Privacy as a Commodity in the Digital Age

By now we’re all familiar with the admonitions from friends when you find someone you’re interested in dating: “Google him/her”. This provides just a glimpse at the private information that is available on the internet. While the information obtained from such searches can be quite limited, much deeper exploration of someone’s private life is available for a fee.

Shapiro, in the article, Privacy for Sale, points out that “… the growth of networked computing has allowed data compilers, direct marketers, and list-sellers to gather and sell personal information about practically everyone”(p,158).  Well, that’s disconcerting. And, do we have any control over what information about us gets disseminated in the public venue? No.  In fact, Shapiro goes on to point out that not only is privacy not well defined or protected in our legal system, but privacy is not even mentioned in the constitution (p 163).

So how do we protect our private information?  Shapiro suggests that a free market approach to privacy, or data control, would develop that would help us control the flow of our personal data. This would, of course, be available with a tiered pricing schedule; paying more for better protection. Right now, we “give away” alot of information. While filling out a form online, you may also be providing information on what sites you go to,  what service provider you use, and the computer and browser you are using (p 160).

So why do we have to fight to protect our privacy? One would think there would be an ethical tourniquet that would help control the use of information. We can look to the traditional news media for an idea of ethics in reporting. Since they are involved in gathering and disseminating information, shouldn’t they have usable guidelines we could all follow? In Glaser’s article “On the Wild, Woolly Internet, Old Ethics Rules Do Apply”, Kelly McBride is quoted as saying: “Frankly, we’ve never been that sharp in the entire journalism industry on ethical-decision making. We tend toward rule-obedience because it promotes efficiency, rather than true critical thinking” (p 5).  The article does however indicate that there are some standards and ethics, but indicates it may be more to maintain credibility than to promote ethics. A disturbing trend seems to be developing in the news media of trying to be the first with information, and to try to present something sensational to garner attention. In the same article, Stephen Ward points out that: “Studies show that reduced accuracy does damage the public trust in their media. But they also indicate there are other factors at play–e.g., sensationalism and a distrust of the independence of newsrooms  and journalists in an age of profit-driven media and global media corporations” (p 8).

It’s starting to look like there may be a real profit motive in the break-down of ethics, and violation of “privacy”. I don’t think there would be much corporate support for an increase in privacy if they are using that information to market products as well as hire employees. Even when you try to rent an apartment a potential landlord obtains a plethora of information about you and your interests and habits. If you were to block this information you may have difficulty getting hired or finding a place to live. The large credit bureaus are a good example of our own complicity in the destruction of our control over our personal data. We get to make corrections of inaccurate information, but we don’t get to decide what information gets disseminated. We actually want that information available so we can get the credit rating we desire (Shapiro, p 162).

Yet another area of potentially compromised personal data is the use by researchers. In the article, “Researchers Yearn to Use AOL Logs, but They Hesitate”, Hafner states: “It is one of the frustrations of being an academic researcher in a wold that has grown highly commercial. Data is everywhere, but there is precious little  of it for university researchers to work with. Raw data about people’s online behavior-the grist for many an academic researcher’s mill-remains locked up inside large companies, accessible only to a subset of corporate researchers” (p 1). Now, my first reaction to this is that it’s unfair not to let academic researchers use information about us; that the corporate world can use it for their own profit-driven motives. But then I realized that the academic research would end up being published, and their findings would be used for someone’s profit-driven motives. So what the heck, maybe they should all have this information about us. Why not give it away freely. Wouldn’t it improve the quality of entertainment and marketing? Wouldn’t it make it more useful to us? Well, I would certainly like to have control over who gets my information and how it will be used. Wouldn’t we want to sell our information rather than give it away? If we had to pay to control privacy, we are putting a price on our rights. But that may be the only way to control privacy in a market-based society.

Even though there seems to be a large leak in the dyke of privacy/data control, we still seem to make efforts to save the village. As Shapiro points out: ” The Europeans can draw on any number of resources to chasten our leaders. Many instruments of international law recognize that privacy is a fundamental human right. It is a core value that protects dignity, autonomy, solitude, and the way we present ourselves to the world” (p 164).

So perhaps we should introduce the help of our government to help individuals make smarter choices about how the corporate and academic worlds use information about us(Shapiro, p 161).  It is, in fact, our identities and how we live our lives that is being commodicized. We should have some control over it’s use.

References:

Shapiro, A.L. (1999). Privacy for sale (pp. 158-165). The control revolution. New York: Perseus.

Glaser, M. (2004). On the wild, woolly internet, old ethics rules do apply. Online journalism review. August 8.

Hafner, K. (2006, August 23). Researchers yearn to use AOL logs, but they hesitate. New York Times.