What is Privacy?

March 2019

There are a wide range of definitions for the concept of privacy ranging from dictionary-based definitions, social definitions and academic definitions. A preferred scholarly definition is “the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how and to what extent information about themselves is communicated to others” (Westin, 1968, cited in Jones and Moore, 2011, p 30). However, the notion of privacy in sociological terms is extremely complex and no one definition has been successful at summarising every aspect of privacy. The concept of privacy transcends many disciplines and subjects, “Laws define the contents, levels, and types of access that are legal and illegal” (Anthony, Campos-Castillo and Horne, 2017, p 251). Technology also affects the way the concept of privacy can be defined as new digital mediums such as social media and data surveillance changes the accessibility that is carried out. “Privacy is a feeling that people have when they feel as though they have two important things: 1) control over their social situation; and 2) enough agency to assert control” (Boyd, 2011). The rapid expansion of digital technologies has made it increasingly difficult to assert control over one’s digital privacy (data) in order to effectively control their online social situations. As technologies are becoming more widely utilized, what constitutes private varies depending on a range of factors such as age, living situations, families, relationships and online use.

This essay will consist of various sociological theories of privacy and whether these are still applicable to privacy in a digital society, and contemporary theories of privacy in the digital society.

Boyd’s definition of privacy could be considered as out of date due to digital technologies and cybertechnologies. Even if one has never owned a computer, data is still accumulated through other means such as bank transactions and CCTV recording, “records of your purchasing habits reveal a lot about who you are” (Schneier, 2015). The concept of privacy and what one can consider private is an increasingly debated topic as one individual may consider privacy as something personal that should not be invaded upon or breached, whereas another may see privacy in a physical sense. However, the use of social media means the control over one’s personal information and online data is diminished. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg spoke of the sharing of one’s information as being the new social norm, “people have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that has evolved over time” (cited in Cashmore, 2010). So, if people are sharing more information publicly, does this mean what we once considered private is now public?

A survey by Bernhard Debatin et al. found that “…perceived benefits of online social networking outweighed risks of disclosing personal information.” It also concluded that “the strong attraction of social network sites, and the fact that gossip, harassment, hacking, phishing, data mining, and (ab)use of personal data by third parties are a reality in these networks and not just a hypothetical possibility, this paper illustrates that young adults need to be educated about risks to their privacy in a way that actually alters their behaviour” (Debatin et al., 2009, p 100). However, “most social media users are less concerned with governments or corporations watching their online activities than key members of their extended social network, such as bosses or parents” (Marwick and Boyd 2011, cited in Marwick, 2012, p 379). This then can alter the definition of privacy as a significant proportion of social media users have little control or knowledge of the data that is accumulated about them and what entities/governmental bodies can use. It is argued “one half of the population is pragmatic and willing to trade-off privacy against certain benefits they can get while disclosing personal information” (Ginosar and Ariel, 2017). So, if this proportion of users are willing to trade off privacy in this way, the definition of privacy in a digital society becomes more complex. What constitutes private in a digital society? It seems that online data and personal information online cannot be considered private according to the whole online population. Perhaps then what constitutes private in the digital society is settings and information that is specifically not digital but physical. What represented private traditionally is the home, the body and intimacy. It could be argued that these can still be private however, “where every online photo, status update, Twitter post and blog entry by and about us can be stored forever” (Rosen, 2010) it is becoming increasingly difficult to define what constitutes private in online spaces.

To conclude, it is extremely difficult to define privacy in a digital society, in which personal information that was once considered private before the birth of the internet and during the early years of the internet is now considered public. If half of the online population are not concerned about what data is being used by governmental bodies and corporations, then the personal information and images that are shared should not be considered private unless the individual attempts to assert control over this information via Tor-based browsers for example. However, it is a fair assumption to declare that every piece of information chosen to share online should be considered in the public and accessible by anyone. Boyd’s definition of privacy means a conclusion can be made that online activity can rarely be controlled by the general public and the social situations that are confronted online can also rarely be controlled and can sometimes be dangerous to the user. “Privacy is one of the biggest problems in this new electronic age. At the heart of the internet culture is a force that wants to find out everything about you” (Sagar, 2010). Westin’s definition mentioned at the start of this essay cannot be applied to digital communication as the majority of social media users have little control of what information online about themselves is communicated to others.

Bibliography

Anthony, D., Campos-Castillo, C. and Horne, C. (2017). Toward a Sociology of Privacy. Annual Review of Sociology, 43(1), pp.249-269.

Boyd, D. (2011). "Networked Privacy." Personal Democracy Forum. New York, NY, June 6.

Cashmore, P. (2010). Facebook Founder on Privacy: Public Is the New "Social Norm". [online] Mashable. Available at: https://mashable.com/2010/01/10/facebook-founder-on-privacy/?europe=true [Accessed 11 Oct. 2018].

Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J., Horn, A. and Hughes, B. (2009). Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), p.100.

Ginosar, A. and Ariel, Y. (2017). An analytical framework for online privacy research: What is missing?. Information & Management, 54(7), p.949.

Jones, R. and Moore, R. (2011). Information technology and traditional legal concepts. Abington: Routledge, p.30.

Marwick, A. (2012). The Public Domain: Surveillance in Everyday Life. Surveillance & Society, [online] 9(4), p.379. Available at: http://www.a51.nl/storage/pdf/4342_7878_1_PB1.pdf.

Rosen, J. (2010). The Web Means the End of Forgetting. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/magazine/25privacy-t2.html [Accessed 14 Oct. 2018].

Sagar, M. (2007). Andy Grove: What I've Learned. [online] Esquire. Available at: https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/interviews/a1449/learned-andy-grove-0500/ [Accessed 14 Oct. 2018].

Schneier, B. (2015). Data and Goliath. New York: W.W Norton & Company, p.17.

Westin, A. (1968). Privacy and Freedom. New York, Atheneum, p.7.