Private lives?

I'm a mere five weeks from completion of my doctorate thesis. Readers familiar with this blog will already have heard me wax lyrical about my research; the Seriously Social of social media. Basically an excuse to spend time surfing Facebook and other affiliated Web 2.0 resources. This week I've been taking notice of the Scientific American, whose special issue: 'Will Technology kill privacy?', does seem a little late in the day. Comparable with one of my favourite metaphor's involving a horse, stable, door and lack of bolting.

Unsurprisingly there is what I would classify as a very American take of privacy. Framed mostly by a paranoia about the 'invasion' into 'personal security', and then by the same token, 'THE right to bear witness' to personal data. Reminds one of the ''right' to bear arms' American constitution mantra. And I'm not really a fan of that one.

One of the most telling commentries, 'Reflections on Privacy 2.0', is from Esther Dyson (pictured left) an 'active author' and supporter of Web Start-Ups, who queries, 'What is society to do about people who can't or don't want to prove who they are?' What Ms Dyson's observation lacks is a critical framing of what I propose as the consequences of how a society should allow individuals to fully manage, and pay attention to their personal information.

There's a tension between what Dyson cites as an 'unquenchable curiosity', and at the same time the 'insistence on being left alone'. Most interesting is the timeline in the article, which charts the main events of 'Privacy in America'. Chief in 2004 being the launch of Facebook. Personally my social information, is as informative as it is pervasive (i.e. persistent across more than one social media resource, and convergent of sources, information and data; what you find on Facebook, matches 'me' on Twitter etc). What I find more alarming are than the mostly normative social practice of personal information broadcast, are the powers and instance of supposed sources of authority being careless with our personal data. I already know and trust myself to be able to manage what I post, where and when. I'm less confident about, for example, my bank and even the graduate schools office at the university. Both notorious for 'losing' information (where?!) and being careless with what I'm referring to as 'information worthiness'. Or in this case a lack of.

Yes we lead ever-increasing public lives, but at the same time we do take care to manage our information. We are not new to the concept of privacy or even social surveillance. Even George Orwell spotted this one, writing 1984 a while ago now. What is 'new' to the concept of privacy is the pervasiveness of the information, something that is missed by commentators and writers such as Dyson and American sociologist danah boyd. Although Ms boyd's paper 'Social Network Sites: Public, Private, or What?' is worth a poke about for the youth culture perspective.

What we write, post, tag etc today will persist. Even if deleted. For reasons beyond me Dyson uses the example of tattoo's as evidence of social taboo that is now mainstream, 'Now every second woman in my health-club locker room seems to have a tattoo'. Well yes. BUT does this mean that in the same way Dyson views SNSs and the attendant social media as a social taboo? Perhaps so. She ends the article with the subtitle, 'My data, Myself' and the question, is there a 'privacy from one's own desires?' Maybe not if you're broadcasting them on Twitter. But I'm fairly sure the 'psychic connection' add-on has not been free-streamed. Yet.

The issue of privacy is more about the level of personal disclosure, and responsibility by the individual to control the how, and by what means they present themselves. This is even more telling in the same week the sex offender 'check' scheme is launched, and Eastender's is gearing up for it's arguably most hardhitting storyline to date, as Bianca's Tony continues his grooming of her 15 year young step daughter Whitney.

My argument is that privacy should be focussed on the persistence and pervaisveness of social information. What are we going to in 50 years time when our Facebook Profile's and pictures are still retrievable? Will this be viewed as something amusing for our grandchildren to look at. Or a more sinister way for other third parties to capture Your data?... Let's hope we won't be looking back in anger.

A Body of Networks

Where we are beginning to get used to be being channeled as part of networks of differing quality and ‘attachment’, and to the degradation of our own culture on Web 2.0 (see Andrew Keen) – it seems we are about to become part of an immersed, techno-ambient and fashion conscious world.

Whilst it is nothing new that supposedly ‘inanimate’ objects interact with us, just take a trot round Tesco and their video screens, the handheld price scanners and checkers at Waitrose, and even in York where I reside ‘helpful’ tourist information totems will start to ‘talk’ to you just as you walk past (yes thank you I do know that I am indeed on Parliament Street for the 9th time that day). What IS new will be how these WILL start to interact with us. We will become surrounded by technology that wants to think for us, that is a part of our homes, cars, appliances and even bodies.

What next a smart moisturiser that knows to increase the SPF when the sun’s out? Not such a stupid idea.

These observations have been prompted by the recent BBC news item about ‘Smart Fabrics’. Amongst the show-cased collection is the solar panelled bikini that allows its wearers to charge mobiles, MP3 players etc. Shame about the lack of actual swimming possibilities, but who cares when your strutting your battery charged, and MP3 plugged-in self by the poolside right?

So forget about those drab and static local area networks – this is about your body of networks.

Some of the fabric innovations are of a ‘smarter’ profile. One such garment are the eco-conscious accessories that charge themselves by day (as a handbag, fan, purse etc) and become a unique and stylish light by night with which to adorn yourself, or your home.

So it seems a new vision of fashion, functionality and aesthetics is taking place. And it is easy to envisage how for example MPS players, cameras and mobile phones will converge, and even become integrated into clothing; open to new levels of wear and tear.

Imagine for example, where that pesky MP3 takes up room in your handbag/causes unsightly bulges in your Levis, these devices will be integrated into the fabric. Picture it; its not an iPod, but an iBag, nay iGarment – how do you like them Apples?

However, as much as the future of technology permits an even more personalised integration of ‘man and machine’, this does raise some interesting questions in terms of ethics, surveillance, privacy and identity. Does this mean that I will be able to access others favourite playlists and contact information by wearing the same jeans? or will our own genes provide the key for boundaries between interfaces? and ultimately do we want this level of ‘cyborg’ mechanics attached to our organic selves.

Well we may be a longer way off from that level of techno-human integration. In the meantime I shall be coveting the latest iBag from Apple and hoping they do a Chloe version that can sort my emails. Nifty, not thrifty technology!