This week has been an interesting one for me in terms of "privacy" concerns. I had one case where a friend's privacy concerns directly clashed with my desire to maintain memories. And in a different situation, a friend has put lie to a rumor for a particular issue with Facebook, but in doing so inadvertently came to a misguided conclusion. and somewhere in there Google "told it like it is" concerning privacy, and got slapped in the face by out of context quotations.
Case #1 - Your privacy versus MY privacy
Those who know me also know that I spent some time in the Canadian Armed Forces Reserves. I had posted some pictures from that time about a year ago. In the past week, these pictures were "noticed" by my squad-mates at the time. Most of the responses were along the lines of "holy crap that was a long time ago", or "this brings back memories". One friend though had a different take. She saw these pictures as painting a negative picture of her and her life, and felt it could directly impact her work environment.
A little perspective is needed here. The pictures span a time frame from 1988 to 1995ish. So they are 15 years or more in the past. None of the pictures were of a sensitive nature - no nudie shots, and no blackmail worthy pics. The worst that I could see is someone was drinking a beer from a can.
Now, my friend is absolutely right. In her current role/profession, she should not be seen to be endorsing drunkenness, partying, or that particular life style. But still the pictures were of her 15+ years in the past. They do represent a truth.
The dilemma here is a case of judgement. She felt the images were not suited to be publicly accessible. I felt the pictures accurately reflected the friends, work, and environment we were both part of in our distant pasts. I felt the pictures were the type to look at and fondly remember when... So who is right?
In today's day and age of the Internet and EVERYTHING being interconnected in some way, I feel her concerns are valid. But don't my own desires to remember the good old days, and share those memories with friends who were there... doesn't that count too?
I don't feel there is any way we could walk away from this situation with everyone being happy. As is, I did eventually remove the two pictures that were the center of the discussion. But only because the one fellow who also happened to appear in them was found to be in a third picture - so I could maintain the memory of him, without impacting my other friend.
This type of issue is going to become more and more common. There is simply no way around it. What you consider to be purely harmless could be utterly devastating to someone who is in a different situation. I foresee lawyers making a speciality out of this sort of thing. But it is a sad world where this is needed. Our memories are being filtered for us based on what might be harmful to someone at some undetermined time in the future. Doing things because they "might" have an effect is a reaction to fear and uncertainty. Which means the power mongers are winning and subjugating the populace.
Ok, maybe that's a little extreme, but I think the point has been made.
Case #2 - Google quoted out of context
This past week, Eric Schmidt - the CEO of Google - was quoted as saying:
This was picked up by the bloggers, and media as being a sensational thing. Here is a sample of a small quote being taken out of context to make it appear to say something else.
As I understand things, what was really going on was Schmidt was simply stating the way things are in that ALL search engines have to legally turn over their data to the government at some point. Whether it is a simple request, or a legal subpoena - that data COULD end up with the government sooner or later. And the only way to avoid that data going to the government is to not do anything you wouldn't want the government knowning about.
This quote has been used as fuel to push alternative search engines. The most notable of which is Microsoft's Bing. Someone at Mozilla - the guys who make the Firefox browser - even started encouraging people to change the default search engine in Firefox to Bing, because Bing has better privacy policies. I have news for you. Bing is owned by Microsoft. Microsoft has proven time and again that if they could use any data to satisfy shareholders, make a profit, win market share, or lock in their monopoly like practices, they will. No privacy policy will stand in the way. Microsoft, Yahoo, and others are known to turn data over to authorities without due process. All it takes is for a request to be made through the correct contacts. No warrants needed.
Google on the other hand are known to say NO to governements and resist handing over privacy related data without a warrant. Basically, they only do so when forced to, and even then take steps to minimize impact to individual users - such as making the data anonymous, but still capable of showing trends.
Who do you want handling your data? The company who does whatever it takes to make a buck? Or the company that tries to further their own business, and happen to make cash while doing so? Yep, there is no good answer here. But, Google has earned more trust/respect than Microsoft - especially in the privacy front.
That said, I DO resist giving google my personal data where possible. I don't see why Google needs to read my mail. I don't see why they need to know my personal schedule. I most definitely do not give them control of my business documents. But this really feels like a loosing battle.
Case #3 - Inadvertent Misunderstanding
A friend posted a status update to Facebook. It seems there was some concern about Facebook indexing all personal information to Google. Reality stepped in and pointed out that Facebook has provided "public search listings" since 2007 which in turn link to your profile. This allows people to search for your name via Google, and get a reference to your Facebook page. Things are not quite as sinister as they would seem.
So, what's the problem? A statement was made "Worried about privacy? Your information is safe." Taken in context, this means that Google is NOT indexing EVERYTHING on Facebook. Which is a Good Thing (tm). Taken at face value (and out of context), this is very dangerous.
As I mentioned above, I spent time in the forces. I learned just a little about Electronic Warfare. The rule of thumb in that game goes something like this:
The parallels for the Internet are very straight forward. In short, anything you put on the Internet WILL be handled by someone you don't know or trust. It doesn't matter how much encryption you throw at it, or how many precautions you take. To assume your data is safe is akin to opening all the windows and doors to your house, leaving town for a year, and then stating with absolute conviction that you KNOW no one has ever been in your house.
Now, I know this is NOT what my friend was saying. But we do live in a world of sound-bites. Where things are very often taken out of context. I read his statement, and my security spidey senses went off and just knew this could be a problem. Of course I could be wrong. :)
But having this come on the heals of the first and second cases above, well, I noticed a trend and felt the need to comment.
Privacy is up to you
In every day life, we manage how others perceive us. We don't do things that cause wrong reputations to be spread. We do things in the privacy of our home we would never dream of doing on the street where just anyone can see. But we don't seem to treat the Internet the same way. There seems to be an expectation that anything we do online is only between us and the person on the other end of the line. That point to point idea does not reflect how the Internet really works. Instead of point to point, you have a mesh where any point can be connected to a couple hundred other points. And each point is only a few "hops" away for any other point on the Net. Chatting with your significant other includes you and them, of course. But it also includes every router, server, and computer between you and them. And the path from you to them may travel around the world once or twice.
So we need to learn to treat our online dealings as being the same as talking in a busy restaurant. Anybody nearby may hear, so we need to make sure we're not telling anyone private things - like our passwords, or PIN numbers. At least not until we have taken steps to isolate ourselves from others in the restaurant.
(as an aside, NEVER NEVER NEVER tell anyone your password. Anyone who could legitimately have a need for it has other ways to do what needs to be done without your password.)
We need to be concious of our "online reputation", or "identity". We don't want to do something that is suddenly contrary to how we want people to consider us. But we also need to be ourselves.
At the same time we need to use common sense. People are human. Humans are wonderfully complex beasts who enjoy many phases of life. We are very capable of taking part in activities with one group of friends that would be considered very unpopular with another group of friends. And we can do this without straining our guilt complex any. We cannot assume that a single image or comment paints the whole picture of who someone is. We cannot assume that they are, and always have been saintly. We must accept them for who they are, and understand that their past may be unconventional but still made them who they are today.
We need to be human in the real world, and in the online world.