I grew up in the generation of 'Mean Girls.' And although the whole 'Mean Girls' movement that consists of rumors, bitchiness (yes that is a real word), and ‘secrets’ has existed long before I was born, the internet has created an entirely new playing field for social drama and ‘privacy’ invasion. Wikipedia defines internet privacy as “the ability to control what information one reveals about oneself over the Internet, and to control who can access that information.”
Where secrets were once whispered from ear to ear at school lunch tables, teenagers and young adults are now sharing personal information within a much larger public domain: the internet. The difference is simple: persistence, searchability, replicability, and invisible audiences (Boyd 2007). In high school cafeteria terms, say for instance you whispered to your best friend that you have a crush on a boy named John. The equivalent to this being on the internet would be like writing ‘I LIKE JOHN’ with a permanent sharpie on the cafeteria wall. (1) It is not going anywhere anytime soon (persistence). (2) It is not hard to find (searchability). (3) Your friends are taking pictures of it with their camera phones, to save and send to others (replicability). (4) It is written in a place where not only friends, but other students and faculty can also read of your little love affair (invisible audiences).
Clearly I want to focus on the social aspect of internet privacy rather than the many issues dealing with social security and credit card numbers. Being a girl, I’ve come to the conclusion that the only privacy you will ever have is with the relationship between yourself and… yourself. The only information that can ever remain entirely confidential is the information that never leaves your mouth, or in the case of the internet . . . your fingertips.
The ‘I Have a Crush on John’ explanation of the difference between the privacy with face to face disclosure and internet disclosure may seem elementary, but continue to use this example and think about it. If a rumor or secret is spread via word of mouth throughout your high school hallways, your instinct is to what? DENY IT, duh. Words are merely words, they are not tangible unless recorded (and I highly doubt your best friend would have a tape recorder out during lunch). However, when you post something on the internet it proves our recurring theme of COM125: that information is ‘alive’ on the internet. It is printable, which makes it tangible and if you find yourself in a position where you would for some reason need to contradict what you have posted (statements, pictures), you are going to find yourself in a hell of a predicament.
The need to possibly contradict or retract information that you have disclosed online brings me to my main point: audiences. “Of course, two audiences cause participants the greatest headaches: those who hold power over them and those who want to prey on them. The former primarily consists of parents, teachers, bosses, and other authorities.” (Boyd 2007) Basically, no one is invincible to the invisible audience.
A recent issue dealing with exactly that, the recent Facebook incident with University at Buffalo basketball player Andy Robinson hits a little too close to home here in our school community. In regards to Boyd’s classification of audiences, Robinson’s coach, and the University as a whole, was the audience who held power over him, and a fellow student was the audience who preyed on him. Robinson posted the following in a Facebook forum :
“I am paying anybody who have read the book ‘there are no children here’ by Alex Kotlowitz $30-40 which in some classes you have to read at UB (even more money if you have to read the book a little more!!) to write a 3-4 page paper, on a couple questions which was assigned.”
Upon spotting this post, a UB student turned in the information to The Spectrum, and Robinson was busted. Case in point, the internet can, and will, blow up anyone’s spot. So, don’t put yourself in that position!
Rodney McKissic wrote a short article concerning the issue on BuffaloNews.com. Here is the article:
No more Facebook
Don't expect any University at Buffalo basketball players with profiles on Facebook or MySpace anytime soon.
UB coach Reggie Witherspoon was clueless on how Facebook and MySpace works until last week when junior guard Andy Robinson solicted help for a reading assignement on his Facebook page. Robinson, who led the team in scoring last season, was suspended indefinitely.
Witherspoon held a meeting with his players and those who had either Facebook or MySpace pages had them removed.
"I didn't have to put in a policy, they all agreed to get rid of them," Witherspoon said. "They all thought the pages were private, but I was able to see all their profiles. Nothing's private on the Internet."
As for Robinson, Witherspoon said he's been contrite and has written a letter of apoligy to the entire UB student body.
"He understands that he's made a terrible mistake," Witherspoon said.
---Rodney McKissic
So, the reaction to the disaster was for every player to remove their social networking pages. To me, I think that was the best way to handle the situation. As mentioned in class, when talking about the exposure of celebrities and their rights to copyright (Arnold Schwarzenegger bobble head), the higher up you are socially the less privacy you tend to have. I mean, UB is not exactly that amazing of a basketball team, nor have they made the tournament in God knows how many years, but the point is that players are put on a pedestal within the school community, and the risks of using social networks like Facebook (especially the way that Robinson did) are even greater than the risks that an average student takes.
People will continue to post personal pictures and information on social networking sites, and I believe that Aquisti describes it perfectly: “People can’t make intelligent (privacy) choices. People realize there could be future costs, but they decide not to focus on those costs.” (Boyd 2007) All I can relate internet privacy to is that the internet and its social networks are like a miserably failed version of the Panopticon. Someone could always be watching, but we don’t necessarily care.
Sources:
Boyd, D. (2007). Social Networking Sites: Public, Private, or What? Retrieved 25 September, 2008, from Creative Commons Web site: http://www.danah.org/papers/KnowledgeTree.pdf
Sullivan, Bob. (2006, October). “Privacy Lost: Does Anybody Care?” Retrieved September 25, 2008 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/
Internet Privacy.” (2008, September). From Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, Retrieved September 25, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_privacy
McKissic, Rodney. (2008, April). "No More Facebook." Retrieved September 25, 2008 from http://buffalonews.typepad.com/campus/2008/04/no-more-faceboo.html#comments
3 comments:
The geting busted by a violation of privacy is a point i hadn't considered when writing about this topic. Now that I think about it, i remember hearing about how a bunch of kids in my high school got busted for pictures of alcohol on their facebook and myspace pages.
1. he was stupid for posting that on facebook... better off sending a mass text to everyone in his phone... but i deff think its crazy how ppl are getting in trouble via internet on privacy violations.
As i have mentioned in a my own blog, i refuse to put any personal information other than my name on the internet. Some of my friends who are applying for jobs have deleted their facebook accounts because of "funny picture" that may look bad to other people.
Post a Comment