With the advent and popularization of social media, many users now prioritize sharing and social connection over privacy. Rather than viewing the publicization of intimate details about their life as a negative to be avoided, many willingly share these details with others on the internet. Research has shown that the average Facebook profile gives a viewer more information about someone than would gained in a casual face to face interaction (Krämer 1). Acknowledging this trend, many social media giants, most notably Facebook, have embarked on an increasingly widespread campaign to collect user data and improve the overall experience. Users are becoming more comfortable with their data being collected.
Young users are particularly unbothered by third party data collection. The current academic conversation revolves around users making a tradeoff between privacy and an improvement in user experience. Scholars such as Bernhard Debatin, Jennette P. Lovejoy, Ann-Kathrin Horn, and Brittany N. Hughes argue in “Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences” that users simply see Facebook’s social benefits as more important than the potential cost of privacy and that users need to become more educated about Facebook’s privacy policies. They however, fail to recognize that a large portion of users, especially young users do not view big data as a negative threat to their privacy at all.
The collection, storage, and subsequent distribution of their data by big tech companies is not seen as a problem with social media, but rather a feature that is there to improve their experience. Further, this paper fails to touch upon the future implications of changing privacy standards. The researchers do not examine how new standards of privacy from the upcoming generations will alter the course of our future. Similarly, in the paper “Don’t be dumb—that’s the rule I try to live by”: A closer look at older teens’ online privacy and safety attitudes,” by Denise Agosto and June Abbas, the authors delve into the attitudes of teen internet users but stop short of analyzing how the prevailing attitudes of a generation could affect the future.
127 our experts are availableright now
They use interview style questioning to gain insight into how teens view their internet use. While they do make claims about how to potentially change attitudes in the future, the current conversation is distinctly lacking an analysis of potential future outcomes as a result of new ideas about how privacy should function in our society. In this piece, I will lay out how changing attitudes towards what is acceptable when it comes to privacy may affect our future way of life. I will utilize polling of various demographics as well as reports on current technology.
For young people who have only ever known a world of social media, data mining by tech companies is simply not something they worry about. This indicates that as the world becomes more populated by generations that have only known omnipresent technology in their lives, there will be less resistance to big data collection by tech companies. Essentially, the changing attitude of users in regards to privacy indicates that the future will consist of widespread third party big data collection by large tech companies such as Facebook as well as the government.
In many ways, teens today are the first generation of their kind. Never in their lives did they experience life without technology as an omnipresent force. They have used it in their personal lives and even in the classroom since a young age and have no frame of reference for life without it. This seems to be a key factor in the stark split between generations when it comes to attitudes on privacy. According to a joint study by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University and the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, older users tend to not take many precautions regarding who can view their profiles. Their information tends to be accessible to whoever searches their name or stumbles upon their profile.
Younger users on the other hand often fortify their profiles so that only their friends or in some cases friends of their friends can view it. This budding generation is very willing to share and values openness, often sharing far more intimate details online than previous generations would ever have imagined doing. However, this sharing is not without limit, if not in detail at least in scope. According to the Berkman and Pew Center study, “60% of teens ages 12-17 who use Facebook say they have their profile set to private, so that only their friends can see it. Another 25% have a partially private profile, set so that friends of their friends can see what they post” (Madden 2). Essentially, teens are very willing to let others into their world, but only on their terms with the group that they define. This could lead one to assume that teens would not want third parties collecting their information, since they are not part of the previously determined group.
However the Berkman and Pew Center’s study finds that, “just 9% say that they are “very” concerned,” and “Another 60% in total report that they are “not too” concerned (38%) or “not at all” concerned (22%)” (Madden 10). This generation of kids is trusting of big tech companies and are more concerned with what other people think about their posts than how companies are mining their data. Although it might be unimaginable to older users, the idea of powerful tech companies hoarding their data does not faze young adults. Essentially, young internet users’ values when it comes to privacy point towards a future that is ripe for big data collection.
While teens and young adults have some fear of reputational damage due to certain people outside their desired audience viewing their posts, this fear does not translate to tech companies. Since big data collection is relatively anonymous in the sense that any workers that come into contact with their data will almost certainly never meet them in real life or affect their lives in any meaningful way. Young users look to maximize social utility from social media by fostering connections online while also minimizing negatives such as information they would rather keep hidden from certain family members or acquaintances getting out. Large scale data collection simply does not affect these goals.
