The Fractalization of the Public and Private

I sense my thesis will address the issue of what constitutes the private and public. Social networking and social networks can be particularly problematic when it comes to defining what is a private or public space.

As Patricia Lange points out, a number of scholars draw the private and public divide without defining what is meant by these terms. Warren and Brandeis' (actually it was the judge, but we'll let that slide) said that privacy was the "right to be let alone". Perhaps this was an easy way to define privacy back then, but defining the notion of a private space is a complex undertaking.

Lange argues that spaces are fractal in that there component parts take on the nature of the context in which they are situated. She provides the example of a home which, to the community is a private space, but within the home there are both private and public spaces. Lange refers to Gal (2002) who proposes that spaces can be defined as both private and public dependant on the perspective of the observer at the time of the observation. In other words, what is a private space at one point of a day may become public at another - a public toilet is no longer a public space when in use.

Lange suggests YouTube videos are posted in a similarly fractalised manner as publicly private (where people post videos that are potentially available to a very wide audience but use the software and coded tags as a way to make the videos fact difficult to find and view except for close friends) and privately public (where people post public videos but actively hide or disguise their identities in the movies and/or their profiles). One such example provided by Lange is that of MadV who actively takes steps to disguise his identity both in the video and an his profile but presents videos that have broad appeal to a wide audience.

In the context of research into the issue of sovereignty between organisations and employees, much of the parry and thrust of the debate must occur in the realm of what constitutes a public space. Does a blog intended for the writer's family and friends become a public space because it can be found - albeit with some effort - by members of a wider audience? And what rights do companies have to dictate what is said inside walled gardens, such as Facebook? If a person takes active steps to disguise the identity of the subjects of the blog or the writer?

Gal, S. (2002). A semiotics of the public/private distinction. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 13 (1), 77-95.

Can You See Me Now?

Drawing on work from Altman, Tufekci believes that the manner in which teenagers approach online interactions can best be understood as a process of optimisation. By this it is meant that individuals in fact want to be seen and use information about themselves as a way to be noticed but also being mindful of the pitfalls of extending too much information. He notes that doing so in an online environment poses significant increased threats thanks to the collapsing of many temporal boundaries that exist in the real world.

He makes the point that an online environment captures data by default. This is done via cookies, ISP's, databases, RSS feeds, etc, etc. and makes for a prime environment for surveillance. On the other hand, the real world requires a conscious decision PRIOR to a conversation to record the conversation eg a wire tap, or some other form of surveillance. Unlike a real world conversation that, unless recorded, disappears immediately as it occurs, a digital conversation is recorded and can be retrieved months and years later. This is a significant difference in that the default positions are at polar ends of the surveillance spectrum.

Tufekci claims the Internet can be divided into the instrumental Internet and the expressive Internet. By this he means that the former is where we go online to achieve an outcome and uses the purchase of airline tickets as an example. The latter, he contends, refers to the creation of self trough identity expression and impression management through the release of personal information.

He suggests that Altman's model of privacy, where boundaries are actively negotiated, is a more accurate reflection of what occurs in an online environment then early conceptions of privacy as "the right to be let alone". He suggests that people don't necessarily seek more seclusion, but rather, at times, seek more self-disclosure as a way of self-creation.

For me, this rings true. As an active participant on FB, I'm aware that the most interesting profiles and relationships are with those participants who "open up" or show some form of vulnerability or express an outrageous opinion. Others who treat FB as a personal brochure have little interaction and therefore an unexciting presence. Interesting people are usually interesting both on and offline.

He draws on the findings of Pallin and Dourish who suggest that an online environment creates special problems for privacy. We have no idea of who is watching and where and therefore have no control over our spatial boundaries and, because conversations are recorded, virtually forever, we have no control over our temporal boundaries. Our audience can exist far into the the future. Finally there is the problem of the management of context. What is posted on MySpace may well not be appropriate in a job interview, however, because of the nature of the digital environment, these two contexts can (and often do) intersect with often unintended consequences.

