of “privacy” often used. Data protection in Germany are not unhappy about it. They have long been struggling with the fact that the dry term “privacy” concerns their limited applicable describes. A popular slogan among them is: “Privacy advocates do not protect data, but people.”
Why is privacy important for people? The popularly knows the answer: “Knowledge is power.” Advanced can be formulated: “Because of data can quickly become knowledge, the following applies:. Data is power” Anyone who has information about another person who also has power over them, you can assess behavior better, maybe even predict knows their desires, their weak points, maybe even their secrets. Adjusted, then one fits one’s own behavior on precaution, omits much and behaves power over the behavior of others, this is true even reversed, and “forward-haste”: If you know that your behavior is observed (data on to third parties thus arrive) to the view by others.
It restricts the freedom of a person considerably when other data about them. And one restricts one’s freedom even for yourself if you do not know exactly who gets what information. The Federal Constitutional Court in 1983 recognized this fact and a new fundamental right words, the right to informational self-determination. Every person shall as far as possible can decide who gets what information about him. Just as the freedom to be enforced to behave independently of other possible how to keep it even fit.

What should one who tell about yourself? Thanks to the transparent through the city

Imagine the dark extreme case before: Petra can not be sure, but it must always expect that their action by friends, parents, neighbors, teachers and the police is observed. In the offline world that would limit their actions very sensitive. When Facebook is not as noticeable because the observation is “invisible” and thus less present. For young people to understand helps often the comparison with the offline world. One can get or ask your own child, for example, “Would you this content, you’ve got posted on Facebook, also print on a banner, you put on a sign with your full name and with transparency and name plate through the streets of your town run? At the house of your parents and neighbors over, across the schoolyard, through the church, the grocery store, in the police station and at the end before the window of the photo editors of the local newspaper? “Who can answer this question fully is yes, can the content of the banner Set also on Facebook with the “public”. Who hesitates, which should also check your own privacy settings on Facebook accurate. (A hint: the setting “public” or “all” on Facebook could also be “transparent” hot – like the poster, which you walk through the city.)


What can happen to a person if (which) get data on it in which circles? Even the many W-words in these questions show that the answer is anything but simple. One and the same data, such as date of birth, religious affiliation, a holiday photo, the opinion about the school or about Petra’s new hairstyle can be quite a problem if I share it with a limited circle. But the “limited group” is already the sticking point. It is often argued that people would make their data to Facebook ‘for the world public “. While this can bring with it many problems, but distracts from the core of the matter, because most young people do not give their content for “the whole world” free. But not “the whole world” makes the problem but have a single, very specific person. And this person may be a very different for each individual case. The holiday photo should for example not necessarily see the parents; the opinion of the school are to remain hidden from the teacher; religious affiliation is the potential employer nothing.
These few examples show that it is not so easy to implement his right to informational self-determination into practice. There is no switch “privacy” on Facebook, you would only have to tilt in order to secure everything. On the contrary: There are dozens of settings for privacy. Theoretically, one can determine where to each publication every single person who can see the content. In practice, this is too complicated, and there must be means to find ways.

The nonsense of “release as little as possible”

The privacy settings were described in Chapter 3 of this book. It is not easy to be able to oversee and operate many and complex options and functions. And yet the operation is only part of what you need for a competent handling of privacy protection on Facebook. The other part consists of the decisions on how to use these settings, what data you who are free and which are not.
A popular recommendation is found in many guidebooks and speeches: You always have to use Facebook privacy settings as strict as possible! This advice is well intentioned but poorly implemented. Let’s take this recommendation at its word: “As little as possible” would, in the extreme case, simply called “no Facebook”. But one uses Facebook, the most strictly possible settings is almost always “only for myself visible.” If you were to adhere to these maximum unity, one would not get far on Facebook. For the good counsel fails to recognize a fundamental property of social networks: Facebook is made for: 1 to share content with others and to get 2 on resonance. The more open sharing something (ie, the less strict the privacy settings are), the higher is the prospect of resonance. Who uses Facebook as little shared content, which is also little of it. The fundamental property of Facebook and the well-intentioned advice contradict each other!

A Balancing Act for which it takes practice

It would have been nice if the simple rule would have worked out the rhetoric. You know always clear what you do and what you should leave if you open (content with many people sharing) or unity (share content with few or no people) selected. What could we follow instead as a guideline? There is no simple truth that you know exactly what and what is right and wrong. It can only formulate the following general principle:

You have to always weigh between openness and closeness on Facebook! So much openness as necessary, so that you reach your goals. So much unity as possible so that the unwanted risks and side effects remain as unlikely as possible.

Trade-off between two objectives is to say always: Balancing! For a balancing act theory, guidelines and instruction of limited help further. It does one thing: exercise. Just as we humans learn by experience and practice, to balance against other people between trust and restraint, we must also learn from Facebook to balance between openness and closeness.
Who wants to practice a balancing act that would do well to take the first attempts not equal to the highest cable, without power and without a coach. So it is also on Facebook: The less experienced you are, the lower should the rope and turn the closer should be the coach. Through practice and (sometimes painful) experience, we realize this and can gradually trust in higher tensioned ropes and sometimes without the trainer on the top rope.

What does that mean for the company of children and young people on Facebook?

The height of the rope is the openness. Equal share everything with all of you to post the same private and sensitive content, that is so whether one backwards tried right at the beginning on the wire at high altitude a somersault. This may be fine, but you can also easily crash. So true: Inexperienced Facebook users start with unity, with harmless content and limited access for others. The ultimate expression of feelings should be at the beginning of the setting “friends”. Better yet: Divide to start its contents only with handpicked contacts selected individually or via a list (see Section xyz) defined. Only when you feel safe at this level, you can try to open the settings and share “daring” content. As soon as it feels uncomfortable, you use doubt, the more closed settings!

The safety net under the tightrope there are not on Facebook. If you have published a content future and result in unpleasant consequences, you can perhaps even delete the contents, but no longer make the consequences undone. As a substitute for the safety net you can create a “mind probe”. So: Formulate a content and the desired privacy settings, but without actually submit the content. Instead, you show him yourself (or parents, friends, confidants) with the question: What could happen if I post this with this openness? It may also be helpful to lie conceived the content for a night or a week on the shelf and then to ask in retrospect: If I had the will to send? Or was it just an obsession that I would regret later or was simply redundant?

The coach is someone who already has experience in the wire rope and the novice can to provide advice. But he does not even know any situation in which his protégé can get. Often there is more important to ask the right questions or simply to stand only as a conversation partner.

Now it is just not always the case with young people that they want to be assisted by their parents as a consultant. (The younger the child and the facebook-competent they experience their parents, more often happens das.) But even a single conversation can help if the images therein will be discussed by the transparency and the high-wire act. All experience, it helps both the parents and the children when parents not occur as a preacher, but see themselves as seekers and practitioners. In sports a coach does not have all the control, which wants to learn his protege yes. He should just understand.