New identities - self-presentations,
privacies, and autonomies
Dr. Charles Ess
NB: slides available on request
1. Initial (high modern) ethical frameworks for decision-making in
(Internet) research ethics:
deontology, utilitarianism
2. Underlying conceptions of the individual ethical agent
(high modern) notions of selfhood/identity
(high modern) conceptions of individual privacy as positive good:
definitive for “traditional” Internet Research Ethics (IRE)
3. (Late modern) shifts
frameworks of ethical relationality (ecology ... virtue ethics)
// shift towards relational selfhood / identity, e.g., Social Science theory
historical examples negative conceptions of individual privacy
// contemporary online practices (Porte de Choisy, SNSs, blogs)
changing conceptions of privacy: Gal … Nissenbaum
4. Concluding remarks: implications for IRE?
// copyright and other (high modern) notions of property
NESH guidelines as ahead of the curve
Next step: relational selves distributed responsibility / morality
Possible example for further discussion: Device Analyzer
1. Initial (high modern) ethical frameworks for decision-
making in (Internet) research ethics:
Utilitarianism:
ethical cost-benefit analysis: will (potential) benefits of a given
choice/act/rule outweigh possible harms (=costs)? “Greatest good for
the greatest number”
– primary framework in U.S. – UK?
Deontology:
emphasizes basic rights of autonomous individuals (including life,
liberty, pursuit of property … privacy, etc.) as near-absolute; to be
protected (more or less) no matter what benefits might otherwise
accrue.
– strongly influential in Northern Europe, Scandinavia
(Cf. Stahl 2004)
2. Underlying conceptions of the individual ethical agent
(high modern) notions of selfhood/identity
Relatively closed ethical system:
Possible ethical
choices:
X…
Y…
Z…
X
Consideration …
(utilitarian)
(deontological)
(… )
Choice …
Action(s)
?
2. This conception of the individual ethical agent is affiliated with
the emergence of individual privacy as either
valuable in its own right (intrinsic)
Consideration …
(utilitarian)
(deontological)
(… )
Choice …
Action(s)
?
and/ or necessary for
personal goods: * a sense of self and personal
autonomy
* intimate relationships
* other capacities and abilities
social goods
* the grounds (personal
autonomy/freedom and then the
capacity for dialogue, debate,
etc.) for participating in
democratic society.
(Johnson 2001).
hence individual privacy emerges as a positive good
the spaces in which such deliberation can take place must be protected
(rooted in Fourth Amendment protections against “unreasonable search and
seizure” of private property, among others (Debatin 2011: 49).)
Complication for IRE - 1
(Internet) research ethics as the specific project to protect the
research subject as an autonomous individual with a right to
privacy (and so confidentiality, anonymity, etc.),
BUT from the perspective of either ….
Deontology
e.g. Kant:
capacity to give oneself one’
own rule (auto-nomos)
respect for Others “always
as ends, never as means
only”
Consideration
…
Choice …
Action(s)
autonomous individual
Utilitarianism
focus on consequences of acts
“risk / benefit” analysis
“balance” of risk to subject(s)
vs.
(potential) benefits to society
(Further consequences)
X
(Not to mention … “Data Protection Laws, an Ocean Apart”).
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/technology/consumer-data-protection-laws-an-ocean-
apart.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130203&_r=0>
3. (Late modern)
changing notions of selfhood changing ethical frameworks
(ecological ethics)
(phenomenology: “We are. Therefore I am” (Natanson 1970, 47)
communicative rationality: the self is “…from the start interwoven
with relations of mutual recognition.” This interdependence,
“...brings with it a reciprocal vulnerability that calls for guarantees
of mutual consideration to preserve both the integrity of
individual persons and the web of interpersonal relations in
which their identities are formed and maintained” (McCarthy
1978,13)
feminist ethics: empathic decision-making within “the web of
relationships” (Gilligan 1982)
virtue ethics: the practices and habits of excellence (“virtues”)
required for relational selves to foster contentment (eudaimonia)
and community harmony (e.g., Hursthouse 1999)
3. (Late modern)
changing notions of selfhood changing ethical frameworks
cf. rise of relational conceptions of selfhood in social sciences,
most especially those models prevailing in contemporary
studies of “Web 2.0” venues such as Social Networking Sites
(SNSs), e.g.,
Irving Goffman, The presentation of self in everyday life
(1959): advances a relational, “very rationalist-strategic
conception of the self” - but also “more symbolic-pragmatic,” as
“all about trying to (re)-establish social order through
intersubjective alignment in interaction” – inclusive of the
emotive? (Stine Lomborg)
Likewise, G. Simmel (1910), “the sociable self”
(Cf. K. Gergen 2009, etc.)
