Social Networking and Participatory Surveillance - Blog Post # 9 - Week 10 Pt 2

Anders Albrechtslund strikes me as slightly more optimistic than Zimmer in the last article I examined. You can read Albrechtslund’s article here. Don’t misunderstand me though; Albrechtslund is just as aware of the privacy concerns that many have about the web. The difference between the two is that while Zimmer examines the need for monitoring and aggregation of data and the privacy concerns associated with that, Albrechtslund is instead considering the empowering and playful nature of participatory surveillance. In my head, I imagine Zimmer saying “Watch out!” while Albrechtslund says “Hey look, isn’t this neat!”. I have to say, I associate far more with Albrechtslund.

A lot of online privacy concerns occur in a manner that combines both the virtual and physical world. For example, a naïve teen posting a status that says “Dominican with the whole family for 2 weeks”, they have essentially invited thieves into their home. Albrechtslund makes the point that social networking needs to incorporate both the physical and virtual world in order to be successful. It is by isolating the virtual world that people put themselves at risk – actions online often have real-world consequences. The once mega-popular site MySpace gave users a sense of owning a space online. The problem is that the space allotted to each user is a bit like a bedroom with glass walls. Everything in the room is visible and should be presented as such. Users need to realize that the advancing social web is increasing the amount of required accountability. Using social networking sites eliminates the protection of anonymity, which too many take for granted.

Albrechtslund talks about invisible audiences – the people who access your information despite without you intentionally revealing it to them. The intended audience is not always the actual audience. Therefore, users must be prepared for anyone online to read their information. Users cannot assume that the intended recipient will be the sole recipient. Therefore, posting any sort of delicate information online is dangerous. Internet users need to become acquainted with how sharing information in the virtual world can have repercussions in the physical world. Instead of blaming the evil interwebs for identity theft, it is more appropriate to blame those who make their information available for people to take advantage of. This reminds me of the whole “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” The difference between guns and the web is that guns were made for only one purpose, and it certainly isn’t sharing.

Sometimes, it isn’t a user’s fault that their information gets into the wrong hands. A testimonial from the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre goes to show that banks are slimy gits who can’t take responsibility for ruining lives. This kind of thing irks me to no end.