Daniel J. Solove, author of The
future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet talks a
lot about what I am going to talk about in this blog. I want to inform readers
about “…how the free flow of information on the Internet can make us less free”
(Solove 2). The issues of free speech, the right to privacy, and freedom are
all an issues on the Internet. “How do we allow people to control their
personal information without curtailing free speech or stifling freedom on the
Internet” (Solove 4). The answer is we don’t. According to uscourts.gov free
speech includes the rights “Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute
the flag)”, “for students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war”, “to
use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages”, “to
contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns”, “to
advertise commercial products and professional services (with some
restrictions)”, and “to engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in
protest)”. But these rights cannot all be withheld on the digital sphere. The
right not to speak, to contribute money to political campaigns, and engage in
symbolic speech are allowed on the Internet, but allowing people to protest war
and to use certain offensive words or phrases are not always allowed on the
Internet. Although certain sites allow different things than other, complete
free speech is never allowed. People that want to use crude language or want to
voice their opinions even if they are in a rude manner are not always welcomed
by others I the digital sphere. I think what would be easier to understand is
what freedom of speech does not include. It does not include the right “to
incite actions that would harm others”, “to make or distribute obscene
materials”, “to burn draft cards as an anti-war protest”, “to permit students
to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school
administration”, “of students to make an obscene speech as a school-sponsored
event”, or “of students to advocate illegal drug use as a school sponsored
event” (uscourts.gov). So when people do these things on the Internet, they
claim that they are allowed to do these things because of their right to have
free speech, but in all reality many of don’t know what free speech really is,
so when they get into trouble or their stuff gets deleted they don’t know why.
The more time we spend online, the more we are willing to share more
and more personal information. What we put on the Internet is no longer
private. Anyone can take what you put on the Internet and view it, alter it,
copy it, and share it with anyone. “Details about your private life on the
internet can become permanent digital baggage” (Solove 10).
Carlos Jensen,
Colin Potts, and Christian Jensen, authors of Privacy practices of Internet users: Self-reports
versus observed behavior, a journal article out of the International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies academic journal did a survey about the privacy practice
of internet users. They had 175 volunteer subjects and the survey was done
online. They were asked a series
of multiple choice demographic questions, were anonymous, and were not given an
opportunity to give any personally identifying information. The results are
shown below.
Table 2.
Population
privacy classification
|
Harris-Westin Polls
|
Survey—2004 (Count)
|
||||
|
1999 (%)
|
2000 (%)
|
2001 (%)
|
2003 (%)
|
||
|
Fundamentalist
|
25
|
25
|
34
|
26
|
34% (32)
|
|
Pragmatist
|
54
|
63
|
58
|
64
|
43% (40)
|
|
Unconcerned
|
22
|
12
|
8
|
10
|
23% (21)
|
Percentage of the population as classified by the Westin Privacy
Segmentation, and our Westin equivalence test.
“We classified a
participant as a “Fundamentalist” if he or she gave a privacy-oriented response
to four of these five questions (and no negative answers). A participant was
classified as “Unconcerned” if he or she gave no privacy-oriented responses
(and at most one neutral response) to these five questions. The remaining
participants were classified as Pragmatists” (Jensen, Potts, Jensen).
Later the subject’s
attitudes toward privacy was surveyed. The results are shown below.
Table 3.
Participant
privacy attitudes and concerns
|
Agree
|
Neutral
|
Disagree
|
|||||||
|
All (%)
|
F (%)
|
M (%)
|
All (%)
|
F (%)
|
M (%)
|
All (%)
|
F (%)
|
M (%)
|
|
|
I am concerned about online identity theft*
|
61.3
|
79.0
|
55.9
|
20.4
|
10.5
|
22.1
|
18.3
|
10.5
|
22.1
|
|
I am concerned about online credit card fraud
|
66.7
|
84.2
|
60.3
|
16.1
|
5.3
|
19.1
|
17.2
|
10.5
|
20.6
|
|
I am concerned about my privacy online*
|
72.0
|
89.5
|
69.1
|
15.1
|
0.0
|
17.7
|
12.9
|
10.5
|
13.2
|
|
I am concerned about my privacy in everyday life*
|
59.1
|
73.7
|
52.9
|
23.7
|
15.8
|
26.5
|
17.2
|
10.5
|
20.6
|
|
I am likely to read the privacy policy of a site
I visit for the first time
|
23.7
|
47.4
|
17.7
|
15.1
|
21.1
|
14.7
|
61.3
|
31.6
|
67.7
|
|
I am likely to read the privacy policy of a site
which does not ask me for information
|
7.5
|
15.8
|
2.9
|
6.5
|
5.3
|
7.4
|
86.0
|
79.0
|
89.7
|
|
I am likely to read the privacy policy of an
ecommerce site before buying anything*
|
43.0
|
79.0
|
35.3
|
25.8
|
21.1
|
25.0
|
31.2
|
0.0
|
39.7
|
|
I am likely to re-check the privacy policies of
sites I frequently visit
|
7.5
|
10.5
|
4.4
|
9.7
|
10.5
|
8.8
|
82.8
|
79.0
|
86.8
|
|
What privacy policies say frequently influences
my decision whether to visit or use a websites
|
19.4
|
26.3
|
16.2
|
37.6
|
31.6
|
36.8
|
43.0
|
42.1
|
47.1
|
|
Privacy policies accurately reflect what
companies do*
|
16.1
|
15.8
|
14.7
|
50.5
|
52.6
|
50.0
|
33.3
|
31.6
|
35.3
|
|
Privacy policies are easy to find
|
36.6
|
21.1
|
38.2
|
35.5
|
52.6
|
32.4
|
28.0
|
26.3
|
29.4
|
|
It is important to me that websites publish
privacy policies
|
68.8
|
63.2
|
69.1
|
19.4
|
31.6
|
17.7
|
11.8
|
5.3
|
13.2
|
Response rates to privacy attitudes survey items. Questions used
to map participants to the three Westin categories are marked with a “*”.
In
conclusion the study showed that “even
self-selected volunteers in a survey on online privacy, who are therefore
likely predisposed to think about privacy issues, and who know that their
online behavior is being monitored, still show remarkable ignorance and
inappropriately placed trust in their actions” (Jensen, Potts, Jensen).
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=F6liiKZwX_oC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=privacy+on+the+internet&ots=wfqf6cg9CL&sig=bhmpijNTJdpmEZ6Iq8VRP3qQJ2M#v=onepage&q=privacy%20on%20the%20internet&f=false
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1071581905000650
No comments:
Post a Comment