// emerging notions of relational autonomy in
contemporary (feminist) philosophy:
… a loosely related collection of views that share an emphasis on the
social embeddedness of the self and on the social structures
and relations that make autonomy possible. (Andrea Westlund
2009; cf. C. Mackenzie & N. Stoljar 2000; etc.)
contemporary information and computing ethics (ICE):
Luciano Floridi: interconnection and the rise of distributed
responsibility and distributed morality (2012)
(e.g., “the shopping Samaritan,” peer-to-peer lending)
Judith Simon: “distributed epistemic responsibility” (using, e.g.,
Karen Borad’s “intra-actions” as correlative of “entanglement”,
QM understandings of intersubjectivity; Lucy Suchman in HCI,
etc. - 2013)
See “Onlife Project,” <https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/onlife-
initiative>
Complication for IRE 2: shifting emphasis from individual to
relational self//identity
relational self: relational autonomy / webs of relationships …
(close ties / intimsfære) (weak ties)
(larger communities / networks)
Deontology
Consideration
…
Choice …
Action(s)
autonomous individual
Utilitarianism
(Further
consequences) X
Virtue Ethics practices, habits
e.g., patience, perseverance,
empathy
that establish, foster
relationships, e.g., friendship
(Vallor 2009, 2011, 2012)
Why complicated? Because of implications for privacy.
Consider 1: Historical examples of the relational self:
Indigenous traditions – North America, Africa, Australia …
see: Luria’s interviews with pre-literate peasants in Walter Ong
(1988)
still (?) primary sense of self in
Confucian traditions – China, Korea …
Buddhist traditions – India, China, Thailand, Japan …
[In Medium Theory (McLuhan-Innis-Eisenstein-Ong-Meyerwitz-
Baron …): relational self orality]
negative conceptions of individual privacy, e.g., China:
Prior to 1985, the term Yinsi (阴私) – the closest equivalent to “privacy” –
is defined as a hidden, bad thing
(cf. notions of “familial privacy” in traditional Thailand, etc.)
Consider 2: how contemporary online practices show:
shift towards relational selfhood / identity
// contemporary online practices (Porte de Choisy, SNSs)
changing conceptions of privacy (Gal … Nissenbaum)
contemporary online practices
e.g. Porte de Choisy: 1st prize winner of the 2007 PocketFilm
Festival: <http://www.festivalpocketfilms.fr/article.php3?id_article=648>
(the end of bathroom / bedroom privacy)
(Images from David 2009, pp. 81, 83)
// contemporary online practices:
Social Networking Sites as “third spaces” conjoining individual
relational selfhood “publicly private privately public”
Stine Lomborg on Blogging and the Intimsfære (2012):
“phatic communication” between the primary blogger and her
audience, …signals “listenership, reciprocity, availability for
conversation, concern and empathy, and this, in turn, frames the blog
as a personal space” (2012, MS p. 18).
These engagements further involve perspective-taking, “…evident
in the ways the author and readers collaboratively negotiate the
appropriate content on Huskebloggen by attuning to each other.”
(ibid).
