Roles of Privacy in Communication Through Net - Essay Example

? Government s and private individuals accuse social network companies of failing to protect the privacy of their users. For instance, Facebook encourages people to provide their personal information such as date of birth, names, or even education background. Other details include the personal habits of the individual and their relationship status (Mcstay, 2011). Altshuler (2013) believes that information of people using these sites is publicly available for everybody to view. However, May (2013) denotes that people who provide their information in these social sites, do not mind if such kind of information is made public. A study of 540 students at the Carnegie Mellon University reveals that 89% of students at this institution gave their real names, and 61% of students managed to upload their real photos in the social networking site of Facebook (May, 2013). These users did not alter their privacy settings, and therefore it was possible to access their information publicly. On this note, therefore, Facebook has come under criticisms for failure of providing adequate privacy options for its various users. These criticisms arise on the background that the information that users provide can cause serious security problems to the individual concerned and to the country as a whole. The social network sites also process enormous information on a daily basis. Features in these social network sites, such as open platform applications, invitations, messages, and photos are avenues in which the private information of a user is made public. To protect users from inappropriate use of their information/data, it is important to enact measures that will regulate the nature of information that the public can view (Austin, 2003). The criterion of choosing this kind of information should be on the background of the effect the data can cause to the individual if it is exposed to the public. This paper analyzes the roles of privacy in the social networking sites. In analyzing these roles, this paper uses Helen Nissenbaum’s theory of privacy, known as the contextual integrity theory. It also identifies the specific European Union and UK privacy laws that seek to regulate the privacy of an individual, and it demonstrates the business interests of these social networks in relation to the information they control. This paper has a conclusion, which is a summary of the main points addressed in it. Privacy in a social networking site protects the information of an individual from being used by people who are not authorised to use the information (Ritzer and Jurgenson, 2010). The current trends in regard to gathering data and disseminating the same by data collecting companies involve the perusals of information from social networking sites. The intention of these companies is to sell the information to marketing companies. On most occasions, they collect and use this information without the knowledge of its owners. According to the contextual integrity theory, this amounts to a breach of an individual’s privacy. According to this theory, it is impossible for an individual to have complete privacy. On this basis, therefore, people will share their personal information, as long as there are certain principles that govern the nature in which they share their personal information (Pollach, 2005). However, if these principles are contravened, without the permission of the parties involved, then a breach of privacy has occurred. Take, for example, these data collecting companies, accessing the information of an individual through their social networking account, and using the information they gain to produce a marketing campaign without their knowledge. According to the contextual integrity theory, this is a breach of an individual’s privacy. This theory further goes on to identify two types of behaviors that determine whether there is a breach of an individual’s privacy or not (Mowlabocus, 2004). These norms are the norms of distribution and that of appropriateness. Under the norm of appropriateness, it determines whether the information under consideration is appropriate to disclose under a given context. The norm of distribution regulates the manner in which information flows within a given context. On this note, therefore, when an individual breaches these norms, then he or she violates the privacy of the person concerned. Take for instance our earlier example where data collection companies engage in collecting information from social web pages of individuals without their permission. In view to the contextual integrity theory, the norms of appropriateness are depicted when the companies decide which information to take or which to leave. This is because the social networking web pages of individual consists of much information such as the individual’s personal habit and believes (Ritzer and Jurgenson, 2010). Under the norms of distribution, it involves how the companies will use the information and data they gather. They can sell the information, or decide to do nothing with the information. Gathering and using the information in violation of the laid down principles of information use therefore breaches the privacy of the individual concerned, compromising his security, and social standing within the society (Altshuler, 2013). For instance, apart from marketing companies, criminals such as terrorist organisations or sexual perverts can use the information for purposes of advancing their agendas. For instance, sexual perverts can access telephone contacts of their prey and use them to stalk the people they have in mind. This is a serious security issue because these acts can amount to sexual exploitation such as rape or uncalled for sexual advances (Spurgin, 2006). Terrorist’s organisations, on the other hand, can use the information from the social sites in tracking down the activities of the people they target—their norms of life, areas of residence and families. On this basis, therefore, making such kind of information public poses a serious security issue. The contextual integrity theory denotes that the capacity in which people who gather and disseminate information are acting is a key factor in determining whether there is a breach of privacy or not (Altshuler, 2913). For instance, in our example above, for terror organisations to effectively carry out their mandate, they must act on information. The easier way of getting this information is through the social networking sites. Terror organisations will definitely use the information they gather for purposes of advancing their terrorist agendas. Because these groups want to advance a criminal agenda, social networking sites have a responsibility to prevent them from accessing their services. This is by putting in place privacy measures that will deny these groups access to people’s