Rethinking Privacy in the Age of Networking

To say that we are living in an age of the internet would be stating the obvious. What’s perhaps not so obvious is the shape that the internet is taking as it expands its scope into literally every single facet of human existence. To most people the word “internet” still represents something detached that you connect to with your computer or a smartphone. And even as they go on Facebook every day people seldom stop to think about how different their internet habits are today compared to what they were just five to ten years ago.

The big picture is that we’re rapidly approaching a time of omni-connectedness. The internet is no longer something we approach, something we “go on to”. It is everywhere, connecting everything and connecting everyone. Increasingly, the internet is how the world works. It is the merger of machine intelligence and human intelligence to create what is essentially a deus ex machina – the web of everything that ever mattered to anyone, processed with a combined power of computers and human brains.

And the reason why its growth is so rapid and so insatiable is because we want in. We are pushed in even when we wonder and fear what it all might mean. I would argue that there is not a single human being who hasn’t experienced the power of the network without feeling drawn to it. Maybe it was the desire to look up a certain fact instantly, or a desire to connect with someone at the moments notice. Whatever it was, the sheer efficacy that this interconnectedness provides is incredibly alluring and irresistible. And that’s why we’ll never pull the plug on it.

The reason why it is so alluring has its roots in our natural hunger for information. Without information we wouldn’t be who we are nor have the abilities we do. Knowledge is power, and more knowledge seems to bring more power, especially when we get just the right piece of information at the right time (as the internet is able to deliver). This gets all the more interesting when we understand that the human brain itself is a network of neurons communicating with each other, exchanging information, and in aggregate making you think, feel, and act.

The exchange of information is the primary purpose of connecting things, and of networking in general. It is no wonder then that the first apparent victim of the expansion of networking is privacy, something that is all about withholding information as opposed to sharing it.

“The Right to Privacy”

This gets a lot of people worried about the “right to privacy” or basically the “right to withhold information about yourself”, but I’ve seen few explain what exactly is the basis of it, and why is it so important.

I think the right to privacy is really just an extension of the right to property, which is based on the fact that you own yourself (something you prove the moment you take any kind of action). Since you own yourself, you own the products of your actions, and this includes the ability to choose what to share about yourself and what to withhold. It also means that nobody has the right to force you to reveal something about yourself against your will.

Of course, the right to property also includes the right to control how it is being used, or for what price you are willing to relinquish your ownership. This is foundational to the functioning of any business, including online businesses. They provide you with access to a particular online service under the condition that you respect certain terms. If you use their service you have to agree with those terms. If you don’t, you have no right to use it.

In case of social networks, which are such a popular target of privacy rights advocates, the terms tend to include agreement to provide certain basic information about yourself (real name, email address etc.), and agreement to your activities on the site being tracked and recorded. The deal is that you get the service free of monetary charge, and they get some information about you so they can show ads that you might be more interested to respond to.

If they couldn’t make money from your use of the service they likely wouldn’t be around to provide it for long. I don’t really understand some people’s derisive tone towards someone doing something “just to make money”.

Often times this deal is talked about as if it wasn’t a mutually beneficial relationship, and as if the company in question is exploiting the poor people who were somehow duped into using their services. Yet the fact is these people wouldn’t be using the service if they didn’t find value in it.

The relationship that a social network (and any other online service) has with its users does not in any way involve privacy rights violations when all information that is being collected is agreed to being collected, and all other information which is being shared through a social network (which is, after all, one of its most basic purposes) is being shared voluntarily.

Nobody is forced to use these services, let alone share as much as they do through it. Even if the site is designed in such a way to encourage more sharing, encouragement does not equate to force. On top of that, both major social networks offer certain privacy controls that allow people to control who sees what, something that they are not morally obliged to provide.

For these reasons, I don’t think that the privacy issue has much of anything to do with the actual violations of the right to privacy, as it is often presented. This should also make calls for government to step in unacceptable.

Such calls are a typical example of trying to babysit users under an universal assumption that they don’t know what they’re doing. It should be insulting, and sets a bad precedent for an already bruised concept of personal responsibility. If you really think people aren’t being responsible about how much and what they share about themselves, trying to take that responsibility for them without them even asking is only going to worsen that problem. The more we expect others to take responsibility for our own actions the more careless we’ll tend to be.

Personal Responsibility

Personal responsibility is actually a much more key issue to the problem of privacy than the false belief that these companies typically violate the user’s right to privacy, and it should be talked about far more than the idea of government regulation. Here are some of the best practices:

1. Never reveal online what you don’t want anyone to know. This was always the case, and it is the case today more than ever. There is absolutely nothing that forces you to reveal anything, even after joining a social network. Literally everything you share, and everything you do on a site is your own choice, and therefore your own responsibility.

2. Use the privacy controls being offered, and check on them regularly. You might be surprised of the level of control you are offered, and both Google and Facebook nowadays allow you to control the level of visibility even for each individual post. Both also allow defining friend lists or circles and then sharing specific information to these specific circles of people.

3. Learn to say no. Depending on how concerned you are learn to say no to apps and sites that seek to connect to your Facebook or Google account, and which you don’t really need or want.

4. Never trust the government. They are the only organizations that give themselves the right to spy on you, and even harm you without giving you proper recourse. They are probably the biggest reason why some people might withhold some information. Laws are not objective, they are merely a poor reflection of popular opinion and special interests, so that “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to fear” argument doesn’t really work.

The definition of “wrong” here is very much up for debate, and there are numerous cases where something “wrong” according to the law is not only innocuous, but widely accepted as innocuous too (such as various forms of file sharing, circumvention of DRM on your own devices etc.). If there ever was a time to trust the government (any government), the digital age has heralded a permanent end to it.