Tufecki's research indicated that a staggering 94.9% of Facebook users used their real names on their profiles. There was some tendency of Facebook users to make their profiles visible only to friends, but the research found there was no correlation between an open profile and the use of a real name. They found there was a general link between concerns about online privacy and making telephone numbers available. Males were more likely to display their phone numbers.

The study showed that participants modified their profiles, particularly the display of telephone numbers in line with their own privacy concerns, but they were generally unconcerned about a future employer reading their profile. Participants showed little concern about the consequences of a potential future partner seeing their profile. On the contrary they saw it as a potential benefit for a potential partner to see their profile.

He concludes by suggesting that disclosure is sought by youth as a way to create the self and as a way to limit access to the self through proactive self-disclosure. Although most concern, he claims is for present issues, youth could be more concerned about future problems that could result from the persistence of data.

Can You See Me Now? Audience and Disclosure
Regulation in Online Social Network Sites (subscription required)
Zeynep Tufekci
University of Maryland, Baltimore County

DOI: 10.1177/0270467607311484
2008; 28; 20
Bulletin of Science Technology Society
http://bst.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/1/20

Facebook's Privacy Trainwreck

Here's a few comments on an article from Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies
London, Los Angeles, New Delhi and Singapore Vol 14(1): 13–20

Facebook's Privacy Trainwreck
Exposure, Invasion, and Social Convergence
danah boyd
Harvard University and University of California-Berkeley, USA

Boyd argues that changes made to the public feed feature on Facebook have significanly altered the dynamic of what is viewed as private. She uses the example of a party conversation where one needs to shout to be heard only to find that everything suddenly goes quiet as you're about to finish your sentence. What was a conversation protected in some way by the din of the surroundings, the need to be physically proximate, and the assessment that only those nearby could hear what was being said suddenly becomes a very public communication.

Boyd notes that a similar event happened when Facebook created the public feed and caused what seemingly were private moments and events - despite them being available if someone searched hard enough - into easily accessible public information. It is this disruption she suggests that is new in the digital world.

In the physical world we have become accustomed to ways to protect our privacy, notably walls, physical distance, volume of speech. However, Boyd points out that in a digital world these disappear and are replaced by search capabilities that make previously "private" information very public.

Privacy is all about control one has about information about the self, Boyd suggests. Information is private therefore, not because it is not known, but because it is carefully controlled. It is far more difficult to keep a secret then to not allow the information out at all. Some information, she opines, is only relevant in certain social settings, but Facebook's public feed obliterated the context of this "grey"area information and disrupted the way in which people approached their privacy online.

This collapsing of social domains has resulted in what Boyd calls "social convergence" where previously discrete social contexts are brought together through technologies and digitisation. This convergence raises a number of questions, says Boyd, and significant concerns about the future of privacy as people deal with these converged domains without any form of social scripts.

Privacy International complains about Gmail

Privacy International lodged a complaint with a number of privacy regulators around the world about targeted advertising in Gmail.

Official Google Blog: Google search privacy: Plain and simple

Official Google Blog: Google search privacy: Plain and simple

Search queries saved in logs: Misspelled search terms, prompts for "did you mean".

IP address: Search results returned to the correct computer. Can tell which provider and general location.

Cookies: Small file stored on computer. Reminds of preferences from last time. Search results per pages and language preference

Log of visit: Receipt of visit. Search term, IP address, cookie ID, browser version, operating system, date and time of search.

Some parts of IP address and cookie will be deleted after 18 months.

Google Public Policy Blog: Data retention: the right balance between privacy and security

A quick post to a piece on the Google Public Policy blog from Peter Fleischer about Google and the EU policy on data retention. Will probably be worth coming back to this one.

