How the Internet Has Impacted Information Privacy - Essay Example

IT Research Paper Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Date Discuss how the Internet has impacted information privacy Introduction Information technology has gradually become one of the most critical players in the transformation of the world, in terms of how people share information, conduct business and surveillance. Imperatively, information technology has opened up society and, some argue, decreased privacy. The Internet offers tremendous opportunities that are exploited by individuals and groups, especially businesses (Hargrave, 2015). However, it created potential threats, and one of these threats is information privacy. The Internet harbors risks to personal data and communication as social sites ask people to give their information, marketers seek to profile their electronic clientele, and governments seek to impose their “big brother role” on people through surveillance (Smith, Dinev & Xu, 2011). The essence of this article is to discuss the impact of the Internet on information privacy. In its discourse, the paper shall base its findings on existing research and application of theoretical frameworks on the concept of information privacy and how the Internet has impacted it. The concept of information privacy Privacy is an important concept protected by law in many jurisdictions, including Australia. People enjoy their private space and seek to protect them. Privacy is the right to be alone and free from unnecessary surveillance and unreasonable personal intrusions (Joinson et al., 2010). The amount of personal data that one would be willing to self-disclose depends on their willingness and not through unauthorised access or coercion and manipulation. Classic privacy theories postulate that privacy is non-intrusion into one’s space and non-interference with one’s decision. It implies that individuals have control over and can restrict access to their personal data. Additionally, non-interference theorists posit that privacy is exercising freedom in decision-making by individuals (Joinson et al., 2010). However, individuals must understand that the right to privacy is restricted and subject to legal interpretations in different jurisdiction but is natural and must be exercised by all. Information privacy is the right to decide and determine to what extent and when one’s personal data can be communicated and shared to others. Information privacy has been a debate, especially in the increased usage of technology and in particular the Internet (Taddicken, 2014). Information privacy includes private communication, personal information and data on one’s possession. Another part of the information privacy is body privacy. One of the known breaches that have been documented and reported in the recent past concerning privacy of the body is the emergence of nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence. The pictures of the celebrity were posted on two social site; 4chan and Reddit. Accordingly, Google searches for Jennifer Lawrence shot up as regular users of search engines and the sites went to get more information concerning the actress (Isaac, 2014). However, the publication and distribution of these photos raised or raises discussion on the issue of information privacy and corresponding civil liberties on the Internet. Imperatively, one questions the role of big tech companies in formulating policing and users who go beyond the boundaries and post controversial content on the Internet. Threat to personal information One would argue that information privacy is under threat because of the Internet. The argument advanced from this school of thought is that data transmitted over the Internet is subject to various risks (Myhre, 2013). For instance, it may get to unintended person, organization or audience. Secondly, it might be accessed by unintended recipient or not reach its intended recipient. Again, the sender and recipient may all wrongly deny sending or receiving such information. Imperatively, all these circumstances present privacy implications, especially access to the content. Messages and information passes through one to over twenty processors once it leaves its sender until it gets to its intended recipient (Barak & Gluck-Ofri, 2007). Imperatively, those with the system in these sites have the opportunity to intercept the data. While it appears that very few security breaches can occur, the risk to exposure exist at a greater level. Again, people leave a lot of information trails behind them when using the Internet. Internet based transactions enable automated maintenance of more trails or history of one’s activities and locations that include logs of emails, both sent and received, logs of websites visited and logs of online business transactions made (Murphy, 2014). On social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Myspace and others, a user is always reminded when he or she logged in last and what they have missed. Again, notification messages are sent to let them know who has shared any information with them on the pages. Therefore, the generation of these trails is viewed as threat to information privacy (Myhre, 2013). The use of an additional and more complicated trail-generation mechanism has seen the introduction of cookies. These are small data files that are written and stored on the user’s hard drive by a website once the user has visited a site using a browser. They provide information on the pages viewed or visited, dates of visit, items viewed, and sometimes passwords. The information is stored and sent to a company or the source of the website. Another form of trails and intrusive technology is spyware, a computer program that is stored on one’s hard drive aimed at collecting a user’s habits and transmitting the information to third parties without their knowledge and consent. Spywares monitor websites visited by a user while cookies are particular to certain websites (Kiss, 2010). Spywares are installed when one downloads software, particularly shareware or freeware. These intrusive trail tools or software have the potential to steal and give personal data to third parties and organisations without the consent and knowledge of the person, thereby impacting on their information privacy. These hardware and software trends in technology raise concerns about privacy (Smith, Dinev & Xu, 2011). The computer hardware has been increasing its ability to gather and store