Privacy on the Social Web
Fred Stutzman on his blog Unit Structures mentioned an NPR segment on privacy issues online from the most recent Weekend Edition. Fred’s humorous prediction of paranoia in listeners is unfortunately not far off. While scholars James Rule and Kathryn Montgomery were both quick to point out that different generations have different notions of privacy, I am generally frustrated that we do not discuss the value of privacy in relative terms.
I am split on this issue. I find it disappointing to hear Dr. Montgomery (director of American University’s Center’s Youth, Media and Democracy project) answer these difference by suggesting that “we need to help them understand what privacy is and to make more conscious decisions about what they share.”
Having just logged off Facebook, however, I am reminded of something Dr. Tinkcom said on the final day of class last semester (paraphrased here, of course):
I am not sure I understand people’s willingness to post their information on Facebook. It seems like we spend all this time talking about the ways in which we need to avoid identity theft, and then we log online and post all the information right there.
Dr. Rule, on the other hand, advocated policy moves that acknowledge the wide disclosure of information. He proposes policy to let individuals own information relevant to their identity, effectively balancing out the equation between consumers and business.
This approach is much broader (and more productive), but I am not sure it handles Dr. Tinkcom’s concerns. If we are concerned about identity theft and fraud, however, companies like Visa and American Express are a couple steps ahead. Both are offering to take responsibility for fraud on accounts in order to attract customers. Of course these moves are trying to commodify consumer’s fears of identity fraud, but it will be interesting to see how many other companies follow suite.
January 13th, 2008 at 3:08 am
Hey Jed,
Katie M. linked me to this blog entry because I’m actually doing my thesis on it! Part of the issue is what you described as “lack of relative terms”.
Privacy is a social construct first off. To be able to measure it, would be a little odd, because it’s a fairly abstract notion. What we can measure is how much information we are willing to part with, from an economic perspective. We make constant evaluations on what information we are willing to reveal given our assessment of the situation. Of course, our assessment of the situation isn’t always a fair one. Often times, we ended up relying on others, (such as friends on facebook) to set a social norm on what information is acceptable to reveal.
The media does spend a lot of time talking about identity theft, and in part, they are doing a fairly good thing. Think of it as having an impact given the theory of reasoned action.
Finally, the generational issue also comes down to an issue in a discrepancy in the life cycle of information. Just like software, and hardware, information goes through a life cycle too. Previously, it was often a very short life cycle. Now, that life cycle has been stretched and stretched to near permanence. An older generation might be slower to come to terms with that change, while a newer one may expect that it’s “just how things have always been”. Divides are good for reinforcing that structure.
It’s something to think about, even if it isn’t exactly right. Just some thoughts.