The ethics of privacy in sharing culture 2016
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•779 views
1. The document summarizes a study on privacy and sharing culture among young people in London. It examines how they understand and manage privacy through diary entries and surveys. 2. It finds that respondents care deeply about social privacy and control over personal information. They see privacy as a way to protect their individuality and choose what to share. 3. Respondents also curate a "public persona" on social media, depicting a happier version of themselves. They employ strategies like private sharing on apps and depersonalizing content to balance privacy and sharing.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (11)
Similar to The ethics of privacy in sharing culture 2016
Similar to The ethics of privacy in sharing culture 2016 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (17)
The ethics of privacy in sharing culture 2016
- 1. THE ETHICS OF PRIVACY IN SHARING CULTURE: NEW CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES Dr Zoetanya Sujon, Regent’s University London Dr Lisette Johnston, City University November 12, 2016 6th European CommunicationConference Mediated (Dis)Continuities:Contesting Pasts, Presents and Futures, Prague
- 2. Overview • Privacy and sharing culture • Methods • Findings – Privacy matters – Public “persona” – Private sharing and depersonalization • Conclusions
- 3. The ethics of privacy in sharing culture • Ethics of privacy • From privacy as protection and control of information – Photography in late 1800s/early 1900s – Pushing boundaries around public/private – Mass communication of new quantities of details (Warren and Brandeis 1890; Fornaciari 2014) • Networked privacy (Marwick and boyd 2014; Lambert 2013; Fuchs 2014) • Studies on privacy and youth – Privacy matters – Young people care most about social privacy and exercise sophisticated privacy strategies
- 4. Methods • 7 respondents keeping diaries over 1 week + in-depth interviews • Survey of 18-36 London residents (N=292) – 252 eligible entrants, 192 complete – Completion rate 76.9% • Snowball sampling and social media promotion / advertising Age range Female Male 18-19 Diarist 6 (18) -- 20-29 Diarist 1 (22), Diarist 3 (25) Diarist 5 (27), Diarist 7 (24) 30-37 Diarist 2 (36) Diarist 4 (37) Total 4 3
- 5. Themes from diarists: “The big three” • 1. Privacy matters – Control and choice dominant metaphors – Social rather than institutional • 2. Persona or public facing self – “Most interesting” and “best self” (18-19 year olds) – “I wanted people to see that about me” (18 year old female) – “It feels like they are having to reaffirm who they are… or who they want to be” (27 year old male) • 3. Privacy / sharing strategies – Private sharing and “public friends” – Depersonalization
- 6. 1. Privacy matters: “Privacy builds an individual. Privacy plays a major role in differentiating your individuality from the society. I think, today privacy means staying safe” (respondent 24, aged 20-24). How important is privacy is to you?
- 7. Privacy means "having your own space to think or act without judgement“ (respondent 142, aged 30-34). 7 3 13 27 23 56 16 61 99 Number of mentions in answer to the question "What is privacy to you?" (N = 194)
- 8. “Privacy is the freedom to decide to share information, data, movements, conversations, images etc. relating to oneself” (respondent 116, 30-34). “Privacy is the right to choose which personal information is disclosed and which you prefer to keep to yourself” (respondent 32, 20-24).
- 9. 2. Persona: “My best self” Do you present a public side of yourself on social media that is different from how you are in person? (N = 206) “Well, we all try to look more attractive, more interesting, more... happy than we actually are don't we?” (respondent 189, 20-24).
- 10. 3. Sharing strategies • Private sharing – Rise of Snapchat – Sharing videos, images, selfies, articles via private channels (Messenger,WhatsApp, SnapChat etc.) – “When I do share stuff, it’s privately as I don’t feel comfortable sharing to public friends” (18 year old female diarist) • Depersonalization – 27 year old male diarist, only mention of a personal relationship was as context in the diary – not content – 25 year old female diarist, who shared an article on “single- shaming in the 20s” – “I realized after sharing this, that basically I had broadcast my relationship status to all of my Facebook friends” – “I do not share things that I feel are personal” (respondent 192, 30-34)
- 11. 3.61% 10.82% 34.02% 33.51% 18.04% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never Do you share your personal thoughts or feelings on social media?
