It is worthwhile to first consider what privacy is and its purposes. Barker (2008, p. 368) notes that concepts of privacy are not universal but are culturally dependent, determined by prevailing expectations. He observes that private space was redefined in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries through the enclosure movement whereby private and common spaces changed meanings. Today, online communities are undergoing just such a transformation though now the private and common spaces are virtual. Barker also notes (2008, p. 471) the concept of private identities described by Rorty, observing that “our best chance of pursuing a private identity project may be to live in a culture that prides itself on being heterogenous”. In this sense private goals are identity-defining when played out in public spaces.
Privacy is also not a static concept, as Blatterer, Johnson and Markus note (2010, p. 1) in a constantly changing society. Indeed, privacy in the modern sense is a recent invention, coming into being in the eighteenth century as society became more bourgeois (Burkart, 2010, p. 23) and increasingly individualistic, leading to less emphasis on (group) religious confession and more on ‘self-thematization’, turning the construction of the self from a group to a personal representation. Privacy serves both as a form of allowing confessional representation, and as a form of performance of identity in the (complementary) public sphere (Burkart, 2010, p. 34) where various personas are constructed as a ‘theatrical performance’. Privacy is therefore never settled but always determined to a greater or lesser extent by the conflicting boundaries between public and private (Baumann, 2010, p. 9) and the context in which it is negotiated. As society undergoes rapid transformation through the medium of the internet, so also is privacy again being placed under stress as it is redefined. Criticisms of these new and evolving forms of privacy are often made as a reaction against change, what Burkart refers to as a “bourgeois critique of the conquest of the public space by an underclass or by members of popular culture” (Burkart, 2010, p. 31). Blatterer (2010, pp. 73-74) sees the making public of what was previously private as driven by a need to make oneself visible, both because we now exist in an attention economy and because visibility grants social recognition, though the needs of visibility and privacy remain in ‘significant tension’. Social networking makes this redefinition possible, rather than causes it. Technology aids the human need to validate a person’s identity (Blatterer, 2010, p. 82).
Gross and Acquisti (2005, p.2) note some fundamental differences between online social networking and offline, observing that online relationships are often unnuanced and forced to fit a binary public/private categorisation whereby social ties are reduced to ‘Friend or not’. Online communities, however, modify previous binaries, extending them rather than erasing them. Strong and weak ties still exist, but their reach in a virtual environment can be vastly greater, especially in relation to creating weak ties (Gross & Acquisti, 2005, p. 3). In 2007 Dwyer, Hiltz and Passerini (p. 2)conducted a small non-random survey that showed users of social networking sites are concerned about privacy but that privacy online is different, especially since there is a record maintained of everything that takes place. This seems to lead to people being less strict about what information is made available, even though they remain aware of the issue (Dwyer, Hiltz & Passerini, 2007, p. 4).
This redefinition of privacy is not an either/or situation where information can be irretrievably defined as always and only ‘public’ or ‘private’. Lange (2008, p. 364) in a paper analysing YouTube discusses Nissenbaum’s idea of ‘contextual integrity’: how concepts of private/public are context dependent and variable across multiple mediators such as culture and time so that privacy cannot exist without consideration of the social mediators it is taking place in. The private/public duality is not monolithic, not even in the case of an individual (what is private in one situation with one group may be public when dealing with a different situation and group). Lange (2008, pp. 370-372) categorises YouTube as being either ‘publicly private’ or ‘privately public’. In the first, she means open information about the identity of the poster, but with ‘encoded’ or hidden information in the video that can be interpreted only by those already part of the poster’s friends. Privately public, in contrast, presents a more open or immediately accessible video, while identity information is suppressed – in effect obscuring identity. These forms allow users to control or allow access to their videos and, by implication, their identity without the more limited controls the site offers through options such as ‘Friends only’ (Lange, 2008, p. 376). While Lange does not mention it, there is no reason for other conjunctions: ‘privately private’ and ‘publicly public’ are also options on the continuum of choices which are not addressed in her paper.