Google Public Policy Blog: Data retention: the right balance between privacy and security:

"Citizens should have a right to privacy online. And governments have an obligation to keep their citizens safe. Finding the right balance between privacy and security is a delicate balancing act. Europe’s recent experience with data retention holds interesting lessons for everyone concerned with this balance."

Thesis for my next essay

Are individual privacy rights at greater risk as a result of Google's privacy practices?

Eric Scmidt calls for new global privacy regulations

I found this on Peter Fleischer's blog. It's Eric Scmidt, CEO of Google, urging the nations of the world to adopt new privacy regulations. Although it sounds good in theory, the cynic in me believes that it's a diversionary tactic to take attention away from the Google/DoubleClick deal. The comment by Anne Cavoukian tends to reinforce this thought. Ms Cavoukian suggests Google adopts a set of privacy standards her organisation has already developed.

Why Google wants to get to know you - more

Google wants to get to know you - more. Although widely critised for their privacy policies, including a stinging rebuke from Privacy International, Google is mounting a PR campaign of epic proportions to convince web surfers, legislators, and the public in general that the world will be a better place by the search giant knowing even more details about our lives.

As as has been reported here previously, Google is currently in negotiations with the FTC and EEC to seek approval for their USD$3.1 billion (yes, that is a lot of money)
purchase of online advertising agency DoubleClick. Their strategy is simple. Google already dominates the search advertising market with their USD$10.6 billion dollar revenue stream continuing to grow on the back of their highly successful Adsense advertising programme - Adsense places advertisements onto web pages based on the page's content. But as much as that is an ingenious, and clearly lucrative marketing strategy, Google knows little about the interests of web surfers in general. And that's where the powerplay of the DoubleClick purchase begins. Doubleclick is the master of the online advertising world; there's hardly a major brand who hasn't used the company to design an online campaign. And the reason for their success is that they're clever, very clever. Utilising an intricate system of advertisements, cookies, and other tricks of the trade, DoubleClick can track the movements of web surfers as they travel from site to site. From this tracking, surveillance, and recording, DoubleClick has amassed profiles of consumers to the point where they are now able to deliver tailored web advertising to a web surfer based on their surfing habits. And it is this asset that has Google so interested. By combining there immense power in search, with DoubleClick's strength in digital advertising, Google will have completed an amazing metamorphosis from garage-incubated hatchling, to online privacy monster in just 10 short years.

Clearly, there are significant concerns about the power Google will have at its disposal, particularly as that power translates into potential breaches of individual privacy. After all, Google/DoubleClick will have the resources, based on the combination of search and browsing history, to predict and influence consumer behaviour in ways never before imagined. And it is these threats that have privacy advocacy groups clambering to be heard, and it is these capabilities that are seeing competitors, such as Yahoo and Microsoft running to the government accusing Google of being variously anti-competitive and a risk to individual privacy.

Google know there's a lot at stake here. Knowing that better targeted advertising means more effective advertising, and more effective advertising means bigger advertising revenues, Google continues to pursue this deal vigorously. With some pundits expecting them to gain the required approvals for the deal, we could soon find that the "Do No Evil" enterprise knows much more about us than we might expect.



This post was originally on one of my class blogs.

Unpacking “Privacy” for a Networked World

Unpacking “Privacy” for a Networked World: Leysia Palen and Paul Dourish

Drawing on the theories of Altman who, they propose that privacy is a constant process of the negotiation of boundaries. This, they see, is different to other notions of privacy which are created through a notion of personal withdrawal. Altman, they suggest, proposes that privacy is not static but people operate on a spectrum of "openness" and "closedness" and this depends on the context and the desirability of the ends that are being sought.

They posit three boundaries that are in constant tension: Disclosure (what is disclosed), Identity (details about the person/organisation), and Temporality (associated with time).

They argue that to live in the modern world requires us to disclose something of ourselves to the public and they point out that some people utilise disclosure as a way of limiting access of others to the self and they do this through the creation of online personae that determines the information they chose to release.

