With
the rapid growth in social media, the issue of privacy has become one
of modern society’s biggest concerns. Whilst there has been great
speculation around the privacy policy of the social network site
Facebook, it would seem that in an increasingly public world, users of
Facebook have just as much input into concealing and revealing private
information as the Facebook organisation does. In the increasingly
interactive virtual world, people who hold a Facebook account are both
users, and abusers of private information. This essay will look at the
way in which Facebook users access private information, manage private
information, abuse private information and self-censor and promote their
own private information. This essay will draw on philosopher A. C.
Grayling’s work who explores the ambivalent nature of personal privacy
in the contemporary context. His work highlights the paradox of the need
to both protect and invade privacy.
Since
2004 when Facebook was launched, it has been under intense scrutiny for
what some have perceived as its violation of personal privacy. Whether a
case for this exists or not, the role of the individual Facebook user
in the privacy debate is evident. In the Facebook privacy policy, there
is a strong emphasis on the proactivity of the user, suggested in
facebook's conversation with the user and the emphasis on the second
person "you” and “your information” and the control “you choose” to have
over your personal data. In this context, the users are positioned as
dictators of privacy, with Facebook positioned merely as the platform
upon which users operate. Philosopher A. C. Grayling argues that
“privacy is an indispensable adjunct of the minimum that individuals
require for a chance to build good lives”, and that “the foremost reason
for privacy is that it is crucial for personal autonomy and
psychological well being” (Grayling, 2011:110). However, whilst Grayling
states that privacy is a personal right, Regan claims that in the
modern, technology-driven world, “a right to privacy, as well as other
individual rights, is not absolute. Instead, privacy competes with other
individual rights and social interests”, (Regan, 1995:178) and in
social media, privacy is not a paramount individual right. This conflict
in ideology is indicative of the conflict being acted out daily in
social media; users want to maintain their privacy, but still want
access to the information of others. Foley explains, it “conceptualises
the tension between individual privacy and public morality” (Foley
2006:61).
The
uses of social media sites such as Facebook can vary from friends
keeping in contact to parents checking up on their tech-savvy children.
Facebook provides an active platform on which images, comments, events
and information can be shared between friends and family. It is a
relatively new medium by which “the rapid and in many ways vastly
enabling current and apparently forthcoming technologies also introduce
new vulnerabilities and risks. Among many that could be cited is the way
full engagement in the world of electronic connectedness strips away
most of one’s privacy and makes one transparent to the world - to the
‘authorities’, hackers, criminals and the curious” (Grayling 2010:160).
This sharing allows for greater levels of instant communication which
transverses the traditional technological and social communication
barriers. Social media sites such as Facebook have opened up a multitude
of new ways in which people can communicate, interact and use the
online environment. Whilst these uses can hold many benefits for social
interactivity, the format of Facebook affords users the ability to not
only use, but abuse, the information they access. The Facebook format
allows users to provide varying degrees of open access to their personal
information to a multitude of different people. This increased level of
access, however, has opened the potential for private information to be
abused and misused, with STATISTIC #people reporting having received
unfavourable comments and actions, including “Inappropriate or sometimes
too eager comments” (appendix) in response to the personal information
they release on Facebook. Grayling explains that “even the
electronically wired-up individual is today an almost naked creature in
the cyber-reality he inhabits...the individual leaves a bright shining
smear of information about himself like a trail in his wake, which
anyone interested can follow with the greatest of ease”, (Grayling
2010:160) demonstrating how anyone can become an online victim and
importantly, how technology can leave an unremoveable trail of user
information. To understand how personal information is used and abused
by social media users, a survey was conducted to test their levels of
awareness about privacy, interactivity, self-censorship and the online
persona in the context of Facebook. Whilst the survey has provided some
interesting insights, respondents appear to have self-censored their
answers, as their comments are not wholly reflective of the activities
observed on Facebook. This may lead to an incomplete understanding of
the true behaviours of Facebook users when they access the personal
information of others.
