The last time I posted on this blog was on Aug 9, 2011. Feels like an eternity, if you ask me, even with law school and all.
One thing that I have noticed during my tenure as a grad student is that even though I am in a different academic institution (law school), there’s still a large amount of Philosophy to be discovered and discussed. The only problem is that, as a student, you’re generally bogged down with so much reading (and a very structured atmosphere) that the last thing you’d want to talk about in your free time is Philosophy, especially if it gets you back into talking about the law.
But spring break is at hand for me, and I’ve been itching to make a post here for some time. The topic, as the title of this post gives away, is with privacy. I’ve found that over the past few years we’ve experienced great advances in technology — ones that make our lives easier, cooler, or perhaps even both. But what that seems to also bring is a decrease in our privacy. Companies are trying to do whatever they can to sell you a product you’d want, and in the process some are even willing to invade (or, to put it in a more politically correct manner, are “apparently” invading) one’s privacy in order to get that information. The searches we make, the e-mails we send, the websites we visit, the things we list in online applications — all of this seems to be more and more “fair game” for advertisers in an attempt to make their customers happy (the companies).
If things are this way, then I’d like to ask a simple, yet hopefully thought-provoking question: Where has our privacy gone? And, at this rate, are we really going to even be entitled to privacy in the future? For Tort law, one important requirement for an Invasion of Privacy claim is that one have an expectation of privacy in the thing or activity that the claim is covering. But with what Google, Apple, and other companies are apparently doing, and with the seemingly more invading products that are coming out day by day, can we even expect to have such an expectation?
Call me a cynic, but I don’t see any good prospects for our expectations of privacy if the Internet and other related technology continues to advance and be such an integral part of our lives as it is. And if things get to where M. T. Anderson’s book (Feed) proscribes, then privacy might not stand much of a chance.
But we can’t stop using the technology, either, now can we? Looks like we’ve got a rock-and-a-hard-place problem here.
What do you guys think?
George Arut (“The Meager Weakling”)
P.S. – Does anyone know how the All Powerful One is doing in CA? I remember that he was at some conference with Dr. Kline some months ago, but I haven’t heard anything about him since.
I am always tempted, when this discussion comes up, to cast the focus on consent. Namely, we have created this culture where every fact about us is a commodity quite willingly, if without thinking about it too much. I am unconvinced by the argument that websites and companies such as Google and Apple are so omnipresent and necessary that the demand for them is inflexible. I have a few pseudo-luddite friends who have shown this to me quite clearly. There is also the argument that we got along without them fine for centuries and the fact that the older generations are still getting along without them pretty alright. Still though, I do not want to make that the main focus of my response. So let`s assume the demand for these things is pretty inflexible.
1) The external has been internalized since the invention of culture so it only makes sense that we would begin to externalize the internal. What`s important in both cases is our critical (or not) response to these facts.
Many education theorists such as Dewey and Postman, point to the fact that one of the first things that is done in educating a child is helping them to internalize the external the value systems of the given culture through the use of narratives, games, special ceremonies, etc.. Later, if the child has a particularly reflective disposition, they can expose this internalized value system which is not strictly “their own” (i.e. they did not develop it themselves) and call it into question. Whether it is possible to call it into question absolutely is a separate problem. The point in that the internalization of the external has been around both theoretically and in actual fact for a long time.
The externalization of the internal is far more complicated and a lot less intuitive. Thinkers, such as Wittgenstein, who argue for the impossibility of private languages, make the case that there is no intelligible internal self which is not accessible publicly. Now, obviously this is very abstract, so how does it translate to a more concrete question of public and private self? Well, I think what it suggests and what social media and other technological developments are making increasingly apparent, is that the Self is a very public thing to begin with. Rather than seeing this as losing some part of ourselves, we should see it as an opportunity to call into question the interplay between our social and “private” selves. For those who never ask this question, I think it is fair to say that they are tacitly consenting to a natural extension of the same culture that eliminates the private self through language and education in the child at an early age. For those who do ask the question, I believe they will be able to critically examine their relationship with internet activity and genuinely ask how much of themselves is a commodity.
Now, I don`t know how much I actually believe what I just wrote, but it was the first thing that came to my mind when I read your article and I think it is a line of reasoning worth pursuing. I will post some of my other thoughts when I have time.
I look forward to reading your response.
Benjamin
Hello Benjamin! Thanks for leaving a response to what I’ve written, and sorry for the delay in responding to what you’ve said. I think that you are getting at a good point, though.
A lot of the acceptance of these new technological advances that lead to such invasions of privacy (or, at least, are claimed to do so) starts at an early age. I mean, I’ve seen 3 year-olds who know how to use an iPad better than a tech geek whose in his mid 20s, with the child’s parents giving encouragement to such use. Kids are getting cell phones and other related devices earlier and earlier (I remember that I got my first phone only when I was around 16, when most other kids were getting their first phones when they were only 10 or 11), and are getting to know them better and better as time goes along.
However, to a point you’ve mentioned, these people growing up depend on such technology so much to do things in their lives and to look “hip” that they fail to even question what it is they’re doing and why they’re doing it. It’s almost as if they are internalizing something blindly, and continue to be blind after they grow to a more mature age where they could question their activities in a more rational manner. And that blindness seems to lead to these people externalizing what’s internal without any question as to what they’re doing either.
Call me crazy, but is Twitter and Facebook really that important? Is it really that important that you take what’s personal and share it on the web?