Privacy online is being created through a tension between technology and social needs. Livingstone (2008, p.9) investigated use of social networking amongst a small group of UK teenagers, writing that teenagers are deeply concerned about privacy but also wish to make themselves public in different ways from previous generations, such as in the style of their profile pages or via mobile phones . Their nuanced view of privacy is, however, subverted by rigid categories imposed by social networking sites into ‘Friends’ or ‘Others’ (Livingstone, 2008, p. 10). This situation is further challenged by the apparent fact that ‘internet natives’ – those whose lives have always included the internet as a technology – are often unfamiliar with the ‘code’ of that technology (Livingstone, 2008, pp. 11-12) leading to restricted choices in privacy settings or not utilizing options to their fullest. In the early twentieth century radio hams built their own sets and comprehended the technology; today the majority just know that radios work and use them. While this makes the technology easier to use it can also, as Livingstone reports (2008, p. 12), lead to missed opportunities as the options available are overlooked or not understood and thus ignored.
Social networking sites by their very nature involve sharing information for the surveillance of others – what Albrechtslund (2008) terms ‘participatory surveillance’ (my emphasis). In contrast to hierarchical surveillance where someone is ‘watched over’, social networking encourages mutual surveillance. Companies, however, act as agencies outside of this structure continuing the hierarchical model.
Marketers can optimize their returns by increasing the relevance of their advertisements to individuals (Domingos and Richardson, 2001, p. 1). Marketing decisions are made based on the influence and relationships a person has to achieve greater cost effectiveness. The internet provides the ‘wealth of information’ from which this data can be mined (Domingos and Richardson, 2001, p. 2). Social networking, in particular, is a ‘rich source’ to obtain this data from (Domingos and Richardson, 2001, p. 3). Rather than providing a platform for creating identity, each user has a ‘network value’ (Domingos and Richardson, 2001, p. 6). The phraseology used here is telling: ‘wealth’, ‘rich’ and ‘value’. The language of finance and selling illuminates data mining, indicating its motivating purpose is increasing corporate profits by selling more goods. Data is ‘valuable’ precisely because it can be used to increase the value of a corporation.
Concerns about computer assisted data collection are not new. Clarke in 1988 coined the term ‘dataveillance’ (Clarke, 1988, p. 499) for the use of technology to capture data in monitoring or investigating people. Dataveillance is more efficient than conventional surveillance because it can be automated and is cheaper. This leads to the possibility of collecting even more data, simply because it is so easy and there is minimal cost involved (Clarke, 1988, p. 501). Monitoring mass data becomes even more valuable, as data can be easily correlated in order to target advertising to individual interests, locations and histories (Clarke, 1988, p. 504). Clarke writes in the context of governments and the legal system, but in 2011 the more immediate threat is from corporations who are now the most aggressive data collectors, and which often lack clear privacy regulations unlike legislation passed in the last few decades relating to government data collection.
Corporations can use this easily available data because laws trail technology and the formation of new social norms. As Brankovic and Estivill-Castro (1999, p. 1) argued as far back as 1999, legislation for privacy rights and data control seriously lag behind the capabilities of technology. They also demonstrate (Brankovic and Estivill-Castro, 1999, p. 2) how great a concern data mining is, quoting various surveys giving various rates of respondents from 70% up to 96% who are worried about their data being used for purposes they have not explicitly authorized (including commercial purposes) – in effect “hav(ing) lost control over their personal information”. In relation to privacy, however, the authors most pertinently note that privacy can be defined as the individual’s right to control their own information. Thus someone can post embarrassing or risqué photographs of themselves but this is done on the understanding of a group identification of privacy and publicity. When information from social networking communities is used by data mining, it is essentially appropriated without the consent of the online group, outside of that group and for a purpose not included as part of the new norms of privacy and exposure being negotiated online.
Media reports and moral panics would have us believe that social networking is the end of privacy and a path to all sorts of evils, but the concept of privacy (and its indissoluble partner, publicity) is being redefined by how we use and understand the technology, by the freedoms and limitations of the underlying code, and by the social interactions of participants. These participants appear to have a more open attitude to risk, but are also more likely to trust others (Fogel and Nehmad, 2009, p. 157). They have not, however, abandoned privacy, but have shifted its boundaries, in effect challenging the dominant (offline) discourse of privacy. In 2007 Boyd observed that youth (and social networking site usage very much correlates inversely with age) are concerned with two types of audience: authority figures, and predators. Boyd (2007, p. 3) notes that the main threat from predators is not sexual, but ‘marketers, scammers and spammers’. While one is being portrayed as a major threat by mainstream media, users are more concerned with the real and already existing threat that marketers represent to the development of a new, mutual, discourse of privacy.