5. As a last resort, delete the account. If you do feel the service tracks too much of your activity, and it’s too much to pay for what you’re getting, you can always opt out. It is a far more honorable and responsible thing to do than to stay yet demand them to change (let alone side with those who want to use government force to coerce such a change).

That said, the fact is that most sites track users one way or another, albeit anonymously. This reflects the fact that these sites still cost money to run, and wouldn’t be ran if they didn’t also make some money to their owners. You would be doing the same in their place.

Instead of looking at this as some kind of an evil it might be more rational to look at it as a fact of reality. The web is in large part what it is because so many people found a way to make offering great new services and products on it and make them profitable without making you pay up front for them. Advertising, and the tracking that inevitably comes with its evolution, are the enablers of that.

Contrary to what some people fantasize about, you don’t have the unconditional right to access everything. Such a thing is unfeasible on a scale we’re talking about. Sure there are ad-free and tracking-free web sites, and non-profit organizations, but not everything that exists today could be developed in such a way.

Complaining about this is akin to complaining about the fact food stores won’t give you food without payment, and acting as if this is somehow unfair. In reality, what’s unfair is expecting people to work for free or arrange everything according to your wishes and with no regard to their personal interests. If you have self interest, you can bet other people do too.

Privacy as a Feature

Every business is one way or another sensitive to its customer’s wishes. While it may be tough for the few unsatisfied people to put significant pressure on a business, if it does turn out to be a large scale outcry that threatens their reputation and provides an opportunity for an alternative provider to arise (such as from another well positioned large company) they are quite likely to take notice and adjust.

This is, after all, what largely influenced the availability of extensive privacy controls now available on Facebook. It is also what caused Google Buzz to fail, and partly what may cause Google+ to succeed.

The fact that these companies don’t violate your privacy rights, and my arguing that point, doesn’t mean you should just be silent and never express your dissatisfaction (or satisfaction). There is a difference between someone violating your rights (a very serious charge), and someone not meeting your preferences (as strongly held as they may be). Both should be expressed, but they shouldn’t be confused for each other.

This is what can keep the privacy issue on the table without all of the irrational and unrealistic crud that is often associated with it, as talked about above.

You may have your own preferences, but I believe these to be the key features for every network which gathers information from you.

1. Privacy controls – they should strike a balance between being easy to use and being able to control every aspect of information visibility that most would like to have reasonable control over.

2. Rejecting the public real name initiative – I don’t agree with Google on this. Even if they want to build this identity service they are dreaming of it doesn’t necessarily depend on real names being public. It can be a private piece of information known only to Google, and used only for services which require access to a real person’s identity for verification purposes.

There is no good reason why the name on the front end must be the real name, yet there are plenty of good reasons why someone might want to share under a pseudonym. Furthermore, the ability to be anonymous is a great way of undercutting a lot of the privacy concerns, since the public identity that the information is available on doesn’t have a direct connection to the real person.

The Virtues of Sharing

We established that we have the right to privacy, and that while it is not being violated you have to give up some information to get connected, but why do people want to withhold some information to begin with? From my observations most people are simply afraid to be embarrassed, to have their cover blown off, to lose a job over an incriminating personality trait, or to be harmed by certain troubled people if they know enough about you to be able to harm you.

All of these are reasonable concerns, and all of them reflect our tendency to socially engineer each other for our personal interests. However, all of them are also subject to the kind of society we live in, and as it changes these concerns would change with it.

Being embarrassed or presenting a false image of yourself is typically only a result (of often stupid) social norms and taboos. Losing your job over a (likely irrelevant) personality trait is only likely in a society in which such a thing is considered acceptable (without loss of reputation). And the likelihood of being harmed by troubled people depends on the number of troubled people in society, and the underlying causes of their troubled minds.

It is interesting to observe that the internet itself is changing society in most of the above ways. It has allowed different cultures and personalities to mesh in a way that makes some of the things we may have been embarrassed about before seem not so bad after all. Sites like Reddit.com are filled with posts which help break a lot of these often irrational taboos.

In the professional realm we’re seeing corporate execs casually blog, and there is a rather significant push towards “being yourself” even in business, contrary to a traditional expectation of a rigid separation between personal and work life. This can and does lead to a new generation of employers who aren’t as likely to fire employees just because they exhibit some seemingly “out of character” traits in their personal life.

This results in a kind of a feedback loop that causes people to be even more willing to share. This seems to be rarely mentioned when talking about privacy issues, but there is actually a lot of good coming out of this increased tendency to not withhold. It appears to be literally “bringing people closer”, and in the process, tearing down some irrational barriers and encouraging more honesty.

Conclusion

Our world is getting more connected and networked for a reason, and it is not necessarily a sinister one. It is happening because we all want it to happen, because we benefit from greater access to information and each other.

Given the nature of networking as primarily a way to share information as opposed to withholding it privacy seems to be a casualty, but it is not a government that brought about this revolution. It is not a mandate from above nor a law to be followed. In fact, government power across the world is significantly threatened by it.

The choice to connect and share is instead individual, which preserves the right to privacy. The greater issue is the exercise of personal responsibility, and expressing our concerns in a rational and sensible manner.

Ultimately, it is worth keeping in mind that the rapid increase of networking should have a positive net benefit evident in the transformation of our society. Not only is everyone in the network becoming more empowered with access to information and related services, but this connectedness is changing our culture and social norms, tearing down some old walls that made us so fearful of openness and sharing to begin with.