Scientific Researchers and Web 2.0: Social Not Working? forum: topic
This is a public forum
Online social networks and identity theft
Maxine Clarke
Tuesday, 05 May 2009 13:05 UTC
In keeping with the question posed in the title of this forum, I noticed an online comment at the Nature News website on which members of this forum might have a view. The comment is made in response to a News report about more than 100 scientists (many who work in the stem-cell area) who suffered identity theft, termed a “Sybil attack”, in a network within Facebook. I wonder whether this comment, by C. Honeycutt, represents the views of a significant number (even a majority) of scientists? What proportion of research scientists use online networking tools professionally, compared with the number who stay away? The comment:
The old saying about the internet is still true: “where the men are men, the women are men, and the children are FBI agents.” While it is tempting to use these types of networking devices for academic applications, the fact is they are easily exploited for a variety of purposes. No one should ever trust an external site, especially one that does not verify who people are. The fact is, people lie, and the internet – including Facebook, Wikipedia, blogs, Twitter, and all other unmonitored, user-modified sites – should always be viewed with suspicion.
-
Replies
-
Anonymous
I guess the problem is that the real and online world intersect. But a scientist’s real world presence is strong enough that they can be contacted through other means, to check if the online identity is who it says it is.
What is curious to me is that there are some people with pseudonyms who have a much stronger online presence (Coturnix/Bora and Grrlscientist spring to mind), so if there is identity theft, it could go the other way. Of course, anyone with a strong online presence will have a blog, so there is still a way to link comments to the “real” them.
Maxine Clarke.
-
Well, does that comment above read like me or not? If not, does it read like a particular person? I look forward to any replies!
-
Ah, that’s a sneaky double-bluff: write a post anonymously, sign it with your name, and then put up a reply implying that it wasn’t by you. But we’re on to your cunning scheme. :-)
-
Considering the fact that many novice and young budding scientists are a part of social networks, there is a considerable proportion of research discussions going across the virtual floor like Facebook. Being a part of social network myself, it is essential to dissuade the people who are in possession of malafide interests. As against the comment made my C.Honeycutt, one need not look at everyone on virtual floor with suspicion. We tend to build transitivity of trust with the people and tend to hypothesize at six degrees of separation.
Precisely, the proportion of scientists using online sites professionally are few as compared to those who stay away. I would like to gain some statistics from the other members, if one can share the in depth source of information.
-
Given the recent posts on FF and elsewhere regarding Elsevier’s fake journal (there are many; just do a Google search for elsevier fake journal Merck), it doesn’t seem that even well-known names with a vetting system in place can be completely trusted. Where there is money, there will be theft. I think anybody using the web needs some training in protecting themselves (beginning with awareness of environment, the first step in self defense), just as we teach kids moving out of the house for the first time the value of good locks and alarm systems. This is complicated by the architecture of the web itself: its inner workings are largely hidden from users, the majority of which don’t understand code (that includes me!). Thus it carries with it a powerful illusion of impenetrability, which is not at all the sense one gets about glass, wood, and pieces of interlocking metal that first night in our first apartment all by ourselves…And it seems we depend on experts in the area of web security just as much as we depend on “real world” experts like Brinks, ADT, a security guard, or a barking Rottweiler. Now, I like that idea: how could we add a digital beast complete with “beware of dogs” signs to virtual neighborhoods?
More to the point — I’d say that those who have become used to being on the web and enamored of its resources will stay. Those that have already decided that the web is a waste of time will feel vindicated. The question is also one of web literacy: each person will build skills over time to help them recognize where they want to be and what any particular site allows. I wonder if such attacks, though, might encourage more development of “private” enclaves where a group uses some platform for interaction but keep it closed.
@Payal, what do you mean by “We tend to build transitivity of trust with the people and tend to hypothesize at six degrees of separation.”?
@ pseudo-maxine — my sense with bloggers like Grrlscientist and FSP (a personal fave) is that they often comment on issues with the politically devastating potential, sometime from within their universities, sometimes from the general community.
-
@ Mickey
You have made a precise point about the web literacy. Web literacy includes the concept of transitivity of trust on social sites.
To answer your question, I made that comment in the context of social floor experience. As you said, " each person will build skills over time to help them recognize where they want to be and what any particular site allows. I wonder if such attacks, though, might encourage more development of “private” enclaves where a group uses some platform for interaction but keep it closed." This is where trust needs to be transitive. It will take me entire web page (with links) to explain the concept about transitivity of trust.
Btw, pseudo-maxine is nice name, pardon me for the detour.
-
I believe the use of network tools for scientist can be very helpful, specially when ypu are far from the main countries doing science. I am in Chile, and I have many scientists friends and colleagues around the world, and slowly we are connecting each other with these tools. Obviously you can’t control identity thefts, and that’s why scientists are still shy about using these web service, specially with the sharing of data, protocols and information. For a small set up, for example, a lab page, these tools can be very useful, although. In Labmeeting, for example, you can control the set up from the creation of the lab page until the approvement of members, and you can only use academics mails. These kind of security measures can help to keep “identity thieves” fram from social science networks.
-
I, too, like the name pseudo-Maxine. Maybe I should quickly open a new Nature Network profile in that name before someone else does ;-).
It seems that the Merck case concerns a journal that isn’t really a journal? And closed six years ago? See this Great Beyond post. I haven’t read all the (agreed, Mickey, extensive) coverage in detail, and certainly agree that it is a scary story.
Journals, even those with a skimpy peer-review process, do have checks and balances before an article can be published that the web does not have. As you write, Mickey and Payal, web literacy is a factor, and authentication systems have often been discussed. (I use OpenID for example, but I don’t know if someone could copy or fake that.) I like the Nature Network profile system, where all one’s actions are aggregated onto a page, but of course, as pointed out above, this works only within one system or network.
Pablo, I endorse your point about the usefulness of web networks for those remote from a hub of activity, or from each other (long distance collaborations are another example).
-
Update, the Merckk/Elsevier story sounds more serious than I realised when I wrote the comment above. See this Great Beyond update.
-
The entire story seems like one horror story to me. it is an eye opener for the neophytes and even for the advanced scientists over the globe.
-
