I recently listened to an NPR podcast about how digital technologies are becoming a surrogate form of memory. Facebook, blogs, even iPhone apps store data about our lives to such capacity that they can record events that we wouldn’t even remember unless we went back over the data record and rediscovered something that happened or that we said or thought. The discussants in this particular show also dealt with the issue of privacy and how these technologies record our lives in a public domain and all it takes is someone with enough will to access just about anything they want about us that has been digitally recorded.
There’s so much to think about with this issue, but what really struck me was at one point during the show one of the discussants expressed an inordinate amount of smug glee over what he perceived as the stupidity of people talking about private things in their lives (like affairs, for instance) in their emails, which he argues are public (because anyone with enough will and $100 can access them, i.e. angry exes). I felt so affronted by his cavalier notion of privacy (not that I’m standing up for philanderers or anything, I’m just talking about the everyday person’s need to discuss things with friends and family over email that may not be appropriate for others to read). Just because people can access such material does not mean it’s not private. That’s tantamount to saying that if someone broke into your house and went through your private letters in your desk, it was public because they could. If I really wanted to, I could riffle through my husband’s email, but I don’t because it is his private space. Privacy is a social construction; it’s an agreed upon space where the walls are just as real and important whether they are made of bricks and mortar or megabytes of data. If someone violates that tacit agreement, it is not that you have stupidly made private information public, rather it is that they have invaded your privacy.
The reason I take such offense is not because I’m a particularly private person. I take offense because I feel such sentiments induce fear in people: fear that they cannot be real, or that they cannot be open with others without extreme caution, for fear they will be judged or persecuted later in life by God-knows-who. Half the time we say things, they’re only truth for the time being anyway: our understanding, our feelings, our hopes and dreams right now in this moment. We change, we adapt, we learn, and we shouldn’t fear condemnation for the private thoughts we had along the way. And I think those who seek information with which to judge and condemn others (when such information is so wholly unconnected to themselves) are petty douche bags sorely misguided individuals. But then, I’m the type who cocks an eyebrow at employers who look at prospective or current employees’ Myspace and Facebook accounts looking for reasons to deem the persons unprofessional by actions they take outside their profession. (Is it hypocritical of me to judge the judgmental?)
I believe such actions reduce our honesty and replace it with fear. People fear having real experiences in life because of what the neighbors might say. People fear being their true selves and people fear participating in life because some schmuck others might judge them and meet them with suspicion and anger, rather than charity and understanding. And I believe we should not be confined by someone else’s closed mind, lest we be reduced to the path of least imagination. What is beautiful about humanity will suffer, if we let such a mentality take hold. Right? Otherwise, how will privacy and individual expression survive the digital age?
Here’s to keeping it real.
for the most part i agree with you. i’m very disturbed by the idea of employers looking at facebook to make decisions, especially since facebook is such a poor representation of a person. and the email analogy is ridiculous.
at the same time, people are oversharing…not necessarily over email, but on facebook for sure, and undoubtedly twitter as well. any my guess is that you’re probably with me in advocating that there needs to be a balance in terms of “being yourself” in public and maintaining some kind of privacy.
my theory is however, that all this social networking and the “oversharing” actually makes us less likely to really be ourselves and express ourselves genuinely. in many ways because of things like facebook there are more eyes on us than ever. and i think the natural response is to present more of an idealized self than an actual self. and there’s not anything wrong with that, but i think sometimes, that projection goes beyond idealized into just not being honest. and i also think that it’s easy to do that unintentionally with these things.
and the truth is, despite both of our uneasiness with other people seeking out private information, the truth is, people have. not just rumors and petty stuff, but things like ss numbers and information that has been used to hurt other people. especially with teenagers…man are teenagers mean on the internet.
like i said, the main thing is being informed and maintaining a balance between “being yourself” and just being cautious with whatever it is you decide to share.
Yes of course people should be cautious about what they do with information like ss numbers, bank account info, etc.
That aside, when it comes to personal stuff about our lives, I’m not entirely sure I understand what you mean by “oversharing”. Do you mean times when people talk about sex lives and bodily functions and things and you’re just like, “TMI, dude, TMI”? Or when they talk about the minutiae of their lives, and you’re like, “Dude I just don’t care”? Neither of these things really bother me, and may just be more a matter of taste than a social phenomenon – but then, remember, I just got back from Burning Man so my sense of personal space may be a little warped right now.
I suppose it is true that people try to present an idealized version of themselves, but isn’t that true in all areas of life, where Facebook is but one more medium? I think social desirability bias pops up every where, so the level of honesty is more dependent upon the person than the method. And even if they don’t match their ideals and it is dishonest to a certain degree, doesn’t that still say something about what the person believes is an ideal worth working towards? Maybe I’m descending into some kind of moral nihilism here, but I suspect we’ve become so starved for human contact and community (because we don’t know our neighbors any more) we’re reaching out in any way we can, trying to find like-minded others, even if they are far away. And while, sometimes when you reach out, people will use that information to hurt you, oftentimes even pure strangers will take that information and help you.
Along the lines of seeking that balance you suggest, though, maybe what really is at the heart of the discussion here is that with the advent of this new technology, we’re kind of re-figuring out what is private versus public space and information as the new technology challenges our prior classifications of the personal versus the communal. And leave it to artists to continually challenge whatever arbitrary boundaries we do try to set up.