Interactivity
The
rate at which our personal information is accessed appears to be
relatively frequent with 44.8 per cent of survey respondents stating
that they accessed their friends’ profiles on a daily basis, whilst 24.1
per cent of respondents claim they interact with the information on
their friends’ profiles every couple of days. Interactivity is a key
element of social media that allows users to engage with the private
information of other users. Interactivity is an important element of the
social media experience and it plays on our desires to access the
information of others as, “we are all curious about others’ lives and
doings. A central reason for this is that insights into others’
experience is an important adjunct to the reflection on our own
experience, and they help us to manage our own lives better” (Grayling,
2011:111).
The
extent to which social media users will abuse the private information
of other users is demonstrated through the seeking, accessing and using
of private information that belongs to users who are not Facebook
‘friends’. Respondents to the survey revealed that social media provides
“A good way of anonymously finding out information about them”
(appendix). This intense level of interactivity with the information of
unknown social media users demonstrates the ease at which personal
information can be obtained and used for the ulterior purposes of
“stalking tendencies”(app). One respondent made the comment that “we’re
all stalkers and like to know what other people are up to without having
to actually add them!”( app). The relative ease at which this
respondent suggests all social media users are stalkers who enjoy
accessing other people’s information without making contact with them,
highlights the capacity that social media users have to break privacy,
obtain information and use it to fulfil “stalking tendencies”. The
interactive nature of social media, which places a screen between user
and used, affords Facebook profile holders the ability to circumvent
traditional social conventions around the issue of privacy. In the real
world, people rarely engage in “stalking tendencies”, however, the
interactive advantages of the online environment allow users to search,
obtain and use information that they are able to access, ironically, in a
private, anonymous way.
Information
As
Murphie and Potts state, “information, even if materially ‘in’ the
world, is something conceptually distinct from its carrier” (127), and
this idea can clearly be seen in the Facebook format; Facebook is the
platform upon which users upload their information. The need to be aware
of the personal information of other users appears to be very low with
none of the respondents stating that they are ‘very determined’ to
access their Facebook friends’ information. The rest of the respondents
were divided between being ‘somewhat determined’ (11.1 per cent),
‘rarely determined’ (55.6 per cent) and ‘not determined at all’ (33.3
per cent). With over half of the respondents answering that they were
‘rarely determined’ to access other people’s information, it would seem
that the issue of privacy and personal information should not be of
concern. However, the potential for survey respondents to be conscious
of their responses, and not wholly forthcoming, is evident here as
respondents supplied answers such as “nothing”, “nothing much” and
“nothing in particular” when asked what they do with the information
they gain from other people’s profiles. Respondents also stated that
they obtain the information of other people out of curiosity, or so they
can catch up on the life of the other person. Everyday social
interaction demonstrates the impact that Facebook-displayed information
can have on those who access it. Offline conversations are frequently
punctuated by statements such as “did you see his Facebook status?”,
“what was she wearing in that Facebook photo?”, and most commonly, “are
they single? Check their Facebook to find out!”, suggesting that the
survey responses are very tailored and self conscious.
Personal Privacy and Security
Facebook
has a privacy policy that has not met the expectations of its users,
however users themselves use Facebook to enact their “stalker
tendencies”, suggesting that user concerns about personal privacy are
just that, personal. 70 per cent of respondents revealed that they are
concerned about how much of their information is available on Facebook,
and subsequently, 69 per cent censor the information they display,
citing the primary reasons for doing so as being family, future
employment prospects and not wanting “the whole world knowing stuff
about me”. This desire to maintain personal privacy reflects Grayling’s
argument that privacy is essential for the effective social and personal
development of a person, and that if one cannot protect one’s own
privacy, then one begins to loose one's sense of identity and self-hood
(Grayling 2011:110-111).
