What is privacy? I think of it as the state of being able to control shared awareness of your identity, personal habits, location, etc. As defined by www.dictionary.com (2nd definition), privacy is “the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one's private life or affairs.” There’s been so much happening in the world of privacy versus technology this week, it’s been hard to stop reading about it and try to compose this blog entry. To sum up here: Google introduced Buzz and blew it; Facebook works on privacy but doesn’t think we value it;and loss of privacy can lead to becoming a crime victim. Ultimately privacy is something we’ve got to hold tightly to with both hands while at the same time allowing some of it to slip away. The paradox is challenging and confusing. Inevitably we’ll all make mistakes with it.
We discuss privacy a great deal in the considering the implications of technology in our lives. Something as simple as the common use of the cell phone, allowing us to make telephone calls outside the privacy of the home or office can lead to the inadvertent sharing or broadcasting of your private information to eavesdroppers. If you’re like me, you’ve been amazed what people will say outloud when talking on their cell phone. Recently I was in the airport and the man next to me gave his home address out to whomever he was talking to and then went on to discuss how long he’d be on the road and his concern about the snow storm on his home.
Taking and sharing digital photographs can lead to publication of location information from the geotagged data embedded in the photograph. Your car can share information too. Perhaps you have installed a theft-prevention system that can allow the car to be tracked by satellite or you have the OnStar ® monitoring system that can speed assistance to you from a crash and help recover a stolen car. You can also hide a location tracking device on your car to keep tabs on the kids, spouse, or employees. All of these techie toys have the potential to reduce your real or implied privacy.
I think most of us agree that when we control our privacy settings and understand how information is shared, privacy needs to be easily adjustable. With those we trust most, we reveal the most. With strangers, and less trusted entities (possibly government? ex-spouses? employers?) we want to increase the level of our privacy for our own self-preservation.
Enter Google’s Buzz service introduction and the ensuring concern about privacy. Perhaps you missed the story? The basic elements are these: Google (the big search engine firm) introduced a new service for the users of their Gmail email system. Combining features of social networking services like Facebook, Buzz combined the addresses in your Gmail account together as “followers” using the Twitter terminology. You can read more about the privacy concerns and the timeline of events at CNET’s site.
Some of the obvious (in hindsight) mistakes made:
- They tested the new service internally, which prevented them from getting valuable input from members of the public.
- They made the initial launch opt-out (meaning you had to decide you didn’t want Buzz) and they made making changes complicated.
- They assumed people who like free email would want to share private information (contact lists, photo albums, etc)
One of the early outcries came from a female blogger concerned that Buzz’ reduction in her privacy would actually cause her physical harm. Others were concerned that their use of Gmail for a variety of purposes didn’t lend itself for a social network since it wasn’t previously used in that way. More here on the Buzz bust up in one of the best articles detailing how privacy-damaging the Buzz intro was.
But it’s not just Buzz. Several weeks ago a kerfuffle emerged when Facebook launched new privacy settings and the founder Mark Zuckerberg stated his belief that the age of privacy is over. He cites growth in blogging, tweeting, social networking and other publishing services as evidence. I counter that privacy will ALWAYS matter and that the user is the only one who should decide when to share and when to limit access to their information.
In Los Angeles, a group of teens used publicly available information along with social networked information like Twitter postings to determine where some celebrities lived and when they were away from home. And then the teen gang robbed them, stealing jewelry, cash, artwork and clothing in a case referred to as the “Bling Ring”. The celebrities should have known that so much of their privacy was diminished by paparazzi stakeouts, celebrity-tracking websites like TMZ.com and their own naïve sharing of personal information and taken appropriate security measures to prevent being robbed. OK, that’s the celebrity world where you would expect people to be targeted simply due to wealth and opportunity. What about users of FourSquare and Twitter? Enter a new site, PleaseRobMe.com which publishes mentions of users being away from home with a tongue-in-cheek suggestion that these people deserve to be robbed.
The latest entry: Microsoft announced a service to combine your Outlook activities with your social networked life in Outlook Social Connector, an add-on tool. Read about it here.
Clearly my preference is outdated and hopelessly naïve. We in the West live with such openness and there is so much of our lives that plays out in public. For example, if you’ve ever entered a road race (5k, 10k, marathon), it’s likely your race time has been published to a website somewhere, along with your registration information. Made a political contribution? It’s available online, along with your registered party, and possibly with a map link to your home address. Use a search engine and much of your information readily pops up in the results. And if you’re willing to pay a little money to a service, you can pull even more information, including such valuable bits as Social Security number and mother’s maiden name.
I hold onto the belief that not only is privacy valuable and worth protecting but is worth teaching to young people. Do not expect your child’s teachers to discuss privacy in the school environment. Rather, this should be a topic for your dinner table. Do a “show and tell” with your family and share the results of a quick search engine on everyone’s names or your home address. Look for images of your family members on the Internet. Check out the privacy settings for the websites you use. Login to Google, go to account settings and examine the “Dashboard” of connected bits of information.
As I stated earlier, privacy is a complex and paradoxical state of being. If I haven’t convinced you that it’s worthy of protection and control, I urge you to consider the possibility of no privacy at all. If that’s your choice, it’s a fine one. But if you prefer to preserve some of your anonymity or security, you may find it worth the effort to address privacy issues as you find them and reduce your use of technologies or services that don’t support your privacy goals. At least make sure you’re playing the game or risk getting ultimately played yourself.