private information at a relatively high speed. Secondly, the increased connectedness of the hardware over networks and advances in software that enable complicated mechanisms for extracting information from stored data pose threat to information privacy. Effectively, many organisations and companies have information gathered and aggregated from other sources in an organised and analysed manner that they can use for business purposes without the knowledge and consent of the owner. Such approaches impact negatively on one’s information privacy. Fundamentally, new capabilities to gather, aggregate, analyse and share data about and related to people and organisations have increased; a situation that poses threat to information privacy of the affected people and institutions (McFarland, 2012). For example, using global positioning system (GPS) trackers fitted on trucks, vehicles and ships can provide real time information on the whereabouts of vehicles and allow the shipping organisations to monitor the conduct of their drivers and captains. Furthermore, tech organisations like Google have applications that track one’s location and inherently interfere with information privacy. Extraction of personal profile The new and existing Internet trail technologies like cookies and spyware can be exploited to give intensive information on one’s behaviour. In the public space, the motivation is to achieve social control and protection of the public interest, especially electronic surveillance (Castelles, 2014). Today, electronic surveillance is used in stores, banks, and different businesses. However, the biggest user of electronic surveillance remains governments as they use the Internet to monitor the conduct of people for security purposes. While it is plausible and important that governments use these systems for security purposes, history proves that some administrations have gone beyond their legal provisions to get private information, not for security reasons but perhaps political and other social-economic reasons (Hargrave, 2015). A good example is China where access to information, especially Internet- based has been limited as government monitors Internet activities in the country. In the private space, consumer marketing organisations seek to improve customer service and manipulation of their behaviour by using their information. Again, consumer services organisations are keen on protecting their interests and would use the Internet and breach information privacy practices in a bid to identify and manage incidents of misconduct and fraud, and the perpetrators of such events (Smith, Dinev & Xu, 2011). Therefore, the use of such information may mean well for businesses that seek to protect their interests. However, when they use the information to their advantage and at the expense of their consumer, then they breach information privacy. The use of the Internet threatens personal identity. One’s identity is a fundamental aspect of privacy and by extension information privacy. For example, people are at risk of appropriation of their identities as others may make statements and perform acts as if it is them, for instance, when one gets access to a person’s password or falsifies their emails. One of the perfect instances is the American phenomenon of “identity theft”: the acquisition and use of enough evidence of identity related to a certain person such that the thief can operate like their victim (Barak & Gluck-Ofri, 2007). Electronically, such an approach can be achieved through mail theft, and “fishing.” Secondly, emails sends to someone identify the sender to the recipient. As a result the potential risk to information privacy increases, especially when a sender anticipates that a physical risk may occur if their identity becomes apparent, for instance in the case of “whistleblowers” and witnesses of serious crimes. It suffices to note that each access that a person makes to a web-server identifies many things concerning them to the program. For instance, it provides the IP address in order for them to get information (Murphy, 2014). Therefore, using the IP address, the web administrator can restrict or allow access to the person based on the personal data that it has gathered. Again, more information about the person accessing the website can be disclosed without their knowledge. Research has indicated that most users, especially on the social media, consider protection of their privacy and their information very essential. However, they do not allow privacy concerns to affect their online behaviour (Barak & Gluck-Ofri, 2007). Conversely, the concern for one’s information privacy and security on the Internet is not necessarily generated by certain corresponding behaviour, for instance, disclosing less information or altering the privacy settings. However, most of the users fail to understand that their informational privacy is breached because they lack problem or risk awareness, and knowledge on existing protection possibilities. Additionally, they lack knowledge on the impact of published information, especially when they accept data protection guidelines without reading them properly. Imperatively, social web users may not be concerned about their information privacy but are concerned about the invasion of privacy when they self-disclose such information (Joinson et al., 2010). Nonetheless, the level of personal information revealed in public without restriction is affected more than the self-disclosures by the users. However, the need to understand that hardware and software trends have a huge influence on such disclosures cannot be overemphasised. Another aspect of personal identity threat is the Internet use of location services. The Internet, using GPS and GPRS applications, has immensely enhanced means by which people and organisations can locate or find one another (Joinson et al., 2010). They combine a vast array of data-based resources to ensure that such engines get to these locations. Imperatively, such services are a huge boon to people that has socially acceptable needs for wanting to get other people (Murphy, 2014). However, when information on the whereabouts of someone is provided with their consent and knowledge, even when their life is under threat, then such services endanger the concept of information privacy. Again, the possibility of routinised self-identification on the Internet raises concerns over information privacy. According to Such (2015), the Internet technology