The cavalier attitude people have towards privacy online never ceases to astound me. I do things like buy clothing and use GMail--but the idea of having a profile openly accessible with my name, address, and interests is horrifying. To have that profile hosted by a vendor--Facebook--that's 'privacy' policy explicitly states the abuses it plans to undertake? Anathema. But, apparently, I am in the distinct minority in holding this perspective.
To me, the fear over online privacy is much more salient than the Myspace-save-our-children pitch offered by Verini. Yes, there are prurient pursuits percolating throughout Myspace--but the raunch levels that are accessible there truly pale in comparison to even what HBO carries. Even non-premium cable channels (FX) broadcast more flesh than is revealed on Myspace. And, though this article focuses on several examples of wild, exhibitionist sexual activity 'spurred' by Myspace it is my opinion that this is essentially aberrant and misleading. Thinking back to the readings we explored about Columbine last week, the outrage over Myspace is simply another in a long line of comic, movie, and Marilyn Manson freak-outs. If he's still writing on this topic today, Jenkins would certainly think the same thing. There will also be extremists; is Myspace really leading to a more sexualized environment? Is Myspace really driving its users to a new era of promiscuity? Or has media coverage simply zeroed in on the most salacious tidbits in its stories?
Meanwhile, it is the mundane activities of the 'normal' people that we overlook--though Rupert Murdoch and the NSA seem plenty interested in these folks. The slew of identifiable, categorical, digestible information shared on social networks websites is overwhelming. And, combined with the databases of consumer behavior that already exist (never mind other databases tracking things like healthcare and insurance), marketers are suddenly able to match individual names with faces. If the Pentagon already has 32 million profiles on young Americans, it now knows what they look like (broad shoulders for good soldiers?) and what songs they like--all the better to recruit with. Viewed en masse, this data is incredibly valuable--and it takes an institution with relatively robust resources to leverage it into a productive outcome. Individuals, of course, don't have the time, energy, or motivation to collect and collate these data points--and why would they? Is it possible for individuals to understand the worth of their own data to large institutions given the fact that similar data is of only marginal value/utility to them? From another perspective: will individuals value their information more once it is clear that institutions value it? Has this reality not become clear to the masses yet?
One sidenote from the Gross reading: I had no idea is was so easy to recreate social security numbers. I realized that there was some logic, based in geography and birth year, to the numbers--but I'm sort of horrified that it is very conceivable that a particular SSN can be re-engineered from easily accessible data. At what point will the government respond to this? How costly will any kind of adjustment to our current SSN system be?
1. There will also be extremists; is Myspace really leading to a more sexualized environment? Is Myspace really driving its users to a new era of promiscuity? Or has media coverage simply zeroed in on the most salacious tidbits in its stories?
2. Is it possible for individuals to understand the worth of their own data to large institutions given the fact that similar data is of only marginal value/utility to them? From another perspective: will individuals value their information more once it is clear that institutions value it? Has this reality not become clear to the masses yet?
3. At what point will the government respond to this? How costly will any kind of adjustment to our current SSN system be?
PS. Is 'danah boyd' the new e.e. cummings? Or is she the new bell hooks? What's with imposing your views on capitalization on the rest of the world?
Comments (2)
Unless our education system sees a more widespread media literacy curriculum, I doubt most people will realize the worth of their personal data in the near future. As long as institutions keep asking for personal data like it ain't no thang, how are people supposed to know otherwise? And I'm not just talking about the clerk asking you for your phone number at Urban Outfitters (which they do not need in order to make the purchase go through, no matter what BS they feed you — tell them to enter their own damn number). On the web in particular, some services are actively withheld unless you are willing to at least lie about a birth date (on the less intrusive end) or give a credit card number (on the more troublesome end). We're used to these occasional sacrifices by now, and most folks won't protest until a viable alternative is widely understood to be possible.
Posted by Green 27 | December 3, 2006 5:42 PM
Posted on December 3, 2006 17:42
It could not be so hopeful, but.....
Personally I do not know what should be done to keep personal information. I think individuals do not know much about the values of personal information and do not want to keep personal information. The perception on the privacy can be helpful for people to realize the value of personal information. However, the surveillance issue via the internet (i.e., social network websites) might not be considered critical or important issue to people. People assumed their blogs are seen only by their friends or family member and the server (i.e., the company) will keep their personal information. In addition, in general people’s life, privacy is not so critical issue. That is, the desire for the privacy (i.e., will to keep personal information) is not so high. Surveillance or privacy issues often drive me pessimistic about the future. Education for internet literacy, public campaign, or civil movements can be helpful, but only in short term.
Posted by Y14 | December 3, 2006 8:45 PM
Posted on December 3, 2006 20:45