[Air-L] Privacy Buzz + I love Alaska
Seda Guerses
sguerses at esat.kuleuven.be
Thu Feb 18 17:09:58 PST 2010
today i finally read through the privacy thread and am really
appreciating it. what is really interesting in the discussion is the
way that talking about privacy (individual or privacy as a public
good) automatically opens up questions about property, labor and
commodification of the public sphere. after spending the last few
years asking the question how to deal with privacy in systems design,
i have found that undoing this entanglement does injustice to what
privacy has become in surveillance/information space(s). this type of
disentanglement also has a negative effect on the type of privacy
research in computer science but surely also in other fields like law
and sociology. specifically, the focus of privacy research has been on
confidentiality and anonymity. christian fuchs also mentions in his
blog entry on the google buzz:
"Therefore special privacy protection mechanisms are needed. All large
collections of data pose the threat of being accessed by individuals
who want to harm others"
i am interpreting the "privacy protection mechanisms" to be legal
protections as well as confidentiality and anonymity tools. although
such solutions are very important and i would not want to spend a day
without them, i have argued here (http://bit.ly/bpajqx) why in a
surveillance society there are just as well situations in which
confidentiality and anonymity can work against the individual or a
community. david phillips has also written a lot about the importance
of being able to negotiate the public and private divide with respect
to queer politics. he opens up the discussion on what privacy can mean
in a society which has integrated digital into everyday life, and how
confidentiality and anonymity can be the means for negotiating the
public private divide, but are not goals in themselves.
a recent case in which anonymity itself can backfire is the
documentary film "i love alaska" (http://www.minimovies.org/documentaires/view/ilovealaska
). a couple of dutch filmmakers produced this film based on the
profile of an anonymous user selected from the aol search data
released in 2006. the film is on the one hand very interesting: the
filmmakers saw the queries of this anonymous user as her prose and
used it to narrate their film (without her knowledge). one of the
interesting developments of our digital times has been the possibility
of "participatory surveillance" (Albrechtslund,2008) which the film
confronts the viewer with. it is exciting, touching, frustrating and
curious to experience these queries. at the same time, the film is
aggrevating (despite its cold calm) as one sits through very personal
queries, written in full sentence into the aol search engine. it is
impossible not to question what it means for data to become anonymous*
and hence to question what it means to do something with anonymous
data, or what happens to digital discretion once data goes anonymous?
the filmmakers also put one profile under the magnifying glass, void
of time stamps, reducing the profiled person to couple of not so sunny
queries a day, reframing the queeries as a representation of some very
deep truth about the querying person. but, as even google's vincent
cerf will admit, it is not that single "identifiable" profiles are at
the center of corporate attention, but rather aggregation of "de-
identified" surveilance data often used for various types of social
sorting and efficient services. hence, the film once again derails the
focus of privacy from one of a social problem to that of a personal/
individual problem. the profile selected for the film is also worthy
of questioning with respect to gender, class, age, sexuality, obesity
etc.
current data protection and companies like facebook and google have
reduced privacy to a solitary ritual of setting your privacy controls
on miniscule subsets of the data they compile and process about
indivduals, communities and networks. this way of framing the problem
unfortunately also makes it difficult to have some of the discussions
about public services, the commons, etc. when it comes to surveillance
and privacy. i agree with zeynep:
Our social commons have moved online; it does not make sense to tell
people to avoid these services as they essential to participating
fully in
the life of the 21st century.
yes, but the question is, how can we make the existing discussions as
well about the commons, property and material matters, and not just
about individual choices on privacy...any ideas?
s.
* legally and technically anonymous data is in a sense vogelfrei. in
the middle ages people could be declared vogelfrei (free as a bird)
meaning that person was free to do whatever she pleased, but at the
same time others were also allowed to do whatever they wanted to her,
as no more legal protection was offered to that person. today data
protection in europe for example does not protect anonymous data. what
anonymity means is another big matter related to identity which is fun
to discuss and lots of maths, but maybe not tonight.
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
More information about the Air-L
mailing list