"Active participation in the networked world requires disclosure of information simply to be a part of it. To purchase goods, we make ourselves visible in public space;
in exchange for the convenience of shopping on-line, we choose to disclose personal identity information for transactional purposes."

They point out that defining the boundaries of the self online is difficult indeed and involves technologies that are poor at assisting this process. The permanence of information, the uncertainty that is created in the creation of the "other" and the inability to know what others are doing with the personal information we send makes this a problematic boundary creation process.

We act to manage our current privacy in accord with our past experiences and the future concerns or benefits we foresee as a result of our actions today.

They conclude by reinforcing that privacy is not static but rather a "dynamic response to circumstances" and the ongoing negotiation of boundaries. It is a balancing of tensions.

Valuating Privacy

In this research article Huberman, Adar, and Fine propose that individuals have a price or value on the data which they are willing to reveal, and this price is connected with the perceived desirability of the personal trait in the group to which they are seeking to reveal their information. They propose that their is a direct correlation between the perceived desirability of the trait and the price which people place on the data. Where the trait has a low perceived desirability the price demanded for this data will be high.

As an example they asked participants to value their weight and they demonstrated a linear relationship between a person's weight and the price they put on giving up this information. They also noted that a person's attitude to privacy affected the price they charged with those who were concerned most about privacy demanding a higher price for personal data than those who cared little for privacy.

Their research suggests therefore, that self-publication increases as the payoff increases. This helps explain why people tend to reveal much about themselves in apparently "closed" groups as a way to achieve group acceptance or popularity.

It seems the law of supply and demand are alive and well when it comes to privacy.

Bloggers' Expectations of Privacy and Accountability: An Initial Survey

Here's a few notes on an article relating to privacy concerns and practices in blogging, with references at the bottom of the post.

Ongoing authorship. People look for and expect a consistent author and voice of a blog.

Archival/permanent nature of posts are exaggerated by RSS feeds which create broadcast copies of blog posts which cannot be later deleted. Most bloggers edit past posts to some degree or another, but are also aware of the difficulty in erasing a blog post completely. This appears to be contradictory behaviour in that once a blog post is out there, it's out there. Editing is not much use. Most bloggers are unconcerned that their blog posts are permanently archived, and show signs of being ambivalent about privacy, until such time as they have an unpleasant experience.

Frequency and brevity of blogging with corresponding reduction in quality. Often people post to blogs things which haven't been thought through and this can be dangerous.

Most blogs are of the personal journal type. Only 3% are knowledge blogs. Existence of an audience important in helping people 'think' on a blog.This is a knowledge blog.

Women and teenagers account for over half the blogs and these were generally personal journals. Many blogs contain accurate personal information.

People who blog about their employers tend to anonymise their company out of fear of repercussions including the loss of jobs and other negative consequences. It is still unclear both ethically or legally where privacy boundaries sit in relation to the blogging activities of employees and this may be a useful avenue for future research. Companies are urged to have detailed and specific blogging policies in relation to what they see as being acceptable free speech and what is considered to be off-limits. Many companies are yet to fully articulate a blogging policy; despite having company blogs that are updated by employees (Microsoft). Groove Networks and Sun Microsystems are two companies with clearly defined blog policies.

People tend to construct their own policy on identification of themselves, their employer, other individuals, and other companies and products based on a variety of personal values.

"Authors in this study were willing to publish the names of friends and companies/products when they deemed the contents of an entry to be either positive or innocuous. This tendency mirrors results from a previous study showing that people are inclined to value privacy less the more socially desirable a piece of information is (Huberman, Adar, & Fine, 2004)."

Some bloggers perceive they 'know' their audience from reading track-backs and comments, however this only represents the 'core' audience of readers and not the wider audience. This lack of broader perception can lead to bloggers posting comments that their core audience want to read about; and this can lead to posts that reveal personal information that is not suited to the public arena of a blog.

