Privacy and the Net

The internet used to be thought of as a new frontier, a new, untamed "wild west" of sorts. The internet offered anonymity, privacy in addition to the functional benefits of staying connected and accessing almost unlimited amounts of information. Of course, this new frontier also introduced new worries. It offered opportunities for scammers to find new prey around the world (who hasn't received those e-mails about a supposed Nigerian billionaire?). The net made disseminating viruses and spam much easier, and it also enabled virtual communities centered on illegal activity to flourish. That was the internet of the 90s. It was anarchical in some says, but if you weren't up to mischief or too naive you probably didn't have much to worry about. But now we have Web 2.0. Now we have MySpace, Flickr, Wikipedia, Blogger, YouTube and tons of other websites that let users become part of the content creating endeavor.

Web 2.0 is exciting, no doubt about it. It's empowering; it gives voice; it opens up new opportunities for people who have been failed by the conventional route. The new web also helps us keep in touch, make connections, and share information. While we've been quick to harness the opportunities all this provides, I think very few of us were prepared to deal with the repercussions.

Once Google and Yahoo! were curious search engines that existed in the periphery of pop-culture. Today they're full-scale big businesses, traded in the stock market and all, with obligations to turn out profits to their shareholders. While Google, YouTube, and many other exciting Web 2.0 websites began humbly, sometimes in the basements of their very own independent and entrepreneurial creators, they are no longer small and innocuous Little Trains That Could. Recall some recent developments: Google's quarterly gross revenues are well past the billion dollar mark, and its stock price now sits around $450 per share--compare that to the stock prices of other giants (Wal-Mart @ $50 per share, Ford @ $8 per share, Microsoft @ $28 per share) and draw your own conclusions. News Corp, a massive media conglomerate that owns Fox News among others, purchased MySpace in 2005 for $580 million. Just a week or two ago, Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion.

This, my friends, is the incorporation of the internet. Websites that depend upon user participation and collection of user data are turning into massive corporations. But what does it mean when companies can turn our search queries, blog entries, e-mails, and online profiles into huge bucks? Well, looking back on the history of corporations, it probably means we should be worried.

At the same time, as a Blogger user and a Gmail user, two free Google services, I've often been greatly appreciative of what Google has done. I appreciate this blogger platform where I can express myself in an ad-free environment, or with ads if I choose and want to make some money. Gmail is also a wonderful, user-friendly service, which offers tons and tons of storage space. Google also offers GoogleEarth, translations, and tons of other great, free services. By extending so many free services to users around the world without ripping people off, Google probably rightly earns its motto "Don't be Evil." So with so much to be grateful for, it's easy to let our guards down and lose sight of things we ought to be concerned about.

The web has become so deeply integrated into our daily routines that we often fail to think about how our own net activity can be used against us. For example, while we might feel comfortable sharing somewhat private or confidential information in an e-mail with a friend, we often forget that once we send off that e-mail we lose control of it. It could be shared, forwarded along, and ultimately come back to haunt you. Furthermore, we are now beginning to learn that even if your friend, say, deletes that e-mail it still can be retrieved. In fact, forensic scientists are telling us that unless very concerted steps are taken, almost any digital piece of information can be recovered after deletion.

Those are personal minutiae, though. At what point do we start worrying about really losing our privacy? To get at the answer, take, for example, this piece Adam Penenberg penned for Mother Jones about Google. The first two paragraphs alone were enough to make me a little uneasy. As Penenberg describes, Google (and other search engines) track your IP address and your queries. Although that might not be too alarming, it becomes disconcerting when you consider the AOL slip a few months ago when they released a massive database of user search queries that enabled people curious enough to actually decipher the identity of some people whose searches were part of the database.

Consider, also, how Gmail scans your e-mails in order to target ads to you. Very smart scheme, but it didn't stop a privacy brouhaha from erupting over it. Also consider the recent Facebook News Feed debacle. This new option tracked every activity you made on the website (recording what you did and at what time you did it, to the minute), notified your friends about it, and let visitors to your profile track your changes, too. It's not too hard to think of a situation in which you want to go online, but don't want everyone to know about when and what you did. Facebook caved fast, issued an apology, and quickly rolled out new privacy settings. Hats off to them.

But the incorporation of the internet along with its growing grip on our lives means that at some point something irksome will happen again. For many, the sheer volume of personal information that a simple ego search renders is already more than they want publicly available. It seems we've already lost control over that. And with the tracking of almost every single thing we do online, we are increasingly losing control over more aspects of our lives--surrendered to the databases of growing corporations.