Further, Facebook has also become an essential part of many teen and young adult lives. In “Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences,” the researchers write, “The habitual use of Facebook and its integration into daily life indicates that it has become an indispensable tool of social capital and connectedness with large numbers of people. The benefits of Facebook outweigh privacy concerns, even when concrete privacy invasion was experienced” (Debatin 100). Even in the face of undeniable privacy invasion, users continue to return to Facebook. This suggests that social media both has a strong grip on users due to its benefits and that users do not in fact value their privacy very highly. This combination seems to form a perfect storm for future privacy invasion to grow. As long as users are assured there experience will improve, it appears there are few boundaries that are uncrossable in the collection and expansion of big data.
In many ways, the issue of facial recognition technology on Facebook effectively captures current views on privacy. This technology is powerful enough to detect users’ identities even when their face is not in the photo simply by clothing, poses, and physical traits. The technology is able to take one’s physical characteristics and use them to create a one of a kind virtual signature. This signature is then uploaded to a bank of signatures and is used to confirm the identity of every user in every picture on the platform unless they have already opted out of this service.
The key in understanding what this means in terms of privacy is that there is in fact the option to opt out for all users. One has the ability to remove themselves from the feature if they have any concerns whatsoever about their privacy. Facebook does not release any information on how many of their users have opted out of this service, but polling by the Morning Consult on how people perceive facial recognition technology found that 60 percent of people either viewed it favorably or had no opinion about it. This suggests that a very large percentage of users are allowing Facebook to create data on their face. Additionally, Facebook has 2.27 billion active monthly users (“Number” par. 1)
Even if every user that views facial recognition unfavorably were to opt out, which is highly unlikely, there would still be 1.36 billion users incorporating it into their lives. As a result of this, other companies will begin integrating biometric tech into their products as we have already seen with the iPhone X’s ability to scan one’s face to allow entry into the phone. This is the first step in facial recognition technology gaining a foothold in our lives. This technology however, is potentially the most radical of all the privacy infringing products we have seen. One can change their social media habits and uses at anytime and most of what is put on the internet can be taken down.
However, one cannot reasonably change their face without undergoing extreme, expensive surgery that may come out unsuccessful. In a world where facial recognition is prevalent, privacy must be scarce. Right now, it is fairly easy to avoid having one’s face catalogued by any of the big tech companies simply by opting out of Facebook’s feature and not setting it up on the iPhone. However, as the steady march of technological progress continues it is highly likely that it becomes a near necessity.
Key cards could easily become a fixture of the past once secure buildings adopt facial recognition as their means of security. Employers could begin to expect employees to give up this data in order to come into their place of work each morning. Many will likely be uncomfortable with this practice. However, the vast majority of uncomfortable employees will not want to cause a stir and will simply submit to the new procedure. It is this quiet submission to convenience that allows potentially problematic technology to become a fixture of everyday life. When it comes to facial recognition, this technology has the potential to radically alter how we view privacy in everyday life.
Facebook has already filed for a patent that would allow stores to use facial recognition to identify customers by their Facebook account in real time (Clark par. 1). This would immediately give store employees and owners access to large amounts of information about their customer and could change how they interact with them. This brings up the question of if this would potentially be used to profile customers. If one has on their profile that they recently served time in jail, some managers may take that as license to treat them differently. Similarly, if one has their occupation on their profile and the store owner deems them to not be a high earner, this could result in heavy profiling that could undermine the inherent anonymity and integrity of the customer to salesperson interaction.
Further, this technology would create a digital log of everywhere one goes, allowing their steps to be re-traced after the fact or have their future actions predicted. This is an uncomfortable thought for many people, however the opinion of the majority will determine if it becomes common place. Many will undoubtedly have no qualms about a virtual log detailing where they visit and will appreciate the ease of not having to carry money or a credit card with them, as their face alone will be enough to verify their purchase and charge their account. It is this desire for convenience that has the potential to erode privacy until it is normal to be constantly monitored and have our every move catalogued for the use of corporations. Just a few generations ago, people would have been shocked by the lack of privacy accepted as normal in our daily lives. This march towards complete transparency and openness comes with the benefit of convenience but also with the destruction of our ability to have any privacy in our daily lives.