Viegas, F. B. (2005). Bloggers' expectations of privacy and accountability: An initial survey. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), article 12. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/viegas.html

A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States

I'm currently writing a piece on how micro-blogging (we can include in that mix the mini-updates of moods and feelings on MySpace and Facebook) encourages increased levels of self-disclosure and, therefore, increased risks to privacy. It appears that those at particular risks are you people who, as the quotes below suggest, treat their online profiles as intimate journals rather than as the public spaces they in fact are. Whilst clearly this suggests risks to young people, it also hints at a generational shift in attitudes with regard the ownership of information and the boundaries between what young people consider public and private.

A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States:

"Students may think that their Facebook or MySpace journal entries are private but they are actually public diaries."

"Herein lies the privacy paradox. Adults are concerned about invasion of privacy, while teens freely give up personal information. This occurs because often teens are not aware of the public nature of the Internet."

Matt Cutts disagrees with Privacy International

Matt Cutts, head of Google's web spam team is not taking Privacy International's accusation of poor privacy practices lying down. In a fiery and enthusiastic post on his private blog, Cutts claims that PI simply walked past companies that were handling privacy poorly, and focussed instead on a company that is doing something positive about the issue. However, Cutts tends to justify his position by pointing to companies that have done worse than Google as opposed to defending the accusations on their own merits, He cites, for example, the release by AOL of millions of raw search queries that lead to the identification of an AOL user. If this is the case, AOL indeed has some improvements to make, but their sloppiness does not make Google a model corporate citizen. And simply because Google is helping out young software programmers with real world experience, does not change the fact that Google's software necessarily relies on significant and ongoing surveillance that must surely become more comprehensive as new and more personalised services are added.

Undoubtedly PI may have erred on the heavy-handed side when making their assessment of Google. In fact, their report stated that their findings would be seen as controversial. But Google is a big corporation and, rather then being thin-skinned and sensitive, would do well to take on board the concerns expressed in the report and work toward being extra-diligent in the handling of customers' private information.

On Google and DoubleClick

Google wants to get to know you - more. Although widely critised for their privacy policies, including a stinging rebuke from Privacy International, Google is mounting a PR campaign of epic proportions to convince web surfers, legislators, and the public in general that the world will be a better place by the search giant knowing even more details about our lives.

As as has been reported here previously, Google is currently in negotiations with the FTC and EEC to seek approval for their USD$3.1 billion (yes, that is a lot of money)
purchase of online advertising agency DoubleClick. Their strategy is simple. Google already dominates the search advertising market with their USD$10.6 billion dollar revenue stream continuing to grow on the back of their highly successful Adsense advertising programme - Adsense places advertisements onto web pages based on the page's content. But as much as that is an ingenious, and clearly lucrative marketing strategy, Google knows little about the interests of web surfers in general. And that's where the powerplay of the DoubleClick purchase begins. Doubleclick is the master of the online advertising world; there's hardly a major brand who hasn't used the company to design an online campaign. And the reason for their success is that they're clever, very clever. Utilising an intricate system of advertisements, cookies, and other tricks of the trade, DoubleClick can track the movements of web surfers as they travel from site to site. From this tracking, surveillance, and recording, DoubleClick has amassed profiles of consumers to the point where they are now able to deliver tailored web advertising to a web surfer based on their surfing habits. And it is this asset that has Google so interested. By combining there immense power in search, with DoubleClick's strength in digital advertising, Google will have completed an amazing metamorphosis from garage-incubated hatchling, to online privacy monster in just 10 short years.

Clearly, there are significant concerns about the power Google will have at its disposal, particularly as that power translates into potential breaches of individual privacy. After all, Google/DoubleClick will have the resources, based on the combination of search and browsing history, to predict and influence consumer behaviour in ways never before imagined. And it is these threats that have privacy advocacy groups clambering to be heard, and it is these capabilities that are seeing competitors, such as Yahoo and Microsoft running to the government accusing Google of being variously anti-competitive and a risk to individual privacy.

