Privacy 1, Rubbish news 0

An oft repeated statement about social networking sites is that putting up any personal information online is an automatic renunciation of privacy.

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," former Google CEO Eric Schmidt famously said.

However, using the many benefits of sites that encourage sharing personal information does not automatically translate into non-existent expectations of privacy.

So, I'm glad that there's been a recent ruling that's a definite shot in the arm for privacy in India, especially given recent possible erosions of the same.

Details of the case against TV9 Hyderabad brought in front of the News Broadcasting Standards Authority of India have been explained in detail at that link. To summarise, TV9 accessed the photographs and personal details of members of a networking site for gay men and splashed the same all over the tele in their hour-long report about "rampant gay culture" in Hyderabad, claiming that the information was easily accessible and in the public domain.

The absolutely juicy part of the ruling against their argument:

“While the names, particulars and photographs etc of individuals may be available in the.. members-only section, it cannot be said that such names, particulars and photographs are therefore available in the public domain”

As paraphrased:

Justice Verma seems to be saying, merely because one volunteers to publish information about oneself on a social networking site, one has not thereby foregone all of one’s rights to privacy against the world. Social networking sites are thereby construed as private spaces and decidedly not “public” ones.

Facebook, Woods, and the Morality of No Privacy

Facebook posts on Google and Woods soon on Oprah. Are we being pressured to give up our privacy?

Two recent and unconnected events may have very well defined the expectation of privacy that we take into 2010 and put a greater economic as well as moralistic premium on sharing personal information.

On 10 December, social media network Facebook rolled out changes in its privacy policy.

With the default privacy setting as ‘everyone’, Facebook’s 350 million users are being encouraged to share more personal information – location, photos, videos, posts – with those outside trusted circles of friends.

And effectively, with Google and Bing of course.

High premium on sharing

Of course, it must be mentioned that the new Facebook policy affords greater granular control of posted information, and continues the option for customised, restrictive privacy settings. Having taken the trouble to review and reset mine, I for one am glad that I have been offered the choice not to share party pictures with “everyone, forever.”

However, FB’s emphasis on openness signifies a slight but important change in policy and ideology for an industry leader.

With even the rather private Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg opening up his profile to the public, the premium on sharing and openness is exceptionally high.

As a user, I get the distinct feeling that my decision to have fewer people find me and not to contribute to a more ‘effective’ online search experience, doesn’t sit so good with the guys at Facebook, Google, et al.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s comments are almost scolding: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

Privacy as amoral? 

And here, the purpose of information sharing changes from economic benefits and knowledge gain, to take moralistic overtones. And it’s not just limited to information online.

Take the Tiger Woods situation (as it has indeed turned into) – Woods’ extra-marital shenanigans is everyone’s business now and a very public apology is being suggested as the only way out for golf’s biggest personality.

Intense scrutiny has meant that the normally reticent sportsman has already taken the decision to issue public statements about his “transgressions” and finally confess to his “infidelity”.

But that’s being considered far from enough. With sponsors getting cold feet, congressmen giving up campaigning for a Congressional medal for him (“in light of recent developments”), it would seem that Woods is being pressurised to forgo privacy for a tearful confession on Oprah.

‘Woods chose privacy, and look how that turned out, so no more privacy’ seems to be the prevailing sentiment. Take sports journalist Rick Reilly (ESPN) who makes a example of Woods as he writes:

He needs transparency. Let us into your life a little. Do the "A week on the road with Tiger" story. Give a home interview once in a while. Let people check in the closets and under the bed. Prove to the world you've changed. Because "no comment" and three security guards are only going to make people suspicious.

Sure, as a public persona, Wood’s personal life would always be an interesting conversation point, and the subject of constant tabloid speculation.

The issue however, is not about the intrusive media coverage or online insights into personal life, thoughts and behaviour. The worry is that as the decade ends, we're going to be pressured into volunteering to give up privacy concerns, or else face disapproval, self-righteousness and lectures on morality.

Image courtesy Markus Meyer aka Sunside, CC-BY-NC. 

Who's tracking your online footprint?

With Twitter mania adding to the already established popularity of Facebook, MySpace, YouTube and all those Google apps, the line between information and too-much-information gets another shade murkier.

While I voluntarily (for the most part) put up information about myself, scores of private and public organisations are collecting more information about what I do, the choices I make and my behaviour patterns.

As the New Statesman puts it, "Our digital records create a fast-growing laboratory of human behaviour."

I'm in the middle of research for a documentary about surveillance, and not surprisingly, the Government and Google regularly feature as the bad guys. Both have been criticised by privacy organisations for their disregard to dataprotection and privacy laws.

But as the same New Statesman article mentioned earlier goes on to point out, we may be confusing romantic ideas of anonymity with privacy.

It seems like a futile fight for anonymity, against the natural progression of a society where the information we share exponentially increases.

I'm coming around. It would seem that we require a completely new mindset, behaving in the straight-and-narrow. Because: 'Who's watching me? Who do I want watching me?'

Ironically, a half- finished 1984 stares at me from my bedside table.