- 12. 3 12 35 55 83 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never Not applicable Do you share details of your romantic relationships on social media? (N=194)
- 13. Conclusion: Ethics of privacy in sharing culture? • Strong support for existing research on youth and privacy – “Social” privacy matters most – Exercise privacy strategies around sharing behaviour – Control and restricted access oriented understandings of privacy dominate • Networked privacy may accurately outline shifts around ideas of privacy but respondents do not think of privacy in these terms • Public “persona”, depersonalization and private sharing
- 14. • Blank, Grant; Bolsover, Gillian; Dubois, Elizabeth. 2014. ‘A New Privacy Paradox: Young people and privacy on social network sites’, Oxford Internet Institute and Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre Working Paper. April, URL: http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/A%20New%20Privacy%20Paradox%20April%202014.pdf • boyd, danah. 2014. ‘What is privacy?’, Apophenia, URL: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2014/09/01/what-is-privacy.html • boyd, danah. 2013. It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. Yale University Press • boyd, danah. 2012. ‘Networked Privacy’, Surveillance and Society. Vol 10, No 3.4, pp 348-350, available at http://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/networked/networked • boyd, danah; Hargittai, Eszter. 2010. ‘Facebook privacy settings: Who Cares?’, First Monday. Vol 15, No 8, http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3086/2589 • boyd, danah. 2010. ‘Making sense of privacy and publicity’, SXSW. Augstin, Texas, March 13, available at http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/SXSW2010.html • boyd, danah; Marwick, Alice. 2009. ‘The Conundrum of Visibility’, Journal of Children and Media. Vol 3, No 4, pp 410- 414, available at http://www.danah.org/papers/2009/ConundrumVisibility.pdf • Brake, David. 2014. Sharing our Lives Online: Risks and Exposure in Social Media. Palgrave MacMillan • Clarke, Roger. 2014. ‘Privacy and Social Media: An Analytical Framework’, Journal of Law, Information and Science. Vol 23, No 1, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/2014/8.html • Couldry, Nick; Livingstone, Sonia; Markham, Tim. 2007. Media Consumption and Public Engagement. Palgrave MacMillan • Fornaciari, Federica. 2014. ‘Pricey privacy: Framing the economy of information in the digital age’, First Monday. Vol 19, No 1. URL: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5008/4184 • Fuchs, Christian. 2014. Social Media: A Critical Introduction. Sage • Gangadharan,Seeta Peña. 2015. ‘The downside of digital inclusion: expectations and experiences of privacy and surveillance among marginal internet users’, New Media and Society. November 9. URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/64156/ • Gershon, Ilana. 2010. The Break-up 2.0: Disconnecting over social media. Cornell University Press • Gillham, Bill. 2000. Developing a Questionnaire. Continuum • Hampton, Keith; Rainie, Lee; Lu, Weixu; Dwyer, Maria; Shin, Inyoung; Purcell, Kristen. 2014. ‘Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’’, Pew Research Centre. August, URL: http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and- the-spiral-of-silence/ • Hasselbalch Lapenta, Gry; Jørgensen, Frank. 2015. ‘Youth, privacy and online media: Framing the right to privacy in public policy-making’, First Monday. Vol 20, No 3, available at http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5568/4373 • Hodkinson, Paul. 2015. ‘Bedrooms and Beyond: Youth, Identity and Privacy on Social Network Sites’, New Media and Society, online before print, DOI: 10.1177/1461444815605454, URL: http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/809096/9/bedrooms%20and%20beyond%20nms%20paper%20- %20for%20repository.pdf • Lambert, Alex. 2013. Intimacy and Friendship on Facebook. Palgrave MacMillan • Livingstone, Sonia; Mascheroni, Giovanna; and Murru, Maria Francesca. 2014. ‘Social networking among European children: new findings on privacy, identity and connection’, In Dominique Wolton (ed.) Identité(s) Numérique(s). Les Essentials d'Hermès. CNRS Editions, Paris, France. (In Press), URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/59306/1/Livingstone_etal_Social-networking-among-European-children_2014.pdf • Livingstone, Sonia; Haddon, Leslie, Görzig, Anna, and Ólafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children. Full Findings. LSE, London: EU Kids Online. URL: http://www.lse.ac.uk/media%40lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20II%20(2009- 11)/EUKidsOnlineIIReports/D4FullFindings.pdf • Livingstone, Sonia (2008) Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers' use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New media & society, 10 (3). pp. 393-411 • Madden, Mary. 2014. ‘Public Perceptions of Privacy and Security in a Post-Snowden Era’, Pew Research Centre, November, URL: http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/11/12/public-privacy-perceptions/ • Madden, Mary; Lenhart, Amanda; Cortesi, Sandra; Gasser, Urs; Duggan, Maeve; Smith, Aaron; Beaton, Meredith. 2013. ‘Teens, Social Media, and Privacy’, Pew Research Centre. May, URL: http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/05/21/teens-social-media-and-privacy/ • Martin, Kirsten. 2013. ‘Transaction costs, privacy and trust: The laudable goals and ultimate failure of notice and choice to repsect privacy online’, First Monday. Vol 18, No 12, available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4838/3802 • Marwick, Alice E.; boyd, danah. 2014. ‘Networked Privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media’, New Media and Society. Vol 16, No 7, pp 1051-1067, available at http://www.tiara.org/blog/wp- content/uploads/2016/04/Marwick_boyd_Networked_Privacy_NMS.pdf. DOI: 10.1177/1461444814543995 • Ofcom. 2016. ‘The Communications Market Report, 2016’, Ofcom. August 4, URL: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/26826/cmr_uk_2016.pdf
