Privacy

On the subject of privacy, I completely agree with Google CEO Eric Schmidt when he says “If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.” According to an essay published in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The term 'privacy' is used frequently in ordinary language as well as in philosophical, political and legal discussions, yet there is no single definition or analysis or meaning of the term.” Even on the website dictionary.com, the term “privacy” is defined by using the word private, creating a circular definition that really doesn't describe the true meaning of the word.

In my opinion, the public perception of privacy is that it is freedom from interference and intrusion by others. People often make the mistake of thinking that they are entitled to 100% privacy, no matter what they do. Looking back to childhood, everyone has a story where telling secrets on the playground typically became a disastrous mistake by recess as that one trustworthy person told two people, those two told two more, and so on. This is the case in adulthood as well, especially with social media sites such as Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, and photo sites such as Flickr and Photobucket. Individuals post their entire lives on these websites, in some cases expecting them to stay private or limited to a select number of individuals they allow to see their pages. However, upon revealing themselves on the internet, people fail to realize that the information is there forever, often archived even though a post or photo may be deleted.

Danah Boyd at the keynote speech at SXSW states “Fundamentally, privacy is about having control over how information flows. It's about being able to understand the social setting in order to behave appropriately. To do so, people must trust their interpretation of the context, including the people in the room and the architecture that defines the setting. When they feel as though control has been taken away from them or when they lack the control they need to do the right thing, they scream privacy foul.” Boyd goes on to dispute the statement by Schmidt, referencing the failure and public outcry against Google Buzz. Indeed, Google's handling of Buzz was a mistake. The company should have made the service “opt-in” as opposed to sharing public data before users knew what was going on and allowing them to “opt-out.” While Boyd brings up several valid points, many of which I agree with, the onus is ultimately on the public to be educate themselves on what privacy is and how to protect themselves. With the speed of social media, camera (super) phones, and related technologies, keeping things under covers is a thing of the past. Based on those facts, it is completely reasonable for Eric Schmidt to make a statement like that and even represents a commonsensical public service announcement for those who expect otherwise.

Protect Your Privacy

"By giving people the power to share, we're making the world more transparent"
- Mark Zuckerberg, Founder of Facebook

Within the past decade, the use of the Internet and more specifically, social networking sites, has increased rapidly. In the United States, the internet is readily available and used for multiple purposes. Whether you use the Internet for business, school or personal purposes, you are providing information that can be publicly viewed. The Internet can be very resourceful, however, its users need to be aware of what information they provide and what information will be publicly shared.

In "Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity", Danah Boyd argues:
"There are good reasons to engage in public; there always have been. But wanting to be in public doesn't mean wanting to lose control". I strongly agree with this statement. Engaging in public via the Internet can offer many benefits, such as reconnecting with an old friend, maintaining business relationships, or working with other students from class. However, this does not mean that users want to lose control of their privacy and what information can be made public.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt once said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place". I firmly believe that privacy controls should not be removed, and users should have the ability to control what information is publicly displayed. However, I also believe that all users should be aware of what they are posting on the Internet. I would encourage others not to accept the default settings on social media sites, such as Facebook, and instead, take the time to read through them and take control of your privacy.

In order to maintain privacy, users need to be aware of how to change settings to satisfy individual expectations. To maintain privacy on Facebook, become familiar with "10 Privacy Settings Every Facebook User Should Know".

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy recognizes that privacy is in danger as technology continues to grow at a rapid speed. Information that you input online can be visible to potential employers, school admissions, complete strangers, etc. Privacy is important, and in order to maintain it, individuals need to take additional measures to protect what information can be publicly displayed.

"More Public" Thieves & Investigators

The idea presented by the article "Privacy," that once information comes part of a public record it can be reproduced and distributed, is entirely bogus. This first struck me when I read a Facebook post from a friend saying to visit this site and remove yourself. She said they had her salary, house, age, phone number, email, and info about all her kids. This got me thinking then and is a perfect illustration for this topic now.

The idea that public information is public is entirely correct. For the documented past, men have made their careers as private investigators. They would look at all the public files, follow the person and hear the ‘public’ conversations that Danah Boyd speaks of, and interview others about this person. This is the same information that we are concerned about now, it was just not as easy to access then.

The difference between then and now, as Vaneevar Bush put it, is technological devices. Although computers never took the form of desks, he was correct that computers can, with no ‘creative aspect,’ compile and process lots of data. The data that would have at one time difficult to gather is now widely available in central, searchable databases. Also, computers cannot be controlled. If the data makes it out, it can quickly be stored in many of millions of places. You cannot destroy records at will.

The bogus theory that these websites are only putting together the info already publically available should be challenged swiftly. It is absolutely wrong to remove the PII from its context of a funny comment or housing plan and use it for an unintended meaning. This is theft.

privacy vs. secrecy

pri·vate \ˈprī-vət\ a : intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class b : belonging to or concerning an individual person, company, or interest

se·cret \ˈsē-krət\ a : kept from knowledge or view : hidden b : marked by the habit of discretion

At first glance, the difference between something secret and something private seems minimal. It seems that if something is secret then by its very nature it has to be private. The opposite also seems true, but seeming and being are quite different. Both words do denote a certain control over information. Private information is something that we generally have control over and belongs to us, it is information we can choose whether we want to disclose or not. Secret information, however, does not necessarily belong to one the one who bears it, but its nondisclosure is dependent on a contract made between parties.

