Forget Privacy, It Is Just An illusion. Over the last week I’ve had a number of conversations with clients, colleagues and friends about how to deal with online social media. Some people are firm believers in the power of social networking and use Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and others very heavily, blurring personal and professional profiles and details quite freely. Others are scared to death and do not want to use these or – if they do – they are extremely careful, keep separate profiles, mostly watch and do not participate. Others are somewhere in between. I probably belong to the first group. I am careful about the information I post, but – watching my kids use Facebook, MSN and the likes – I have come to realize that, does not matter how careful we are, we are going to lose control of our privacy. For instance, I and my wife don’t like to have our pictures posted. The emergence of location-based services like Google Latitude is pushing the boundaries even further.
Integrity is what you have when no-one is watching. Framing (social sciences) In the social sciences, framing is a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how individuals, groups, and societies organize, perceive, and communicate about reality. Framing is the social construction of a social phenomenon often by mass media sources, political or social movements, political leaders, or other actors and organizations. It is an inevitable process of selective influence over the individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. It is generally considered in one of two ways: as frames in thought, consisting of the mental representations, interpretations, and simplifications of reality, and frames in communication, consisting of the communication of frames between different actors.[1] The effects of framing can be seen in many journalism applications.
With the same information being used as a base, the ‘frame’ surrounding the issue can change the reader’s perception without having to alter the actual facts. Burton Group Identity Blog: Gartner Gets Privacy Dead Wrong. Blogger: Bob Blakley Andrea DiMaio of Gartner recently posted a blog entry entitled "Forget Privacy: It Is Just An Illusion". DiMaio's lament rephrases Scott McNealy's famous quote ( "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it. " ) McNealy was wrong then and DiMaio is wrong now; they're both dead wrong, and it's important. Here's DiMaio's key sentence: I have come to realize that, does not matter how careful we are, we are going to lose control of our privacy. But Andrea DiMaio never had control of his privacy. Privacy is the problem you have after you share sensitive information.
When you discover that you might have a socially awkward medical condition and you go to the doctor, you don't keep the condition secret from him - you tell him about it so that you can get treated. That's how privacy works; it's not about secrecy, and it's not about control: it's about sociability . In rhetoric, we call this redefinition of the problem "framing" . The technology frame isn't the problem. Burton Group Identity Blog: Personal Privacy Impact Assessments. Blogger: Ian Glazer I’m reading Canada’s Assistant Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham’s recently released findings into complaints levied against Facebook. ( Report of Findings into the Complaint Filed by the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)against Facebook Inc.
Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act .) My first reaction to this is, frankly, one of jealousy. I wish we had a similar commissioner/czar/wonk here in the US. I suppose elements of the FTC work in this regard but without the same charter, which is too bad. Section 4 of the report is, for me, where the action is at. I wonder if Facebook could build a personal privacy impact assessment (PPIA) app. We all have PPIAs built in - one that is cultivated through social interactions schooled by social norms. Everyday Life and the Expectation of Privacy : Information Secur. Digital Identity Forum: Out of control, up to a point.
[Dave Birch] I re-read an excellent post over at Emergent Chaos. It reflected an important discussion between two people, both of whom I take very seriously. To paraphrase and simplify horribly, Bob thinks that the social structures maintain privacy, Adam thinks that technological structures maintain privacy. In a world where some people say "I've got nothing to hide" and others pay for post office boxes, I don't know how we can settle on a single societal norm.
And in a world in which cheesy-looking web sites get more personal data — no really, listen to Alessandro Acquisti, or read the summary of "Online Data Present a Privacy Minefield" on All Things Considered... -- I'm not sure the social frame will save us. The lack of a "norm" is a good point here, and I have to say it made me think. So why was I thinking about the informative e-discussion between Adam and Bob?
In the security breach, an employee [...] was not authorised to access individual patient records. Indeed. Online Data Present A Privacy Minefield. Visible IT.