Leave me alone?

"A state of perfect privacy would be akin to a state of absolute solitude, which is not only undesirable but also the harshest modern judicial punishment short of the death penalty" (Tufecki, 2008: 22).

I have written several articles where I discuss the conundrum of disclosure vs. privacy-concerns with regard to social technologies (in my doctoral thesis, and three (!) forthcoming articles this autumn*). Zeynep Tufecki's "Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites" has nevertheless escaped my attention till now. I still haven't read it, only the two first pages. The obvious truth of the above quote made me stop. I do believe the essence is quite same as what I have written a number of times already. Tufecki, however, refers to Irwin Altman's conception of privacy as a balance between optional withdrawal and disclosure. She emphasizes the difference between Altman and the limited conception of privacy as social withdrawal (the right to be let alone), the latter conception being flawed: We do not want to be let alone at all times. Human beings crave disclosure to some extent.

Which is what I find again and again. I'm currently working on a small privacy-focused research-project for the Concumer Council of Norway (together with my collegues Petter Brandtzæg and Jan Håvard Skjetne). We've conducted interviews with Facebook-users aged 16 - 50 as well as a a survey (her er prosjektets Facebookgruppe). A report in Norwegian will be published later this autumn, but I am sure we will also write a couple of conference/journal articles.

* Forthcoming articles where I discuss social technologies and privacy:

Lüders, M, Brandtzæg, P. and Dunkels, E. (forthcoming 2009): Risky Contacts. In S. Livingstone & L. Haddon (Eds.), Kids Online: Opportunities and Risks for Children: The Policy Press (link)

Lüders, M (forthcoming 2009). Why and how online sociability became part and parcel of teenage life. In R. Burnett, M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet studies. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell (link)

Lüders, M. (under utgivelse). Ung, dum og deilig? In Clemet, K & Egeland, J.O. (red), Til Forsvar for Personvernet (arbeidstittel). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Superstreng

I still find it utterly uncomfortable to talk on radio. But you know, I guess the practice is valuable. Or rather, I don't find it very uncomfortable to talk, but to listen to myself afterwards. A couple of weeks ago I visited Eirik Newth's "Superstreng"-show, and we were of course talking about social networking services, especially Facebook. Kind of common sense stuff. Here's the podcast. It's in Norwegian of course.

Facebook is highly profiled as vicious by the mass media these days. They apparently exploit all your personal information and intend to use your private photos in commercial campaigns. Or something. If you know Norwegian, you might want to read Ove Skåra's answers to readers of the Norwegian tabloid VG. Skåra represents the Norwegian Data Inspectorate.

I don't have the time to comment. Obviously, I have read Facebook's terms of service. My short answer is that mediated practices are experienced as so meaningful that they outweigh the perceived threats to privacy.

What is a paradox?

I'm sometimes puzzled by how I apply certain concepts and then realise I might be using them all wrong. For instance how I use "paradox" in a work-in-progress (which will be part of a mighty interesting Norwegian anthology to be published in the fall):

The opportunity to design personal performances through edited pieces of textual, visual and sonic elements denotes that the individual has control with her or his own presentation, but only to some degree. As such online personal practices are characterised by a control-paradox: on the one hand individuals can construct filtered yet accurate and beneficial self-presentations (both socially and professionally); and on the other hand, once published, users have little control over content and little chance of preventing abuse such as republishing without consent.

Considering actual definitions of "paradox" I am not at all sure this is the concept I should be using.

Paradox: an argument which seems to justify a self-contradictory conclusion by using valid deductions from acceptable premises.

Other definitions.

By the way, the actual article concerns digital dilemmas: briefly summarised:

Users of social network services experience that having a publicly available online presence is meaningful. However, sharing texts, photos, videos, communicative acts and visualisations of social networks with known and unknown others may contest issues of privacy. Users consequently face a dilemma with two unfavourable options: protecting one’s privacy by not using social network services, despite potentially undesirable personal and social consequences. Or, alternatively, choosing to have an online presence and hence put one’s privacy at risk.

security through obscurity

In computer security engineering (of which I know nothing at all), "security through obscurity" is a principle where secrecy is used to ensure security. The idea is, as far as I can understand, not to tell anyone about how your system works. Consequently flaws in the system are not known to others than the owners and designers and attackers are unlikely to find them (for more, see AllExperts. It is a controversial principle, but my interest stems from the use of the principle to explain why users voluntarily expose private information without worrying about the hazards these performances pose to their privacy. danah boyd for example writes the following in "Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites"

Most people believe that security through obscurity will serve as a functional barrier online. For the most part, this is a reasonable assumption. Unless someone is of particular note or interest, why would anyone search for them?

Keeping the original meaning of the principle in mind, is this argument valid only for users who are determined to keep their performances a secret? I mean, it can hardly be applied to explain the practices of users who do little to hide their presence? Moreover, it is hardly the case that users themselves actually think that security through obscurity functions as a barrier securing their privacy. My impression is rather that users perceive the sheer magnitude of expressions online to be a protection towards their own privacy. Which is how David seems to apply the term in his contribution to the forthcoming anthology Personlige medier. Livet mellom skjermene (in English, Personal media. Life between screens): "For the most part those interviewed rely on ‘security through obscurity’ (the sheer number of weblogs and web pages in general) to ensure what they write is not read by anyone save the ‘innocuous’ passing stranger." (David's contribution is translated from English and concerns how bloggers relate to their readers).

can I take and publish your photo, please?

For early in the history of photography, there was a series of judicial decisions that could well have changed the course of photography substantially. Courts were asked whether the photographer, amateur or professional, required permission before he could capture and print whatever image he wanted. Their answer was no (Lawrence Lessig: Free Culture: 33).

Pretty interesting, right? Especially considering how digital network technology changes what we do with our photographs. I might not have to ask for permission to take somebody's photograph, yet in principle I have to ask for permission before I publish it online. According to the Norwegian Data Inspectorate I don't have to ask for permission for publishing "situation photographs", that is, photographs where the actual situation or activity is the primary content of the photo (such as concerts, sports events). However, if I take a photo of somebody particular, I need to ask if it's ok before I upload it to the web.

Usually I don't. I do take care not to publish compromising photos of course.