Although much of the march towards erasing privacy is driven by corporations’ attempts to create efficiency and better user experiences, a potentially more insidious force looms in the background. As technology is increasingly used to track us, it becomes more and more tempting for the government to utilize it. In a time where people strongly opposed these practices, the politicians would likely be afraid to fight for them, lest they alienate voters. However, currently 64 percent of adults support the use of facial recognition by law enforcement (Sabin par. 4).
This practice is in many ways the final frontier for eliminating any degree of privacy in public spaces. The government, once facial recognition is implemented nationwide, will be able to identify citizens anywhere they go within the reach of a camera. City’s would be hit the hardest by the loss of privacy. The New York City Police Department for example already has 17,000 cameras available for their use, filming at all times (Doig par. 2). Since the majority of Americans by a substantial margin support the expansion of facial recognition for use by the government, there is nothing to stop politicians who hope to appear tough on crime from signing it into action. In a democracy such as ours, rights are not taken from us by the government so much as they are given away.
Facial recognition technology has already been rolled out at the United States’ shared Southern border with Mexico. Everyone that enters or leaves is subject to imaging that identifies each passenger in any given vehicle. Brian Brackeen, the CEO of one facial recognition company, Kairo, stated that when pictures are taken through glass, the accuracy of the technology decreases. He also states that false positives are more likely to affect those with darker skin (Levin par. 11). This indicates that not only does this technology violate the privacy of anyone driving across the border, but it also has a significant chance of being wrong and possibly greatly inconveniencing travelers legally crossing the border.
Making matters even worse is that the system seems to be inherently biased against people of color due to their greater false positive rate. This means that those with darker skin could be stopped and detained during travel at higher rates than light skin travelers simply due to false positives. Essentially, due to current attitudes about privacy, we live in a political climate where increased surveillance is accepted and in some cases even asked for by the general population. As attitudes trend towards caring even less about large scale surveillance and big data collection, the logical result will be an even greater loss in privacy for the average person.
Overall, shifting attitudes on privacy strongly suggest that the future will consist of significantly less individual privacy and that our expectation of privacy will continue to decrease. In particular, young people are likely to be unbothered by third party big data collection. This lack of care could pave the way to a society where one’s data is constantly being collected and utilized to affect the user experience. Even more serious, is the potential for the government to utilize this constant data collection for surveillance purposes.
In a society where surveillance is omnipresent it is incredibly unlikely for this power not to be abused for authoritarian uses. Some would argue that this abuse is already taking place at our Southern border due to the implementation of facial recognition technology. Various civil rights groups have come out against this practice. However, since the majority of Americans support the use of facial recognition by law enforcement, it is unlikely that this will be the end of the practice. In fact, due to increasingly favorable attitudes, it is highly likely that this is only the beginning of this technology’s use. Barring a radical shift in values, people will continue to support the loss of their own privacy
Works Cited
- Debatin, Bernard, et al. “Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 1 Oct. 2009, academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/15/1/83/4064812.
- Krämer, Nicole C., and Nina Haferkamp. “Online Self-Presentation: Balancing Privacy Concerns and Impression Construction on Social Networking Sites.” SpringerLink, Springer, 1 Jan. 1970, link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-21521-6_10.
- Agosto, Denise, and June Abbas. “‘Don’t Be Dumb-That’s the Rule I Try to Live by’: A Closer Look at Older Teens’ Online Privacy and Safety Attitudes.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22 Sept. 2015, journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444815606121.
- Clark, Sarah. “Facebook Applies for Patent for Face Recognition Payments in Stores • NFC World.” NFC World, 14 Nov. 2017, www.nfcworld.com/2017/11/14/355569/facebook-applies-patent-face-recognition-payments-stores/.
- Doig, Will. “New Yorkers Call for More Surveillance Cameras.” Next City, 14 June 2017, nextcity.org/daily/entry/new-york-surveillance-cameras-police-safety.
- “Facebook Users Worldwide 2018.” Statista, 2018, www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/.
- Levin, Sam. “US Government to Use Facial Recognition Technology at Mexico Border Crossing.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 5 June 2018, www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/05/facial-recognition-us-mexico-border-crossing.
- Madden, Mary, et al. Teens, Social Media, and Privacy. 2013.