Self Censorship/(Un)Favourable
Whilst
most respondents claim that they are conscious of the personal
information they put onto their Facebook account, many seem to deny the
potential levels of access to it. The most common response from the
survey was 'only my friends see it', suggesting that Facebook users are
generally ignorant of the reach and availability of their personal
information. Facebook privacy policy clearly states that set pieces of
information, including your name, profile picture and gender are
'public' and cannot be concealed. Whilst respondents to the survey
claimed that they only provide their friends with access to their
information, they seem unaware of the amount of information that is
already available to the general public. Even more importantly, Facebook
users seem to be under the assumption that all the 'friends' on their
account are genuine friends who "they only let see" this information.
They do not appear to recognise that whilst these people may be their
'friends', they may also be inclined to share, misuse and abuse the
personal information they see on someone's account. Barnes (2006) and
Utz and Kramer (2009) state that “this gap between knowledge about
privacy issues and actual behaviour has been named the “privacy
paradox”, and this paradox emerges as “users often seem too shortsighted
concerning the prospective issues of the current behaviour” (Trepte and
Reinecke 2011:183). It is well known that the majority of 'friends' on
one's Facebook account cannot be considered genuine friends, and more
frequently acquaintances, colleagues and friends of friends. Facebook
users in the survey appeared to confuse this general awareness of an
acquaintance with that of a close relationship between friends, as they
are seemingly willing to share their personal details with the
relatively unfamiliar acquaintances they count as their Facebook
'friend'. 64.3 percent of respondents claimed that they were not
confident with the established privacy settings provided by Facebook,
and 69 per cent of users stated that they were concerned about how much
of their information was on Facebook, and yet these users add people
they are not familiar with, and provide them with an all-access pass to
their personal information.
Online Persona
The
responses from the survey suggest that Facebook users occupy two
different modes of operating in their social network profile. The first
is that of the user who has a separation between their online and
offline persona, and the user who maintains no difference between their
social media and real world persona. Those who claimed to have an online
persona described it as “a little louder than myself”. The distance
provided by the screen allows the online persona to appear to have an
ego separate from that of the offline persona, and seeks validation
through the advantages, such as comments, likes and pokes, provided by
social media. Survey respondents highlighted this concept of real and
online worlds and the "strong correlation” between the two; “I think you
can be a bit more gutsy online because there is obviously a "distance"
between you and your "friends"”. In response to this, some survey
respondents also indicated that they tailor the information that they
place on their Facebook profile to appeal to audiences who interact with
their online persona. One of the greatest concerns raised seemed to be
around the presence of family and the implied judgement that would come
from a family member accessing unsavoury information, suggesting the
that their online persona may cross certain social boundaries.
Most
respondents have indicated that they have received favourable feedback
on their information, which encourages the online persona to sustain
interactions in the online environment.
Tailored Information
There
was a reasonable split in responses from the survey when answering
questions relating to tailored information. Respondents were asked if
they tailor their personal information to suit a given audience. Those
who claimed they did stated it was primarily due to the online presence
of family, family friends and colleagues, who the respondents did not
want prying into their personal information and actions. Other comments
focused on the awareness of other users, and a desire not to
oversaturate the social media site with their own information, “I am
realistic that certain friends would not wish to know particular details
about my life due to their own lifestyles”.
Respondents
on the other side claimed that they do not tailor their information as
“anything I put up is available for my friends. They wouldn't be
'friended' otherwise”. These respondents believe that their information
is available only to those they provide access to.
Other
respondents claimed that they do not consciously tailor their
information, but the nature of the social media industry inadvertently
causes users to tailor their information with respondents stating “the
information you post will be attached to the people you interact with
most on the medium”, “I think everyone wants to present themselves
positively, so they are only going to put up things that make them look
good”, and “I put up a funny status update because I know a lot of my
friends would appreciate the laugh”. These responses suggest that even
when social media users think they are not tailoring their information,
the social media format causes users to tailor their information in all
their online interactions.
Future Implications
The
social media phenomenon highlights the paradox that personal and
private information is as much the property of the social media
companies as it is individual users, raising concerns about the future
of personal privacy in the online world. As Grayling states, “the
sharing of information about human experience is an essential component
of being part of human experience and we could not do without it”
(Grayling 2011:111), and as such, the public exposure of personal
information will only become more frequent. Our desire to pry into
others' lives and gain insights into human experience through accessing
the information of others means that “it is difficult to conceptualise
privacy” (Regan 1995:3), and as such, the value, necessity and policy
that is placed on future notions of privacy may be radically altered.