Blogging and Free Speech

I just came across two articles USA Today has recently published about blog lawsuits. Far from just concerning a antics of a few outrageous bloggers, these articles should concern almost anyone who blogs or even just posts stuff online in messageboards or comments.

One article: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

"A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a 'crook,' a 'con artist' and a 'fraud.'...

The dispute between the two women arose after Bock [the defendant] asked Scheff [the plaintiff] for help in withdrawing Bock's twin sons from a boarding school in Costa Rica. Bock had disagreed with her ex-husband over how to deal with the boys' behavior problems. Against Bock's wishes, he had sent the boys to the boarding school.

Scheff, who operates a referral service called Parents Universal Resource Experts, says she referred Bock to a consultant who helped Bock retrieve her sons. Afterward, Bock became critical of Scheff and posted negative messages about her on the Internet site Fornits.com, where parents with children in boarding schools for troubled teens confer with one another."

While posting insults on a website is probably not the nicest thing to do, is it really a crime worthy of a $11.3 million punishment?

The second article reveals more examples of online free speech lawsuits. Courts are asked to crack down on bloggers, websites. From this article:

"In the past two years, more than 50 lawsuits stemming from postings on blogs and website message boards have been filed across the nation. The suits have spawned a debate over how the 'blogosphere' and its revolutionary impact on speech and publishing might change libel law.

Legal analysts say the lawsuits are challenging a mind-set that has long surrounded blogging: that most bloggers essentially are 'judgment-proof' because they — unlike traditional media such as newspapers, magazines and television outlets — often are ordinary citizens who don't have a lot of money. Recent lawsuits by Banks and others who say they have had their reputations harmed or their privacy violated have been aimed not just at cash awards but also at silencing their critics. "

The article goes on to describe several of the pending cases over blogger free speech...

As a blogger and someone who has been attacked online, this issue has been on my mind for quite some time and reading these articles doesn't do much to quell my anxiety. Beyond my personal involvement, though, I think this issue has quite far-reaching implications for the outcome of our on-going democratic project.

In many ways, the web has done wonders for free speech. It's allowed people to educate themselves about issues they care about and issues that the mainstream media frequently neglects. It's also empowered many more individuals to speak their minds by typing their hearts out online. In this regard the internet has done a great service to strengthen democracies that are predicated upon debate, public discourse and education, deliberation, and (ideally) educated individuals exercising their right to vote.

At the same time the web has not been a bastion of civilized discourse. Some of the most popular websites are merely digital versions of tabloids, dedicated to spreading gossip and rumors about people's private lives. The wordwide web empowers people to expose scandals and put pressure on individuals, elected officials, and corporations that engage in shady, undesirable actions. But how far is too far? When does a healthy dose of criticism cross the line to offensive slurs, fabricated tales, and malicious campaigns aimed at destroying a person's reputation?

I think that many of the pending lawsuits on online free speech will begin to provide us with some clues to these answers. Perhaps that's a good thing, but I remain deeply concerned about some of these lawsuits, especially given the $11.3 million verdict on the one mentioned above. Perhaps my concern stems from the very notion that expensive lawsuits can or should be the means to resolve these deeply contentious issues. Why not go for arbitration, or mediation, or some method with real teeth to enforce an outcome, but where the stakes are lower (i.e. not tens of millions of dollars) and the concerned parties can negotiate and reach a mutual agreement rather than have one imposed on them?

Perhaps, the mere fact that we've reached this unfortunate state bears testament to something even more troubling about our society. Does our society suffer from such a severe lack of goodwill that we can no longer treat each other with respect? No one should go online to post death threats or to hurl malicious, libelous insults; and no one should behave in such a corrupt manner as to incite people to do so. I realize this is a bit of a chicken/egg argument, but the cycle of life and birth inevitably stops if one of the two stages no longer occurs. Furthermore, there are much more effective and civil ways than resorting to verbal violence to silence, pressure, and persuade individuals, corporations, and goverments.

We live in a litigious society, and if these lawsuits succeed, I fear we may see an increasing onslaught of legal cases against bloggers. If this happens, we may end up silencing much more than just a few outrageous, unhinged voices--this could strike a blow to the very vitality of the blogosphere, thus destroying one of the most powerful tools to promote free speech and public debate among the masses and to empower "ordinary" (read: not rich, not legacy, not famous, not whatever) people to speak their convictions. On the other hand, if many of these cases get dismissed, debased discourse could run ever more rampant online, and people would feel more secure in posting ugly insults and even flat out malicious lies about others online.

Lawsuits may vindicate individual cases, but I don't see them solving the systemic problem they all address. It boils down to freedom with responsbility, and it all depends on our ability to champion respect. When there's mutual respect, we all win.