Online privacy is not a negation, but rather a shifting of meanings with positive outcomes. The sharing of information on social networking sites, Thompson (2008) observes, can be considered a way of better understanding oneself, while Fuchs (2010, pp. 779-780) posits an evolutionary development of web technology with the current state’s defining characteristic being co-operation. These processes are creating, aiding and being used to redefine privacies in this transitional period from non-networked relationships to online and offline relationships. The biggest threat to this redefinition, and one which the online community recognises, is the concurrent opportunity for marketers to utilise this online space for outside purposes. Who will win or, as is more likely, how privacy will continue to evolve to encompass these conflicting goals, will be an interesting journey.
Albrechtslund, A. (2008). Online social networking as participatory surveillance. First Monday 13(3). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2142/1949
Barker, C. (2008). Cultural studies: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Baumann, Z. (2010). Privacy, secrecy, intimacy, human bonds, utopia – and other collateral casualties of liquid modernity. In H. Blatterer, P. Johnson, & M. R. Markus (Eds). Modern privacy: Shifting boundaries, new forms (pp. 7-22). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Blatterer, H. (2010). Social networking, privacy, and the pursuit of visibility. In H. Blatterer, P. Johnson, & M. R. Markus (Eds). Modern privacy: Shifting boundaries, new forms (pp. 73-87). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Blatterer, H., Johnson, P., & Markus, M. R. (Eds.) (2010). Modern privacy: Shifting boundaries, new forms. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Boyd, D. (2007). Social network sites: Public, private, or what? Knowledge Tree 13, May. Retrieved from http://kt.flexiblelearning.net.au/tkt2007/?page_id=28
———- (2010). Privacy and Publicity in the Context of Big Data. WWW. Raleigh, North Carolina, April 29. Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/WWW2010.html
Brankovic, L., & Estivill-Castro, V. (1999). Privacy issues in knowledge discovery and data mining. Proceedings of the first Australian Institute of Computer Ethics International Conference on Computer Ethics. Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.85.6280&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Burkart, G. (2010). When privacy goes public: New media and the transformation of the culture of confession. In H. Blatterer, P. Johnson, & M. R. Markus (Eds). Modern privacy: Shifting boundaries, new forms (pp. 23-38). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Clarke, R. A. (1988). Information technology and dataveillance. Communications of the ACM, 31(5), 498-512.
Domingos, P., & Richardson, M. (2001). Mining the network value of customers. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.21.3079&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems. Keystone, Colorado August 9 – 12 2007. Retrieved from http://csis.pace.edu/~dwyer/research/DwyerAMCIS2007.pdf
Fogel, J., & Nehmad, E. (2009). Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust, and privacy concerns. Computers in Human Behavior 25 (1), 153–160.
Fuchs, C. (2010). Social software and Web 2.0: Their sociological foundations and implications. In S, Murugesan (Ed.) Handbook of research on Web 2.0, 3.0 and X.0: Technologies, business and social applications. New York: Information Science Reference.
Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.95.920&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Hood, L. (2011). Online friends can pose a danger. Retrieved from http://www.news.com.au/national/online-friends-can-pose-a-danger/story-e6frfkx9-1226021528813
Lange, P. G. (2008). Publicly Private and Privately Public: Social networking on YouTube. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13 (1), 361–380.
Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society, 10(3), 393-411. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27072/
McNair Ingenuity Research. (2011). Online privacy survey. Retrieved from http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/sites/default/files/documents/1140M%20Online%20Privacy%20Survey%20-%20Report%20for%20Hungry%20Beast.pdf
Ortutay, B. (2009). Facebook to end Beacon tracking tool in settlement. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/hotsites/2009-09-21-facebook-beacon_N.htm
Powell, S. (2011). ‘Friends’ you never knew are watching you. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/friends-you-never-knew-are-watching-you/story-e6frg6z6-1226015798336
Snyder, S. J. (2011). Michelle Obama’s Facebook warning: How young is too young? Retrieved from http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/02/09/michelle-obamas-facebook-warning-how-young-is-too-young/
Swartz, J. (2010). Facebook’s business model calls for wiping out privacy. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-06-16-facebook16_CV_N.htm
Thompson, C. (2008). Brave new world of digital intimacy. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07awareness-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all