So, how does this apply to the Internet?

One must realize that this contract made with secrets is not ever made with the Internet. When we feed the Internet our information, in a way, it no longer belongs to us and we have no control over it. Because there is no contract made, it renders the idea of secrecy null, and because the only thing shielding our information are weak ‘privacy settings,’ the Internet knows no true privacy. Diving into the web thinking this way will probably save many a lot of grief. Eric Schmidt’s quote, when applied to this idea and the Internet, in some ways is a wise one because it promotes a certain discretion that many lack while on the web. On the other hand, when you apply the same quote to everyday life, it is a naïve sentiment.

The Subjective Nature of Privacy

"It's ironic to try to post something "secret" on Facebook, because everyone knows about it."            - Anonymous 

I think that Eric Schmidt's statement regarding private behaviors is one that can't be applied to all situations, as was pointed out in the "bathroom" example given to us by our professor.  However, I do think that his statement can be applied to certain situations that regard immoral, unsavory, or illegal behavior; such as using the Internet for looking at pornographic material, gambling and drug addictions, or cheating on a spouse.  All of these scenarios represent behaviors that most people would probably agree as being matters that those who commit them would wish to keep secret from others.  In this respect, I feel Schmidt's comment is accurate, if you don't want people to know what you are doing, you probably shouldn't be doing them. 

So therein lies the question: when do secret matters become private ones? and should private matters be kept secret? I believe that these questions can be better illustrated by an example. Take the last People Magazine that you perused through or even glanced at while grocery shopping.  How many front page stories were about the marital infidelities of random celebrities? Or informed us of which celebrity just went to rehab for the 13th time? Most of us would agree that these stories are regarding clearly private matters, but they certainly aren't being kept secret. I believe that this represents that there is, in fact, a difference between secret and private because sometimes, private matters can be kept secret and other times they are front page news.

The advent of the Internet has altered the existing societal ideals of privacy and secrecy, however. The ease and speed with which the web has enabled us to gather and post information on almost every topic imaginable, including ourselves, has resulted in many scholarly discussions (and disagreements) about where to draw the line in privacy issues. Dana Boyd wrote in her speech Privacy and Publicity, that "Fundamentally, privacy is about having control over how information flows."  On many Internet sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, even Blogger.com those who have control over the flow of information are those that subscribe to their Facebook accounts and post and tweet daily.  Who then should be able to step in and say what should be private and what should be public information? Mark Zuckerberg and his Default privacy settings, the FCC or the millions of subscribers worldwide? In the "real world" privacy matters are upheld by our court systems and laws, but online there is no "court" aside that of our peers.

John Perry Barlow describes the Internet as a "civilization of the mind."  This ultimately implies the subjective nature of its content.  In this respect I believe that people should be allowed to chose for themselves what should be private and/or public without being automatically "opted-in" to someone else's prescribed ideals.  Let the people choose and live with the consequences of their choices.

On Privacy Response

I think that Mr. Schmidt’s quote is a very self serving one, especially since he is in the information business. The same view is shared by the people who think that the police should be allowed to search people without warrants. Their logic, the same as Mr. Schmidt’s, if you have nothing to hide it shouldn’t be a problem. I have certain rights, one those is the right to privacy, regardless of the reason.
As far as the loosening of privacy controls, our reading assignment tells us that the future will belong to the companies who can compile massive data bases with the help of user input. Which puts us all at a disadvantage as companies will require us to part with more and more of our personal information in the future. When you sit back and think of it, how much of your life is already on Face Book for all to read, and how many times has Face Book changed their information sharing policy over the last few years revealing more and more about us.
Some of the privacy issues can be directed at large companies, but a lot of the issues can be traced back to the individual user. How many of us unwittingly tell the world where we live, where we work, when we go on vacation, who our friends and family are, and how to find us. If someone wanted to rob you or do worse most of us could easily be tracked down.
There are certainly external issues that need to be watched, but we also have to take into account our own actions and what we can do to prevent too much information being left out there.

Private Follies

Privacy issues on the web are abundant; from credit card numbers to personal information to social security numbers, these issues are something to be concerned with. However, I believe that a lot of our privacy problems on the web are our own fault. When it comes to websites most people don't read any of the legal documents that they must agree to when registering for that site or its services; legal documents that pertain to many privacy issues that people might have. Another problem is privacy options that are provided by the website. Last year Facebook received a lot of criticism for making default privacy settings for users basically non-existent. They did not, however, remove those privacy options.

Regarding Eric Schmidt's statement about not doing what we don't want anyone to know, that's just silly. There are many instances that someone could think of that they might not want others to know about. I'm sure most people wouldn't want to have a colonoscopy performed in front of a large crowd of people. Regarding less socially acceptable practices on the Internet such as pornography, I believe that what's done in the privacy of your home is your own business until it becomes a public health issue (a meth lab spreading fumes to other rooms in an apartment building, for an extreme example).