Perhaps the Self is something that is first public, and then private if you choose to make it such. But then why aren’t people given the choice to make it private if they choose to do so? Why is it so hidden? These are questions that still riddle me to this day.
I choose to write on this blog, for example, b/c I voluntarily consent to allow my ideas to come out into the Web. But I’m not sharing anything personal in the sense of where I am, what I’m doing, who are my friends, what someone has said, etc, etc, like you would on some of the services and technologies that are now available. Excluding any question of Free Will (b/c that’s outside the context of what I want to cover), I choose to make myself as private as I can b/c I don’t want my Self to be public.
Yet technology seems to force us to make ourselves public or else face being in the Stone Ages. It doesn’t appear to me, then, that the Self is necessarily a “public” thing, but one that is being made “public” (through our externalizing of the internal) by some form of duress for someone else’s gain. If there is a choice, then it looks like it’s a Hobson’s choice, for what I can tell.
And if kids are allowed to continue blindly externalizing the internal through such means without *at least* questioning what they are doing (even if they decide to follow through hand do it anyway), then we, as a society, are only doing them a disfavor (a *huge* disfavor) as opposed to helping advance technology. We are, as you said, only continuing to make ourselves another commodity that can have a dollar-value placed on it.
Whew! That was actually a bunch to say, although I don’t think it’s as intelligent or well-written as your response, Benjamin. Hopefully, though, it provides some more food for thought to continue with this conversation.
George (“The Meager Weakling”)
“these people growing up depend on such technology so much to do things in their lives and to look “hip”… Call me crazy, but is Twitter and Facebook really that important? Is it really that important that you take what’s personal and share it on the web?”
It seems to me that because of the importance of Twitter, Facebook and social media in general for our generation, what you are asking is in fact “is it really that important to participate in culture?”
Of course, culture still happens outside of the web and these sites, but it is undeniable that a hell of a lot of social interaction goes on on these website especially for people around our age. So to answer your question: yes it is very important if only for the very reason that people act as if it is. With this being said, we need to ask the next question: “does it have to be accepted unreflectively?” I think this very conversation is the proof that no it does not. This cultural phenomenon is like many others (the Enlightenment, Christianity, systematic education) in that a whole lot of people will simply accept and live with it. The reasons for this vary. Everything from a lack of time for those who work three jobs to support their families, to a simple lack of interest from those who just don’t mind giving their information away. We could play the role of Socrates and say that these people have an obligation to self-examine if they want a meaningful life, but I don’t think it is necessary to go that far. (With that being said, if you want to try it I will help you haha).
So given that people will accept things unreflectively and it is incredibly hard to be Socrates for millions of people, I think we have to ask a few more questions.
“I choose to write on this blog, for example, b/c I voluntarily consent to allow my ideas to come out into the Web. But I’m not sharing anything personal in the sense of where I am, what I’m doing, who are my friends, what someone has said, etc, etc, like you would on some of the services and technologies that are now available… I choose to make myself as private as I can b/c I don’t want my Self to be public.”
The first question I want to ask is whether these companies are taking anymore information than a person in whose presence you do something. If it is the case that they do not, then I do not see how we can blame them for anything more than, say, being rude. So let’s pretend Google is looking at this conversation as it looks at 1000s of conversations. Like a person hosting a party, its ears perk up when it hears certain words that interest it like “I really want shoes at a discount price” (Anyone can come to the party so of course certain crazy people show up who say that kind of thing). Like any good host, Google chimes in, “I know where you can get those…”.
Now, it seems like Google takes far more information than this since they also listen in on private conversations, but like those controversial body scanners at the airport, they remove the humanity from the information as much as possible. Of course people can still reconstitute the data to do all sorts of weird and creepy things if they really set their mind to it, but notice if you had a friend who liked to host parties who then blackmailed you with photos from the party, you would probably stop attending their parties. Since Google’s success relies on people attending parties, it seems to me that like all social interactions, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
Of course, then the argument goes, but Google could be abusing our trust without us knowing, but I would simply dismiss this as an appeal to ignorance. This whole discussion reminds me strongly of La Boetie’s “On Voluntary Servitude” He says, “Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? … How does he have any power over you except through you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you,” That seems to me to be what the question of internet privacy comes down to. As a result, I really do not think Facebook and Google are to blame. After all, they know nothing more about us than what we tell them, if people really don’t know that this is the case than perhaps there should be a shorter user agreement people actually read, but Google is not big Tobacco there are no studies they fund proving that your information doesn’t necessarily go to them.
If anything, I think you’re right and we are doing a disservice to children by allowing all this to go unquestioned, but I think now more than ever privacy is irrelevant. I say this because if you look at the grocery checkout magazines they will tell you exactly what you like in bed. Your doctor will tell you exactly what your body needs (no small talk necessary!). If you walk a mile, you will see people wearing incredibly similar clothes, driving very similar cars, using very similar expressions, listening to very similar (or predictably different) music. I believe that the modern self is streamlined and that this is simply the natural outcome of the sort of liberal individualistic society we have.
I’m not saying we’re not all individuals and there isn’t a wealth of rich subtleties between us. I’m not saying that a moment of pure romance cannot occur in sheer intimacy among two souls utterly apart from the rest of the universe. All that I’m saying is that to indict these corporations by saying that they give us little choice beyond the dark ages, is to say that perhaps that this both publicizing (and to some extent dissolution) of the Self is an inherent part of modern “progress”.