[NB: (affective) perspective-taking / solidarity critical to democratizing
discourse – from S. Benhabib … J. Dean]
Stine Lomborg on Blogging and the Intimsfære (2012):
In particular:
To maintain the blog as a personal space, self-disclosure plays an
important role through the personal, even intimate, experiences and
emotions revealed in the blog conversation. By this means, both author and
readers balance a fine line between, on the one hand, pressure to
reveal personal issues as a preamble for developing relationships
among participants and, on the other hand, a norm of non-
intrusiveness to protect each other’s [individual] privacy. (ibid)
The upshot, finally, is
a sense of shared personal or intimate space [intimsfære] that
correlates with Georg Simmel’s account of “the sociable self” – a self
engaged in a network of relationships,
where sociability means “highlighting similarities and de-emphasising individuality in
conversation by „hiding‟ intimate and potentially uncomfortable topics because serious
discussion disturbs and threatens the continuity of conversation” (Simmel, 1910: 130-
136, cited in Lomborg 2012, MS 17).
Such a self, as Lomborg puts it, is “one that is attuned to the norms and
practices within the network of affiliation” (ibid). ( Very “Japanese”!!)
// changing conceptions of privacy / privatlivet
At the same time …
Every teenager wants privacy. Every single last one of them, whether
they tell you or not, wants privacy.
“Waffles,” in boyd and Marwick 2011.
What kind(s) of “privacy” / privatlivet?
Some suggestions –
“parochial space” – in which “familiar and certain levels of privacy and
safety are engendered” (Bassett & O’Riordan, 2002);
Privacy as “fractal” (Gal 2002)
young people’s “savvy uses” (my term) in sharing information
among specific groups (van der Velden & El Emam 2012);
“privacy concerns are not static; mHealth device users may
change their sharing decisions over time” (Prasad et al, 2012,
122)
individual privacy + “personal spaces” as negotiated via phatic
communication online (Lomborg 2012)
// changing conceptions of privacy:
Gal … Nissenbaum
Individual privacy
group privacy public
“publicly private” “privately public”
relatively unknown
“friends” - but still highly
private / personal
information re. identities,
sexual orientation, but
not, e.g., home address
close friends, relatives -
videos on YouTube
“hidden” by tagging them
so that only friends and
relatives would know
how to find them
(Patricia Lange (2007) in McKee & Porter 2009, 78)
“publicy”
// changing conceptions of privacy / privatlivet
What kind(s) of “privacy” / privatlivet?
Nissenbaum (1998; 2004; 2010) suggested the use of a new
framework of contextual integrity based on the norms of information
flow and on the idea that one engages in self-disclosure within a
context that involves situational expectations of privacy.
Contextual norms, that include norms of appropriateness and
norms of flow of distribution, are often implicit, variable, and
incomplete.
In particular, Nissenbaum (2010) suggested that one might disclose
information in a specific circle, but desire to keep it private from other
circles. [ “publicly private” / “privately public”]
In other words, information is not either public or private. It is not
either secret or overt. There are, instead, many nuances of secrecy
and disclosure.
-- Fornaciari, 2012; Niamh Ní Bhroin
4. Concluding remarks:
(i) // copyright and other (high modern) notions of
property
(ii) NESH guidelines (2006) as ahead of the curve?
13. The obligation to respect individuals’ privacy and close
relationships
Researchers shall show due respect for an individual’s privacy.
Informants are entitled to be able to check whether confidential
information about them is accessible to others. Respect for privacy aims at protecting individuals against unwanted interference and exposure. This
applies not only to emotional issues, but also to questions that involve sickness and health, political and
religious opinions, and sexual orientation.
Researchers should be especially compassionate when they ask questions that involve intimate issues
and they should avoid placing informants under pressure. What is perceived as sensitive information can
vary from one individual or group to the next.
Distinguishing between the private and public spheres can sometimes be difficult when it comes to
information about behaviour that is communicated and stored on the Internet. When using material from
such interactions, researchers must pay sufficient attention to the fact that people’s understanding of what
is private and what is public in such media can vary. (NESH 2006 B.13, p. 17)
Cf. Danish, Norwegian conceptions of privatlivet and intimsfære as
already conjunctions of [individual + (small) group] ”privacy”?
(iii) Next steps: relational selves distributed responsibility /
morality
// emerging notions of relational autonomy in
contemporary (feminist) philosophy:
… a loosely related collection of views that share an emphasis on the social
embeddedness of the self and on the social structures and relations that
make autonomy possible. (Andrea Westlund 2009; cf. C. Mackenzie & N.