Google know there's a lot at stake here. Knowing that better targeted advertising means more effective advertising, and more effective advertising means bigger advertising revenues, Google continues to pursue this deal vigorously. With some pundits expecting them to gain the required approvals for the deal, we could soon find that the "Do No Evil" enterprise knows much more about us than we might expect.

PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE IN COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK

PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE IN COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK: "The source of our anxiety is not the principle of formal institutional surveillance and control over us -- that is implicit in our acceptance of life in a modern capitalist nation. Rather, we are upset by the technological possibilities for a vastly expanded exercise of corporate and government ability to keep track of us."

Google privacy concerns compounded by cookie vulnerability

Competition is a wonderful thing. It encourages innovation, keeps prices in check, and it brings to our world new and exciting products that create benefits to humanity. But competition and innovation don't always work for everyone, and all too often the consequences of rapid product development are unnecessary risks to society. And it is this backdrop that provides an interesting, if not fascinating, twist to a new battle between Internet search giant Google and software behemoth Microsoft.

It seems hardly surprising that Microsoft has announced plans to counter the threat posed by Google documents and spreadsheets. Google's entry into the office productivity market is clever strategy. For years now, Microsoft has been the leader in this lucrative marketplace, holding what many believe to be an unassailable monopoly. Previous attempts to establish a breach-head into the office applications market by various competitors has met with little or no success. Microsoft, for example, have no doubt kept a close watch on Open Office, a suite of office productivity applications which, despite receiving rave critical reviews and being totally free, has caused an insignificant number of customers to shift their allegiance. With this in mind, Google's announcement of their release of Google Docs could easily have been taken lightly by Microsoft; and it appeared for some time that is exactly what happened. After all, Docs was released as a beta version in September 2006 and Microsoft's response has been almost 12 months in the making. But Microsoft knows that Google is Google. With a big brand, lots of customers, and huge developer resources at their disposal, the search giant can make things happen. Which is precisely why Microsoft has responded to Google's web-only offering by creating Office Live Workspace, a program that works with Microsoft Office products allowing people to view, store, and share Office documents online. To many people, this product is a welcome innovation. Mobile workers, students, and travelers will undoubtedly benefit from the increased flexibility that Internet based storage provides, without the arduous task of migrating their Office documents to Google Docs. So what then could be the downside in such rapid development of Internet based software?

The risk to consumers comes from a security threat from Cross Site Scripting (XSS) attacks which are instigated when a line of code, placed on a malicious but otherwise normal web page, captures a person's cookie details and potentially gives the hacker access to user names and passwords. A recent report on Google Blogoscoped reveals how such an attack, created in a controlled environment, allowed a 'hacker' limited access to another person's Google account - including Google Docs. Whilst Google are aware of the problem and continue to issue security warnings to webmasters, the fact that a person's Google Docs area was potentially compromised gives web surfers reason to be concerned. It may also give Microsoft the opportunity to take the high ground on security, and some degree of comfort in their decision to respond slower than usual to a competitive threat.

Indeed competition is a wonderful thing - usually. But it appears that Google's rush to innovate, to steal a march on a competitor, to bring a product to the market quickly, has shown the dark side of innovation. It's the dark side where privacy is not paramount and where security is not treated with the highest priority. Unless Google places the privacy and well-being of their customers first, the future for the Internet will be cause for grave concerns.

Another reading on privacy

Market Institutions: "CAUGHT IN THE WWWEB: PATTERNS OF CONTROL OVER PERSONAL INFORMATION FLOW IN THE E-COMMERCE ENVIRONMENT"

Privacy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Privacy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): "Privacy First published Tue May 14, 2002; substantive revision Mon Sep 18, 2006 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."

Surveillance technologies in the work place: ETHICOMP 2004

ETHICOMP 2004:

"Surveillance-capable technologies in the workplace: some evidence of the views of the next generation of computer professionals"