has routinely asked people to identify themselves when undertaking their transactions and activities. These approaches are hitherto to being anonymous or pseudonymous and the probability that someone can be using your information to conduct businesses without your personal knowledge is increased. Information privacy and private life Information privacy stems from the need to protect not only personal data but ethical and cultural aspects as well. For instance, Google Street View technology has been challenged by privacy campaigners who question if the commercial and logistical benefits of making property on street visible on the Internet are worth the sacrifice to individual privacy rights (Such, 2015). Again, in 2006, the social site Facebook introduced a news feed for each of its user where it summarised their friend’s activities. Recently, the site came under pressure to simplify its privacy controls as high-profile commentators and groups sought to have the organisation change the settings. Facebook responded and simplified its privacy settings. The fundamental question that one raises is why should these sites be pressured to change settings? It implies that the privacy of user’s information is compromised and such social site lack the capacity or are unwilling to manage the flow of information is a better way, especially the privacy of such data (Myhre, 2013). Critics think that it is an exaggeration to posit that privacy is a natural state of man as in societies before mass transport lived in communities where everyone would know every intimate detail of everyone’s life. Therefore, privacy is not a natural state of man but a concept that arose due to modern transport and cities. They postulate that with new technology, especially the Internet, one may end up with utopian and dystopian viewpoints, yet many of the issues emanating from dystopian perspective have never been true. On the contrary, personal information may be categorised as trivial or small data like one’s music preference, behavioural information and confidential data on financial issues. However, even the least information about a person can be used against them (Taddicken, 2014). In isolation, such data looks trivial and inconsequential. However, from a hacker’s point of view, any information is good information. Therefore, because of the need to protect this data, one has no option but ensure that they understand their online footprint and keep tabs before someone does it. Data security is an essential way of protecting information privacy. When organisations, governments, and individuals breach set guidelines at any level, they infringe on these legal and regulatory provisions. The sharing of information online implies that an individual or groups of individuals has consented and have the knowledge about the implications of such actions (Myhre, 2013). However, when government surveillances and consumer organisations use such data for sinister motives or reasons, concerns are raised on the ability of the Internet to guarantee the right to privacy. Information accessed by such entities must be used for intended reasons and needs to be accurate, stored securely with the aim of protecting its privacy, and must be held onto as long as it is feasible and necessary. Imperatively, information privacy must be protected by all concerned because of the social, cultural and economic impact that the lack of it can cause at both individual and organisational levels. Conclusion The Internet has raised a new generation of how information is shared based on existing platforms that include online shopping websites, financial organisations’ websites, government sites for information, blogs, and social media site like Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace, among others. Imperatively, tech organisations must guarantee their users that their information privacy is a priority in their operations so that ugly incidences of lack of Internet privacy are not witnessed. References Barak, A., & Gluck-Ofri, O. (2007). Degree and reciprocity of self-disclosure in online forums. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(3), 407–417. Castelles, M. (2014). The Impact of the Internet on Society: A Global Perspective, MIT Technology Review. Accessed on November 2, 2016 from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/530566/the-impact-of-the-internet-on-society-a-global-perspective/ Hargrave, S. (2015, July). How will the internet of things impact data security? The guardian. Accessed on November 2, 2016 from https://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2015/jul/30/internet-of-things-data-security Isaac, M. (2014). Nude Photos of Jennifer Lawrence Are Latest Front in Online Privacy Debate. Accessed on November 2, 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/technology/trove-of-nude-photos-sparks-debate-over-online-behavior.html?_r=0 Joinson, A., Reips, U.-D., Buchanan, T., & Paine Schofield, C. B. (2010). Privacy, trust and self-disclosure online. Human Computer Interaction, 25(1), 1–24 Kiss, J. (2010). Does technology pose a threat to our private life? Accessed on November 2, 2016 from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/aug/21/facebook-places-google Myhre, J. (2013, August). Technology Is Invading Our Privacy. Accessed on November 2, 2106 from http://www.dmnews.com/the-inside-scoop-blog/technology-is-invading-our-privacy/article/307471/ Taddicken, M. (2014). The ‘Privacy Paradox’ in the Social Web: The Impact of Privacy Concerns, Individual Characteristics, and the Perceived Social Relevance on Different Forms of Self-Disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.248-273. McFarland, M.S.J. (2012). Why We Care about Privacy. Accessed on November 2, 2016 from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/internet-ethics/resources/why-we-care-about-privacy/ Murphy, K (2014). We Want Privacy, but Can’t Stop Sharing. Accessed on November 2, 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/sunday-review/we-want-privacy-but-cant-stop-sharing.html?_r=0 Such, J. (2015, September). The internet hasn’t killed privacy – but it has changed it forever, The Conversation. Accessed on November 2, 2016 from http://theconversation.com/the-internet-hasnt-killed-privacy-but-it-has-changed-it-forever-47220 Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., & Xu, H. (2011). Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS quarterly, 35(4), 989-1016. Read More