|
OurBlook interview with Dr. Karen McDevitt, communications lecturer, Wayne State University
 Facebook has been hit with a number of controversies about privacy this year. While it and other social media and websites in general are free to users, the "price" these users pay is to have their demographic and economic choice data available to be mined for advertisers and marketers. Is there a genuine privacy issue involved here, and if so is it a minor fuss or something important for all citizens to worry about?
KM: Facebook is certainly representative of the privacy issues we are currently forced to deal with – users and non-users alike – in the age of new media technologies. Yet there are many other ways in which traditional notions of privacy are affected. Anyone who has made a purchase using a credit card, for instance, is likely to have had demographic and economic data captured electronically. Walking down a street in a major city now results in our image being captured on film, while simply having an address means that a picture of our home is likely to appear on a Google map search. And, perhaps most alarming, aggregator sites like Spokeo.com not only mine such data (and more!), they also provide access to it readily and freely to anyone with an Internet connection.
In other words, while Facebook remains the most public and populated network online, there are other (possibly more disturbing) means of citizen-privacy intrusion.
Privacy rights are also front and foremost in the current controversy over airport screening methods and whether the inspections of passengers are going too far. Your thoughts? Is there a legitimate privacy issue here?
KM: The changes we are witnessing in relation to airport "security" have occurred in direct relation to 9-11 and terrorist attempts since then. "Going too far" will likewise remain a relative notion, depending on the presence of threats to our lives. This is perhaps unfortunate, but in order to discuss "legitimate" privacy issues, we must first define the context of the times at hand. By and large, the majority of us have learned to (quite willingly) remove our shoes and place our laptops in a separate bin as we move through security lines at the airport. I expect that – as they are gradually added to our "accepted version" of security – other screening methods will also become the norm.
Law enforcement video cameras, and the monitoring of them, in high-crime areas or potential terrorist target spaces have become a privacy issue for some. Your thoughts?
KM: Well, as Bob Dylan put it so well, many years ago, the times they are a changin'. There does not seem to be much protest to the monitoring of high-crime areas, nor is there any indication of an impending revolution. It appears that we are inclined to choose protection over peril, and convenience over calamity.
Another current issue with privacy concerns involves Google, which in its Street View mapping campaign in 30 nations eavesdropped on residents' Internet use. What is your assessment of this situation?
KM: It was a mistake. Google may want to rule the world, but I believe it would like to do so hegemonically – Google wants us to be friends; the corporation has expressed little desire to make enemies, even (eventually) in regard to China.
With the introduction of new technology and new uses of present technology, have any other privacy issues arisen that you feel are particularly important and wish to discuss here?
KM: The issue of aggregating medical records and storing medical histories on the Internet (or a cloud) is a growing area of increased concern. Again, bottom line, we are talking about an impending battle between something being "simple" or "a hassle." If my medical information is readily available, there will be no need to have a copy made of a CAT scan for my new physician. The doctor may more likely notice potentially interactive drugs I might otherwise be prescribed. I'll be able to keep my own file of dental records.
Yet, well, you can only imagine the other side of this coin. The potential privacy concerns regarding my medical history? So, so many.
A fringe issue concerning privacy over the past few years is the suggestion by some people for the implantation of microchips in children to locate them if they go missing, as some pet owners do with their dogs and cats, and in prisoners to thwart the desire to escape. How do you view the privacy pros and cons of this, or is it even worth discussing?
KM: We discuss this topic regularly in my new media classes. The "tracking" of packages and pets is readily accepted (and welcomed!) behavior.
The distinction of "keeping track of humans" is another story. Still, while it may appear to cross some sort of proverbial line, I suspect that depending on (again) the context, in the very near future there will be an increased acceptance of microchipping children and adults.
In fact, for several years now, different types of businesses have relied on GPS to locate their workers. Of course, one could argue that an employee is contracted for 40 hours per week to be where the employer chooses. How will this translate to "private" time, though?
This brings us back to the Facebook issue: if employees post pictures of themselves doing something less than palatable (during their off-time), does the employer have a right to discipline the workers? This is one area about which I believe we are only now seeing the tip of the iceberg. Lawyers will be in increased demand.
OK, getting back to the microchips. In children and adults, whether it is a microchip that is implanted, or a flash drive we will have with us at all times, technology will win this one, too. Will I be required to carry a passport in my wallet? Have to worry about a debit or credit card? Need to install On-Star in my car? I don't think so. It will all be a part of my (increasingly expensive) microchip.
The concept of privacy seems to be changing, in that it has expanded to move from the home into the public realm, such as in public spaces (mounted video cameras issue) or in public usages such as the Internet. What is your feeling about this?
KM: Absolutely, the concept privacy has changed and is changing. And this is key to the notion of context – historically and culturally – in a postmodern (fluid not fixed) sort of way. In my grandmother's time, public displays of affection were rare, yet she had very little privacy even within her own home. My daughter grew up with her own room, yet she is quite comfortable sharing information with her friends publicly.
India is launching a gigantic project of assigning a unique 12-digit ID number to each of its 1.2 billion people as well as collecting fingerprints and iris scans from each, all of which would be stored in a massive central database. The purpose is to spur economic development and combat identity fraud. What are the pros and cons of this effort, and do the pros outweigh the cons, or vice versa?
KM: Clearly, the pros of such a project are aligned with the identification of over one billion people of whom many may benefit by way of public services. Although the 12-digit ID, accompanied by the other forms of data collection, could be read as invasive, other countries (including our own) have effectively managed information about their citizens via data collection. As institutions go – and government is a big one – there is an obvious need for identifying members. Just how much data to collect, and when, will remain a major concern.
Would such a project make any sense for the United States?
KM: I presume that, at some point, we may be faced with the so-called logic of such a project. It is difficult to predict, however, any long-term consequences. In essence, though, we have long had our photographs on driver's licenses, and other personal information recorded by government officials in various ways. Perhaps only the iris-scan is new, and this may not be considered "new" for long. It will probably become part of our microchips.
Is there anything else you'd like to say about privacy?
KM: Privacy, for many of my students, is a bit of a moot issue. It's not our grandmother's notion of privacy, though, that is at issue here. Public attention is now less regarded as menacing than it is an accepted (and embedded) part of life. It is often perceived as a choice – a kind of proactive participation – rather than viewed as some sort of oppression. Posting photos to Facebook, downloading videos from YouTube, and tweeting to one's "subscribers" constitute a day in the life of the members of a new media world.
(Dr. McDevitt is a lecturer in media arts and studies in the Department of Communication at Wayne State. She earned her doctorate from Wayne and has been involved with the university for the past 30 years.) |
What does a community manager do?
What does a community manager do?