All individuals require different levels of privacy, however as Regan
argues there needs to be "a
similar minimum level of privacy” (Regan 1995: xv-xvi) upon which the
foundations of privacy law and community attitudes can be built. The
survey results suggest that respondents were concerned about privacy in
social media and the shifting code of ethics within the community that
respond to Facebook privacy conditions. This raises further concerns
about the protection of individuals through the development of code of
ethics designed specifically for the social media context. Social media
has dismantled traditional social behaviours, and as a result, ethical
codes are not in place for the specific conditions of social media.
Without a code of ethics, Future media users may be operating in a
lawless, 'Wild West' cyber world where personal information is exploited
and abused, and the privacy of individual is compromised.
Conclusion
From
both readings and the result of the survey, it can be ascertained that
people not only want to maintain their own privacy, “but the foremost
reason for privacy is that it is crucial for personal autonomy and
psychological well being...for to lack a reserve of self-hood is almost
the same as not having a self at all” (Grayling 2011:110-111). However,
whilst it is crucial that people maintain their own privacy and sense of
self-hood, it is also necessary that people can access, to a certain
extent, one another’s private information. Being aware of another’s
information provides people with insight into the human spectrum of
experience, “our voyeuristic impulse to research human experience
continually, as a way of informing ourselves about life’s meanings and
possibilities” (Grayling 2011:114). The interactive nature of the social
media site Facebook allows users to easily interact with the personal
information of other social media users. The online format provides
users with a space in which they can develop an online persona with
information tailored to appeal to a specific audience. Whilst users can
self-censor to protect their information, the Facebook medium provides a
platform in which the revelation of personal information is promoted;
simply ‘liking’ a status or ‘checking in’ to a location can demonstrate
your personal ideologies, geographical location and social behaviours to
others. With the rapid developments in online technologies, which can
pinpoint user location and allow access to content from any mobile
device, there are concerns that a code of ethics designed to protect
personal privacy will falter and individuals will find it more and more
difficult to maintain their own privacy. However, with the social need
to gain enlightenment of the human experience through others, the use of
personal information by social media users will continue to thrive.
References
Armitage, C. (2012) "Time to reclaim your privacy, says philosopher", The Sydney Morning Herald, 7 April, accessed 24 May, <http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/time-to-reclaim-your-privacy-says-philosopher-20120406-1wgtf.html>
Fischer-Hubner, S. (2007) “The future identity on the information society”, International Summer School on the Future of Identity in the Information Society, Karlstad University, Sweden, August 4-10, Springer, Berlin.
Grayling, A. C. (2011a) The meaning of things, Hachette, UK.
Grayling, A. C. (2011b) Liberty in the age of terror: a defence of civil liberties and enlightenment values, Bloomsbury Publishing, London.
Grayling, A. C. (2009) Ideas that matter, Hachette, UK.
Grayling, A. C. (2003) Meditations for the humanist: ethics for a secular age, Oxford University Press, London.
James, N. (2011) An investigation on internet privacy issues within social networking, Grin Verlag, Munich.
Murphie, A. and Potts, J. (2003) 'Theoretical Frameworks' in Culture and Technology, Palgrave Macmillan, London: 11-38.
Murphie, A. (2012) 'Lecture Two - Foundations, Thinkers and Ideas', ARTS 3091 Advance Media Issues, School of Art and Media, University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Regan, P. (1995) Legislating Privacy: technology, social values and
public policy, University of North Carolina Press, North Carolina.
Tavani, H (2010) Ethics and technology: controversies, questions and strategies for ethical computing, John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey.
Tavani, H (2010) Ethics and technology: controversies, questions and strategies for ethical computing, John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey.
Trepte, S. and Reinecke, L. (2011) Privacy online: perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web, Springer, Berlin.