- 15. • Privacy International. No Date. ‘What is Privacy?’, Privacy International. Available at https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/54 • Papathanassopoulos, Stylianos. 2015. ‘Privacy 2.0’, Social Media and Society.Vol 1, No 1, URL: http://sms.sagepub.com/content/1/1/2056305115578141.full • Rauhofer, Judith. 2012. ‘Future-proofing privacy:Time for an ethical introspection?’, Surveillance and Society. Vol 10, No 3 / 4, pp 356-361, URL: http://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/future-proof/future-proof • Raynes-Goldie, Kate. 2010. ‘Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning: Understanding privacy in the age of Facebook’, First Monday.Volume 15, Number 1 - 4, URL: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2775/2432 • Raynes-Goldie, Kate. 2011. ‘Digitally mediated surveillance, privacy and social network sites’, The NewTransparency: Surveillance and Social Sorting. URL: http://www.digitallymediatedsurveillance.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Raynes-Goldie- Digitally_mediated_surveillance_privacy_and_social_network_sites.pdf • Raynes-Goldie, Kate. (2012). Privacy in the Age of Facebook: Discourse, Architecture, Consequences. PhD.Curtin University, Perth,Australia. http://www.k4t3.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/privacy_in_the_age_of_facebook_raynes-goldie.pdf • Regan Shade, Leslie; and Shepherd,Tamara. 2013. ‘Viewing youth and mobile privacy through a digital policy literacy framework’, First Monday.Vol 18, No 12, available at http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4807/3798 • Rosenzweig, Paul. 2012. ‘Whither privacy?’, Surveillance and Society.Vol 10, No 3 / 4, pp 344-347, URL: http://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and- society/article/view/whither/whither • Seale, Clive (Ed.). 2012. Researching Society and Culture, 3rd Edition. Sage • Smith,Aaron. 2014. ‘Half of Americans don’t know what a privacy policy is’, Pew Research Centre. December,URL: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/04/half-of- americans-dont-know-what-a-privacy-policy-is/ • Solove, Daniel J., 'I'veGot Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy. San Diego Law Review,Vol. 44, p. 745, 2007; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 289. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=998565 • Stutzman, Fred;Gross, Ralph; Acquisti,Alessandro. 2012. ‘Silent Listeners:The Evolution of Privacy and Disclosure on Facebook’, Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality.Vol 4, No 2, pp 7-41, available at http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1098&context=jpc • Warren, Samuel; Brandeis, Louis. 1890. ‘The Right to Privacy’, Harvard Law Review. Vol 4, No 5, URL: http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Brandeisprivacy.htm
Editor's Notes
- Probably important to note that this is on-going research – the qualitative research began in Aug and was mostly conducted in September, and quantitative research begun in October – this analysis was finished on Oct 26 and is still on-going Respondents use many privacy strategies Conclusions – still thinking through the ethics of privacy But it seems that utilitarian ethics of privacy emerges – less about the greater good, more about the greater face Social media
- Ethics of privacy – right ways to understand not only the self but the relationship of the self to the social and the public - Arguably this is changing – not just because privacy is changing but the ways that we are social and what we consider public is also changing. The key question for this research is really how is privacy changing? Particularly, how do people aged 18-36 understand the privacy in relation to mass sharing practices? Warren and Brandeis – control, restricted access theory of privacy – “the right to be let alone” free from interference – also captured by Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in Article 8 of the Human Rights Act – among many other declarations of human rights “The unacceptable intrusion of photography in the private sphere” and the rise of “instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprise have invaded the sacred precincts of private and domestic life; and numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that ‘what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops” (Warren and Brandeis 1890) It’s not just networked privacy but also public intimacy as Alex Lambert suggests or what Christian Fuchs calls mediated publics. How we understand and make sense of privacy is changing in relation to widespread sharing practices Building upon primarily Western traditions of privacy as both social and individual, privacy is important for individuals to be able to reflect in order to participate socially, publicly – rather like the Habermasian distinction between the public and private sphere – the private as a space and as an individual process facilitates the development of informed opinion – something Charles Ess argues is quite different from African or Asian ideas of privacy “Networked privacy” refers to the ways personal information is deeply embedded in social networks and indeed, any personal information also includes information about others (e.g. DNA includes information about grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren and future children). In this sense, networked privacy is about the ways personal information is necessarily linked to others but also about the ways that information is easily shareable across digital and social networks. Alex Lambert and Christian Fuchs also call for a radical re-thinking of how we understand private and public – Lambert suggests that Facebook has challenged what we understand as intimate and that rather than the erosion of privacy, status updates and sharing culture mean we now engage in “public intimacy”. Christian Fuchs argues we have mediated publics – ways of being public mediated through personal and social networks. There are many studies on privacy and youth. Some of the most notable include: Marwick and boyd’s interviews and participant observation with 166 American teens (2014) Regan Shade and Shepherd 14 focus groups with Canadian undergraduates (2013) Hasselbalch Lapenta and Jorgensen – 11 focus groups with 68 young people (2015) Stutzman et al – analysis of profile data from a longitudinal panel of 5,076 American undergraduate Facebook users Sonia Livingstone et al’s research with 25,000 children across 25 European countries (2014, EU Kids Online)
