Computer-Mediated Communication Social Privacy in a Networked World

Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication The Internet is BAD!? Good! The purpose of this poorly designed, simplistic slide is to highlight the often poorly thought-out, simplistic notion that the Internet is somehow either Nirvana or a bastion of sin, deceit and debauchery. 2/13/13 Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication

How to define “privacy” in a CMC environment? Selective disclosure? Anonymity? Information control? Ability to role play/change identity? Others?? What is privacy, exactly? Multiple elements. Privacy is an essentially contested concept There are many ways to consider what privacy is – we are not examining institutional privacy, but instead social/interpersonal privacy James: privacy in social networks is entirely illusory – is this true? What should privacy look like in a CM space? 9/20/16 Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication Huge disconnect between social privacy (privacy between individuals) and institutional privacy (privacy from platforms) 9/20/16 Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication Personal disclosure Personal disclosure is a fundamental human activity Get 2 people together and there will be some form of disclosure that occurs, whether it is direct or inadvertent The point being that putting people together in a CM environment that is designed to foster personal disclosure and you’ll get it in a variety of ways. 9/20/16 Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication Privacy Paradox Term introduced by Prof. Susan Barnes in 2006: “A Privacy Paradox: Social Networking in the United States,” First Monday V.11 No.9 This has been a central focus in online privacy research. Why, if survey after survey demonstrates that the public is concerned with privacy, do people reveal so much personal information in online social environments? Most simply, it refers to the apparent paradox between what people say they want and how they actually act online 9/20/16 Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication For example, Here is a Pew finding from 2013 asking individuals how much of their personal information is online – these numbers may be even higher now. Q: how many of these individual pieces of data are directly under your control? http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/05/anonymity-privacy-and-security-online/ 2/16/16 Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication

Theories of Privacy: Altman & Westin Irwin Altman (social psychologist): focused on privacy in physical spaces, selective access to the self, managing proximity & distance Altman’s work is used often in the analysis of privacy and social interaction online . . . Though the focus remains on person-to-person interactions To examine how we think about privacy, we’ll introduce two major theorists: Altman and Westin. These two theorists dominate the research in social privacy, and they have different takes on similar issues. Altman: Privacy as a process of self-management, renewal 9/20/16 Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication

Theories of Privacy: Altman & Westin Alan Westin (political science prof): identified four psychological processes that privacy protects: Self-evaluation: ability to reflect on thoughts/feelings w/o threat of social punishment Autonomy: absence of manipulation or dominance by others Emotional relief: ability to deviate from social norms, to be non-performative Protected communication: ability to create intimacy and boundaries in social interactions Westin: Privacy as control 9/20/16 Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication

Why do people disclose private info online? Two perspective on this problem in our readings: Ellison et al: focuses on social capital: “accumulated resources derived from relationships among people within a specific social context or network” Core features of SNSs “are explicitly designed to facilitate the formation and maintenance of connections among people” Greater use of SNS == more social benefits Uses Westin’s conception of privacy; examining disclosure in the context of social capital as the motivation Privacy settings, selective friending, selective disclosures Nancy mentioned privacy literacy – what would that be, and how would it help? 9/20/16 Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication

The Privacy Paradox perspective Trepte & Reinicke: critical of the existence of the paradox, argue the that problem is multifaceted Divide it into three dimensions: Information privacy social privacy psychological privacy James: argued that these differences are not meaningful. Why? Is privacy online illusory because we don’t have any control? If yes, how might we gain it? Should we have it? 9/20/16 Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication

Trepte & Reinecke cont’d Info privacy: control over sharing info about yourself (Westin) Social privacy: managing proximity and distance (Altman) Psychological: control over emotional and cognitive inputs/outputs (sharing feelings and thoughts) Primary benefit of social web is social and psychological 9/20/16 Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication Debunking the paradox “The benefits of finding online spaces of psychological privacy that allow for authentic living seem to outweigh the loss of informational privacy.” Trepte warns that we may have to accept that “people experience a sense of privacy even if they don’t in fact have it.” Why? They argue this gives people the chance to live authentically – what do we think of that? How does their definition of authenticity jibe with what we’ve learned so far in CMC, as well as whether a service such as FB allows you to be “authentic”? 9/20/16 Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication In other words . . . People aren’t stupid and disclosing because they are foolish. So what’s the disconnect? These platforms are an overlay on an existing phenomenon that capture some of the social dynamics that are already happening Privacy controls give people the illusion (aka Acquisti) of a privacy they don’t actually have 9/20/16 Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication

Challenges to privacy in CMC Social privacy vs. institutional privacy Privacy in a network space can be perceived as out of your control; a group process rather than an individual one User’s poor understanding of audience (social translucence?) Context collapse (when networks are artificially flat) Poor understanding or usability/functioning of privacy controls 9/20/16 Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication

Strategies and challenges Strategies include: selective friending, reducing disclosures (or their substance), using privacy settings (Ellison) Paradox of control: “privacy tuning” gives users the illusion of private spaces (Trepte, Acquisti) 9/20/16 Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication Trepte’s conclusion “The networks will make their users feel increasingly private, with the aim of triggering private self-disclosure, because personal data in particular generates revenues from advertisers and targeting companies. In contrast, a second scenario would be that users might become more aware of the illusiveness of their private niches online and might want to create spaces that not only feel private in a psychological and social sense, but also grant informational privacy. They might also become aware that privacy is the “currency” of the Social Web and that they trade their informational privacy for server space (e.g., webmail, drop-box services), access to online infrastructure (e.g., social network sites), or online content. In this scenario they may start to claim back their informational privacy online." Design issue! 9/20/16 Cheshire & King— Computer-Mediated Communication