Ethics of Insight

Ask a seventeen year old to define privacy and they will probably talk about their parents coming into their rooms without knocking. That kid wouldn’t think twice about broadcasting their every thought, preference, feeling and location to the world. If you talk to that kid’s parents they might say it is no one’s business what they talk about on the phone or what they buy in a store, but it where they go is certainly a private issue.

In today’s increasingly digital world there is a new concept of privacy. This comes as more and more of the population has come of age in a world where “checking-in” at a restaurant or updating your status from around the world is the norm. This creates a tension where the older generation finds these practices absurd and even dangerous. 

Young people may not think twice when companies like Apple or Google track location information through their phones (Angwin & Valentino-Devries, WSJ.com 2011), but older users may feel violated. As this younger generation comes into the workforce and attempts to use these technologies in their business it is important to understand the differences in the way that people perceive privacy.

It seems that a baseline minimum standard of privacy is the expectation that identifiable details not be linked to data. In the example above about cell phone location tracking it seems that the point where locations and a single person’s device can be linked is where discomfort begins. While there are people on either side of the comfort spectrum with this, the baseline for most seems to be here. 

Next is usually consent. Using information without consent is a hot issue for many people. The trick these days is that people don’t read consent forms. They are forced to “accept” Terms & Conditions in order to move forward, so they scroll through the 12 pages and just click “ok.” No one really reads all of that information – how does that really equate to consent.

Then, at least for me, is the way in which the information is used. I am comfortable – appreciative even! - if information like my preferences or my location is used on a macro level to customize my experience, make things easier or more convenient for me, or for safety. If, however, my information is used on a micro level to track my movements, allow people to find me or make judgments on me, I am very opposed. Perhaps I want all the benefits and none of the negatives of this technology – but isn’t that usually the case? 

I still want to be able to do what I want, when I want, but I don’t want people to be able to find out and judge me – or penalize me! And I’m not someone who is out breaking major laws. When I start to think about how law enforcement could use this technology to find dangerous criminals, at first it sounds good. Great! More criminals off the street! But then I think, I don’t want someone looking over my shoulder if I jaywalk or speed. If Google is tracking traffic speed on highways to keep maps up to date they could certainly let the authorities know that I am 5 miles over the speed limit.

But where is the line? In the news this week a man was updating his Facebook status while on the run from thepolice. He is accused of assaulting his girlfriend and has been involved in two fool chases with police officers. He has a criminal record that includes five felonies. This seems like a guy we would want to get off the street. 

Wouldn’t it be great if Facebook’s location services could tell police where to find the guy? On the surface this seems great, but when you think about how this might apply to you it seems incredibly invasive.  What if you were (falsely) accused of stealing $1,000,000? You didn’t do it! They have no proof! You are innocent! Our legal system currently says that we are innocent until proven guilty. So should police be able to pinpoint an innocent person’s location? That seems like an invasion of privacy. So perhaps the line is when the information is used against you?

So what is the answer to privacy? Where is the line? I think this is a case where public norms change as quickly as technology – and that is fast. A new norm is created everyday so we all must get comfortable with fluidity.