- Recruited 10 diarists and 3 withdrew – 2 men in their 30s, 1 in mid 20s Diaries inspired by the work of Couldry, Livingstone and Markham, Media consumption and public engagement (2007) At the time of writing we had 192 completed surveys (aiming for 385, currently at 353) Concentrated on London as it is a diverse, vibrant city worthy of exploration Not representative Media diarists London-based so it seemed logical to carry on this geographical focus Likely there will be some biases by focusing on London but not necessarily any less than there would be if we included a broader geographic area Survey on privacy – probably more likely to draw respondents who feel strongly about privacy… Snowball sampling – more likely to get respondents in education, journalism, academics Worked hard to reach respondents outside of our immediate networks – University of London Student Union, Facebook community groups (parent groups, diaspora groups, borough groups, political networks) Paid advertising on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram – LinkedIn probably had the most impressions but the least number of clicks through to the survey, Facebook the most Incidentally, in terms of sampling, it was difficult to determine the number of 18-36 year olds in London (16.5 million in the UK according to the Office of National Statistics), yet upon taking an ad out on Facebook, almost immediately able to determine there are roughly 4.5 million Facebook users in London aged 18-36
- In total, 90.5% of our survey respondents said that privacy was important or very important to them. 4.7% said it was very unimportant and 1% said it was unimportant 4.19% said privacy was neither important or unimportant
- We also see that most people in our survey talked about privacy as central to the self, as being about protection and freedom from judgement. Largely, respondents spoke of privacy in terms of negative rights Mentions of “institutional” kinds of privacy relating to third parties – like government, social media platforms, advertiser etc were present but minimal
- Control-based understandings of privacy are dominant – even mentions of freedom were often about deciding or controlling what to share and what not to share - Control of personal information really important
- “I would only post things I think people would find amusing or nice or useful, I wouldn't post if I was feeling sad, or negative thoughts I may have about myself or others, I wouldn't voice a disagreement with anyone's posts even though I might voice that to friends privately” (respondent 206, 30-34).
- Figure 2: Survey results by percentage indicating how often respondents shared personal thoughts on social media (N=194). Over half (51.55%) of the survey respondents said that they never or rarely shared personal thoughts or feelings on social media, whereas 34% said they sometimes did and the minority (14%) said they did always or often.
- Respondents were much less likely to share information about their romantic relationships as 41% (83) say they never share these details and 28% (55) say they only do so rarely Based on this, it may be unsurprising then, that 64% rarely or never share details about friendships or family relationships, suggesting that social media users have come a long way from the “Facebook official” days of publicly recognizing when a relationship was serious on Facebook (Gershon 2010).
- Evidence suggests that young people exercise more controls over privacy than older people – both my co-investigator and I would like to extend this research to 37-65 year olds How do adults manage the relationship between privacy and sharing Performative, public persona suggests that with the rise/expectation of sharing (e.g. privacy although important – can be a “put-off” – sharing is about connecting with others, 18 year old female diarist), our respondents distance themselves – in some ways – from their shared selves Many researchers talk about the privacy paradox where users sacrifice privacy for the convenience of using social media – this may be, but it seems that our respondents engage the public persona – which takes effort and thought – as a strategy for managing this Not necessarily about convenience In terms of ethics, Western and utilitarian notions of privacy dominate – privacy is important and serves a protective function – but depends on the platform, context and people involved Deontological notions of privacy – where respect for privacy and privacy as an absolute right – seem to be the minority – concerns about protections from government, advertisers, social media platforms and other third parties – are present but are much less articulated than concerns about social privacy Not about the rise of individuality, rather about the rise of new ways of being public, evolving strategies for protecting privacy and personal information The public persona or performative self appears to be a key strategy for bridging the tensions and contradictions of privacy and sharing Implications for trolling? Misogyny? If people present personas and publicly facing selves and understand others to do the same, trolling perhaps becomes a strategy for unveiling the artificial, the performative self