The article “Unpacking ‘Privacy’ for a Networked World” by Palen and Dourish argues that a new framework for discussing privacy issues is necessary in a networked world. The authors create a new model of privacy that is both dynamic and dialectic. This new model is based on the work of psychologist Irwin Altman, who observed that privacy is “neither static nor rule-based” and a process in which we continually manage and oversee boundaries “between spheres of action and degrees of disclose within those spheres.”
The most interesting points made by the authors argues that privacy is not just a matter of the immediate present. Where, in the past, people understood that public behavior was public but ephemeral, public online behavior is now available for immediate audiences as well as future audiences. Furthermore, the authors notes that “one’s own ability to understand and anticipate how one’s actions (and information, demeanor, etc.) appear to others is sometimes compromised in information technology.” While there’s another debate to be had about “cancel culture,” it is true that in recent years a trend has emerged of people digging decades back into certain public figure’s social media posts and finding older posts that may reflect poorly in the present. According to Palen and Dourish’s model, this is an invasion of privacy that is only possible through the introduction of information technology.
Recent debates in the legal sphere are also brought to mind, over whether or not it should be legal to film a video of someone in public and post it online without their consent. The authors are right that technology is depriving us of “control over representations of ourselves that are artifacts of simply having been somewhere or done something at a particular time.” People’s lives have been changed (often, for the worse) after becoming accidental “memes” without their consent. Personally, the idea of someone filming a TikTok of me, sharing that with over a million people, and then profiting off of it makes me a bit nauseous. When seeing these sorts of videos, I often wonder what will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
At the end, the authors conclude that “what is important is not what the technology does, but rather how it fits into cultural practice;” however, in 2022, I would disagree with this. It matters a lot about what technology is designed to do – privacy will follow the design of the technology. Technologies that encourage a culture of privacy invasion will see privacy invasion.