Stoljar 2000; etc.)
contemporary information and computing ethics (ICE):
Luciano Floridi: interconnection and the rise of distributed responsibility
and distributed morality (2012)
(e.g., “the shopping Samaritan,” peer-to-peer lending)
Judith Simon: “distributed epistemic responsibility” (using, e.g., Karen
Borad’s “intra-actions” as correlative of “entanglement”, QM
understandings of intersubjectivity; Lucy Suchman in HCI, etc. - 2013) –
see “Onlife Project,” <https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/onlife-
initiative>
Cf. Danish, Norwegian conceptions of privatlivet and intimsfære as
already conjunctions of [individual + (small) group] ”privacy”?
(iv) Implications for IRE: A paradigm shift – and ethical
complications …
Deontology e.g. Kant:
capacity to give oneself one’ own rule (auto-
nomos)
respect for Others “always as ends, never as
means only”
Consideration
…
Choice …
Action(s)
autonomous individual
Utilitarianism focus on consequences of acts
“risk / benefit” analysis
“balance” of risk to subject(s) vs.
(potential) benefits to society
(Further
consequences) X
relational self: relational autonomy / webs of relationships …
(close ties / intimsfære) (weak ties)
(larger communities / networks)
designers
companies
states …
(AAs / Multi-Agent Systems)
Virtue
Ethics
(v) Implications for (Internet) research ethics?
especially as recent apps for smartphones allow researchers into
“private” / privatlivet domains previously inaccessible, e.g.
“Device Analyzer”
The example of “Device Analyzer”
Basic Data
This data will usually be shared online after you had three months to inspect your
data on the website. If you prefer, you can specify easily and directly within the
application that you'd like your data stream to be used only within the University of
Cambridge.
when you turn your phone on and off
the version of the operating system and the type of device
the system's local time
the amount of free internal and external storage
when the external storage card is inserted or removed
which parts of Device Analyzer you use as well as internal logging and crash
reporting (yes, it analyzes itself!)
whether your phone is ringing normally, is silent or on vibrate
the volume of the different audio streams (ringer, media volume, etc.)
the times at which the phone is charging
the battery level and voltage
the times when you take pictures and how many pictures you have
the times when the screen is turned on and off
the brightness level of the screen and whether brightness is dynamically adjusted
when you enable and disable airplane mode …
The example of “Device Analyzer”
Basic Data
when which mode of network connectivity is available
the hashed identifier of the inserted SIM card
whether the phone is roaming or not
cellular signal strength
the amount of data transferred over 3G and wifi
the times when phone calls are made and text messages are sent and received as
well as the number of characters per text message
hashed values for the phone numbers involved
when you enable and disable Bluetooth and wifi
hashed data about wifi networks that are in range
hashed data about Bluetooth devices (hashed) in the vicinity if another application
initiates a Bluetooth scan (Device Analyzer will not initiate a scan by itself)
when you enable tethering or the mobile hotspot
Applications
We will collect the following data about applications on your device:
…
The example of “Device Analyzer”
Questions for consideration, discussion
1) Who would voluntarily share this sort of data with researchers?
utilitarian considerations: benefits to both
the individual participant (more information about one’s own
phone)
+ larger society (as research results will lead to …)
2) What sorts of privacy protections are at work?
Reasonably good ones? (hashed identities, locations, etc.)
+ individual user has control over application (pause, stop, what
data is collected, etc.)
3) BUT: what sort of selfhood / identity assumptions are at work?
…
The example of “Device Analyzer”
similar projects in Scandinavia?
Norway/Denmark – yes!
Christine Von Seelen Schou:
<http://www.wilke.dk/telenorpanel/>
(Telenor + NSD privacy protections)
Sweden – no? (so far …)
volunteers unwilling to install app as too
intrusive;
researchers faced either lack of and/or
conflicting guidelines, policies,
interpretation of applicable laws
Stay tuned!
28
Top Related