Too much information
2013-08-13 0:00

By Ian Leslie | AEON

Our instincts for privacy evolved in tribal societies where walls didnít exist. No wonder we are hopeless oversharers



In October 2012 a woman from Massachusetts called Lindsey Stone went on a work trip to Washington DC, and paid a visit to Arlington National Cemetery, where American war heroes are buried. Crouching next to a sign that said ĎSilence and Respectí, she raised a middle finger and pretended to shout while a colleague took her photo. It was the kind of puerile clowning that most of us (well me, anyway) have indulged in at some point, and once upon a time, the resulting image would have been noticed only by the few friends or family to whom the owner of the camera showed it. However, this being the era of sharing, Stone posted the photo to her Facebook profile.


Within weeks, a ĎFire Lindsey Stoneí page had materialised, populated by commentators frothing with outrage at a desecration of hallowed ground. Anger rained down on Stoneís employer, a non-profit that helps adults with special needs. Her employers decided, reluctantly, that Stone and her colleague would have to leave.

More recently, Edward Snowdenís revelations about the panoptic scope of government surveillance have raised the hoary spectre of ĎBig Brotherí. But what Prismís fancy PowerPoint decks and self-aggrandising logo suggest to me is not so much an implacable, omniscient overseer as a bunch of suits in shabby cubicles trying to persuade each other theyíre still relevant. After all, thereís little need for state surveillance when weíre doing such a good job of spying on ourselves. Big Brother isnít watching us; heís taking selfies and posting them on Instagram like everyone else. And he probably hasnít given a second thought to what might happen to that picture of him posing with a joint.
Walls are a relatively recent innovation. Members of pre-modern societies happily coexisted while carrying out almost all of their lives in public view

Stoneís story is hardly unique. Earlier this year, an Aeroflot air hostess was fired from her job after a picture she had taken of herself giving the finger to a cabin full of passengers circulated on Twitter. She had originally posted it to her profile on a Russian social networking site without, presumably, envisaging it becoming a global news story. Every day, embarrassments are endured, jobs lost and individuals endangered because of unforeseen consequences triggered by a tweet or a status update. Despite the many anxious articles about the latest change to Facebookís privacy settings, we just donít seem to be able to get our heads around the idea that when we post our private life, we publish it.

At the beginning of this year, Facebook launched the drably named ĎGraph Searchí, a search engine that allows you to crawl through the data in everyone elseís profiles. Days after it went live, a tech-savvy Londoner called Tom Scott started a blog in which he posted details of searches that he had performed using the new service. By putting together imaginative combinations of Ďlikesí and profile settings he managed to turn up ĎMarried people who like prostitutesí, ĎSingle women nearby who like to get drunkí, and ĎIslamic men who are interested in other men and live in Tehraní (where homosexuality is illegal).

Scott was careful to erase names from the screenshots he posted online: he didnít want to land anyone in trouble with employers, or predatory sociopaths, or agents of repressive regimes, or all three at once. But his findings served as a reminder that many Facebook users are standing in their bedroom naked without realising thereís a crowd outside the window. Facebook says that as long as users are given the full range of privacy options, they can be relied on to figure them out. Privacy campaigners want Facebook and others to be clearer and more upfront with users about who can view their personal data. Both agree that users deserve to be given control over their choices.

But what if the problem isnít Facebookís privacy settings, but our own?

A few years ago George Loewenstein, professor of behavioural economics at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, set out to investigate how people think about the consequences of their privacy choices on the internet. He soon concluded that they donít.

In one study, Loewenstein and his collaborators asked two groups of students to fill out an online survey about their lives. Everyone received the same questions, ranging from the innocuous to the embarrassing or potentially incriminating. One group was presented with an official-looking website that bore the imprimatur of their university, and were assured that their answers would remain anonymous. The other group filled out the questions on a garishly coloured website on which the question ĎHow BAD Are U???í was accompanied by a grinning devil. It featured no assurance of anonymity.

Bizarrely, the ĎHow BAD Are U???í website was much more likely to elicit revealing confessions, like whether a student had copied someone elseís homework or tried cocaine. The first set of respondents reacted cautiously to the institutional feel of the first website and its obscurely concerning assurances about anonymity. The second group fell under the sway of the perennial youthful imperative to be cool, and opened up, in a way that could have got them into serious trouble in the real world. The students were using their instincts about privacy, and their instincts proved to be deeply wayward. ĎThinking about online privacy doesnít come naturally to us,í Loewenstein told me when I spoke to him on the phone. ĎNothing in our evolution or culture has equipped us to deal with it.í

[...]

Read the full article at: aeonmagazine.com



Related Articles
Does Facebook attract Narcissists Or Turn Us Into Them?
PANOPTICON: The documentary about your privacy
Smartphone pictures pose privacy risks
Does Your Brain Have a Right to Privacy?
Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have íNothing to Hideí
They Know You Arenít Actually Reading All Those Privacy Policies
Violence and the Need for Tribalism
If youíve done nothing wrong, you have everything to worry about
Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear
Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have íNothing to Hideí


Latest News from our Front Page

Confederate History - Dispelling the Myths
2015-07-03 3:28
History books, the media, the school systems, etc abound in falsehoods and inaccuracies of Confederate and Southern history. This fact sheet will help to clarify and dispell some of these rampant inaccuracies. MYTH - The War of 1861 - 1865 was fought over slavery. FACT - Terribly untrue. The North fought the war over money. Plain ...
Gays Rights May Open Door for Pedophile Rights
2015-07-03 3:31
Democrats have attempted to normalize pedophilia as a sexual orientation. A recent Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage may soon allow pedophiles to argue they are suffering discrimination. ‚ÄúUsing the same tactics used by ‚Äėgay‚Äô rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals,‚ÄĚ writes Jack Minor ...
Government Trolls Are Using ‚ÄėPsychology-Based Influence Techniques‚Äô On YouTube, Facebook And Twitter
2015-07-03 3:56
Have you ever come across someone on the Internet that you suspected was a paid government troll? Well, there is a very good chance that you were not imagining things. Thanks to Edward Snowden, we now have solid proof that paid government trolls are using ‚Äúpsychology-based influence techniques‚ÄĚ on social media websites such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. ...
Artificial Intelligence Takes the Battlefield: Who Is Really Running Jade Helm 15?
2015-07-03 2:31
Who is really going to be running Jade Helm 15? There is more to the story than just training for martial law in states designated as ‚Äúhostile states‚ÄĚ ‚Äď already a chilling pretext with overtones of greater federal power that could spiral out of control. But it seems that it is actually A.I. ‚Äď artificial intelligence ‚Äď that is at the helm ...
Robot kills man at Volkswagen plant in Germany
2015-07-03 2:32
A 22-year-old worker was grabbed by the robot and crushed against a metal plate A robot has killed a man at a Volkswagen car factory in Germany. The 22-year-old worker died from injuries he sustained when he was trapped by a robotic arm and crushed against a metal plate. The man, who has not been named, was part of a team that ...
More News »