Is Big Brother Watching?
As with other increasingly complex concepts, privacy is one that has many nuanced meanings. That is, the more we experience issues of privacy, and are forced to create our own boundaries of public and private, a sliding scale of acceptability emerges for us individually. Then, we have to mix in those personal expectations of privacy, and reconcile them with third-party definitions and policies of privacy.
Everyone needs a privacy policy these days.
And it makes sense to a certain degree, but ultimately I wonder, does any ever actually read privacy policies? And if they do pay attention to such things, could a bad privacy policy change a consumers mind about using the product? I also wonder, to what extent do we value our privacy? Sure, when people think that their privacy has been violated, it is a big deal… but we sign over our rights to privacy on a daily basis. Especially those of us who are heavily engaged with the internet.
Last month, in an editorial piece on CNN, Pete Cashmore (a social media consultant) boldly stated that, “Privacy is dead, and social media is holding the smoking gun.” He gets into the nuts and bolts of why people embed themselves in these digital networks. He speaks of the “attention economy” and the notion that a public life is a successful one. The more public you are, the more capital you will earn. An interesting notion, and probably not too far from the truth.
By engaging in the participatory infrastructure of Cyberspace, we record and post our lives, for all to see and analyse. Even when we are clever and set up our privacy controls so that our “work friends” can’t invade our personal profiles, all of our online activity is continually fed into a massive stream of data which I imagine looks something like the Matrix. Every keystroke, every website visit, every tweet, every photo, every video we share and look at… all being fed into numerous databases for numerous purposes.
As a heavy feeder of data into these streams, I have tried to reconcile my private life with my public one; but I know that if I want to use them, and try to make some headway into the “attention economy”, I must reasonably expect that the price for participating in Cyberspace, is the recording of my every movement within it.
Of course, the underlying assumption in my (and perhaps your) use is that there is no unifying program tying all the little data droppings we leave behind in our daily lives… no one actually listening to and watching the Matrix… This is what allows us to easily invoke Big Brother as if it were still a fictional archetype of a society. Big Brother may have the capability of watching, but he only pays attention when you are breaking the rules, or exploiting personal data.
But what about the people who don’t participate in Cyberspace, and cite privacy issues as their reason number 1.
The HRM has over 1200 cameras in use across the city in facilities and on Metro Transit Buses. That figure is no where close to the total number of CCTV cameras in use across the city, and indeed the whole province. The article indicates (and I suspect most public opinion agrees) that the primary purpose for these cameras is safety, and crime prevention. Although no one is monitoring the cameras, and it is hard to imagine a camera stopping a crime in progress even if they are being monitored… it is generally acceptable that CCTV cameras are a good way to enhance our personal safety.
The Brits have been doing it for years already, and major cities across Canada seem to be adopting a model of surveillance, with one noticable difference from the way it is carried out over there. In the UK, you are constantly being reminded that you are being watched by an omnious voice that comes across the subway speakers every 10 minutes, and asked to assist the CCTV cameras and report “all suspicious activity to authorities.” The authorities want people to feel like Big Brother is watching (even if he isn’t).
In Canada we like to do these things more subtley and friendly… just check out the picture with the associated Herald Story… Smile, you are on camera.
And we complacently smile and wave away our expectations of privacy… enthusiastically even, when the Google car drives by.
But where do we draw the line in the sand? We accept public surveillance in the name of security and public safety. We find electronic banking convenient and reward cards rewarding. We accept most of the cameras and data-tracking. We accept the technology which invades and kills our privacy… in fact we love it. We assist in the creation of the panoptic mosaic which is our technocracy by documenting our lives ourselves, and sharing it with anyone who cares to take an interest.
Perhaps CCTV recording will always remain okay and acceptable by the public, so long as it is related to our activities which are conducted in public.
And perhaps it will remain okay when we install cameras in the houses of people on welfare, like they are now doing in the UK (as reported by Wired Magazine in August). It is apparently a reasonable and rational thing to do over there… so why not here?
I’m glad there are watchdog organizations out there who make it their business to advocate for a human right to privacy… but ultimately I’m just happy for the little claims to privacy I can still make. I still feel as though I am in relative control of my public/private boundaries. Though I acknowledge that control is fairly superficial, because as we are so often reminded – Big Brother could watch if he wanted to.
Another round of policy revisions for The Facebook
I’ve been thinking about Facebook’s privacy policy for a while now… trying to encourage users to maximize their privacy settings, and informing them of their rights when they upload content to the site… In fact, I was writing so much about Facebook back in 2007 that I thought I had said all there was to say about it. Then, this morning, when I woke up and logged on to check in with all my pals, I noticed one friend’s update said something about Facebook violating our “rights” to privacy.
After a discussion with my husband about the semantic implications and inappropriate nature of using the words “privacy rights” and “Facebook” in the same sentance, a quick google revealed the probable source of the status update. Apparently, Facebook wants to own your Facebook Data Double even if you decide to commit Facebook suicide. So even after you disable your profile… even if you go that extra step and send Facebook an email requesting to have your profile deleted… Facebook will not remove the little bits of yourself that you leave behind on people’s walls, in people’s inboxes, or in the massive consumer databases Facebook investors have come to rely on for those great big bonuses and market research. But, they promise not to fuck with your privacy settings… so I guess that’s something…
The policy shift is causing such a ruckus, Facebook is on the defensive. But ultimately, they probably aren’t that worried about losing users because come on, let’s face it, Zuckerberg has achieved his goal of making Facebook the Windows for Web 2.0… we are hooked now, whether we like it or not.
The way Facebook is implementing this new poilicy is unfair. Users who signed up under the original user agreement and are now being informed that it is being replaced with a new user agreement that they don’t get a chance to accept or decline. One which sees you give up the rights to the “soul” of your Facebook Data Double. It seems to me that The Facebook can easily quiet the protesters by simply giving them the option to continue on as Facebook users, or not. Because I am fairly certain most users would simply do what they did the first time they signed up… click “I accept” without even reading the damn fineprint.
Frig, even those who are well-versed in The Facebook’s policies will click “I accept” without blinking an eye, because ultimately, Facebook is such an important part of our lives.
For everyone who is so up in arms about this new policy shift, I ask, what’s the big deal? So Facebook chooses to clog up it’s servers with outdated information that you didn’t care about posting in the first place. Sure Facebook will still have a record that you posted “25 things” about yourself on January 30, 2009… but who cares?
If you are worried, like I once was, about Facebook selling your information to market research firms so that they can devise updated tactics of psychological warfare in their advertising schemes… this little shift shouldn’t bother you that much… because it’s all so fluid these days… data from last week is so last year. If the Facebook data mining practices while you are a user don’t disturb you, then why should you get anxious about how they use your practically useless data after you are gone?
In the end, and in my interpretation, this is not a new privacy issue… As a user of Facebook, you should expect no more privacy in the conversations you have with your friends on their walls and in the other public spaces of Facebook than you would having the same conversations with those friends in a pub, or on the bus… Besides… there are far greater Internet Privacy Concerns on the horizon for Canadians…