personal information. According to the contextual integrity theory, if an individual or an organisation is acting in a manner in which it wants to use the information it gathers for criminal purposes, then their actions amount to the breach of privacy of the individual under consideration (Nissenbaum, 2004). This is because these actions will create a serious security problem that can compromise the safety of the victim and the nation as a whole. On this basis, therefore, it is important to prevent these people and organisations from accessing the social networking web pages of their targets. On this note, there are a variety of laws set up that seek to protect the privacy status of various individuals within the European Union and the United Kingdom. For instance, within the European Union, there is the directive 95/46/ EC that deals with how a third party can use people’s personal information/data (Callaghan, 2013). It regulates the use and processing of this kind of data within the European Union. This law is in line with another European Union law, found in article 8 of the Charter of the ECHR. This law provides provisions of protecting the privacy of an individual’s life and family. It also provides instances whereby a legitimate organisation can breach these rights. This law provides seven principles in which an institution should follow in order to protect the personal information of an individual. According to the 95/46 EC directive, personal information and data of an individual should not be disclosed and processed unless the processing institution meets the following three conditions (Callaghan, 2013): a. Legitimate purpose b. Proportionality c. Transparency. In accordance to transparency, an individual has a right to know if a third party is collecting their personal information. The third party must identify their name, the intention of collecting and processing the information, and the people who are going to use the information. These provisions are contained in article 10 and 11 of the 95/46/ EC directive. These principles set up by the directive are in conformity with the provisions of the contextual integrity theory. As noted earlier on, this theory advocates for authorisation of the use of such information by third parties from its owners. Article 6b of the directive denotes that the processing of personal information by a third party must only be for a legitimate purpose, and failure to do this, is a breach of the privacy status of an individual. The article further denotes that the processed data must be proportional. To meet this objective, Callaghan (2013) denotes that the data in consideration should provide only relevant information that the third party needs. Mowlabocus (2010) further goes on to argue that social networking sites operating in Europe have failed to protect the privacy of individuals, and this is in relation to their personal information. This is because they have an interest in this information. Callaghan (2013) accuses social networking sites of using this kind of information for business purposes. They gather the information and sell it to companies who have an interest in the data under consideration (Mowlabocus, 2010). A good example is Twitter, who admitted of scanning and importing the phone contacts of its users on their databases. The purpose of gathering information is to learn more of the characteristics of their users. After learning these characteristics, social sites sell this information to marketing companies. Mowlabocus (2010) denotes that social sites sell this information without consulting their users. To prevent behaviors like this, the European Union has sought to amend its privacy laws that are directive 95/96 EC (Callaghan, 2013). For instance, as of the year 2012, the European Union sought to introduce privacy regulation laws that would create a balance between internet users and social networking sites. These laws will give the owners of social networking accounts a possibility to personally delete their personal information that they consider inaccurate or very sensitive. As per the moment, some social networking sites do not provide these privileges to their users (Altshuler, 2013). The main motivation of the European Union in creating these laws arises out of the numerous complaints in relation to the privacy and the right of expression. People complain that they have outdated, malicious and inaccurate information that compromises their reputation in the social networking sites, and it is difficult to remove them. These laws are referred to as the right to be forgotten principles. Article 17 of the regulation provides for punitive measures against companies that flout these rules (Callaghan, 2013). The purpose of these rules is to force social networking companies to provide a proof that they need the information under consideration. The users on this note will have the right of choosing which information to provide, and which to delete, without seeking permission from the administrators of the site. In conclusion, social networking sites control and process millions and millions pieces of data. Some of this information is relevant, some is not. How to access this information is a matter of greater interest to commercial companies. This is because it will guide the manner in which they market their products. However, some unethical individuals and companies collect the data and information without authorisation from the people concerned. This is unacceptable because everybody has a right to know how his or her information is used. This paper has managed to denote that ensuring privacy controls protects the information that the user provides from being used by third parties. These are commercial companies that use the information for marketing purposes, in order to improve their sales. This paper also denotes that ensuring privacy in social network sites protects an individual from harm that may come from sexual abusers or terrorists. This paper manages to explain how the contextual integrity theory explains the meaning of privacy and how to apply it over the Internet, especially by social networking companies. References: Altshuler, Y. (2013). Security and privacy in social networks. New York, NY: Springer. Austin, L. (2003). Privacy and the Question of Technology. Law and Philosophy, 22(2), 119-116. Callaghan, P. (2013). Refining privacy in tort law. Berlin: Springer. May, S. (2013). Case studies in organizational communication: ethical perspectives and practices (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Mcstay, A. (2011). The Mood of Information. New York: Continuum. Mowlabocus, S. (2010). Gaydar Culture: Gay Men, Technology and Embodiment in the Digital Age. Farnham: Ashgate. Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as Contextual Integrity. Washington Law Review, 8, 119-158. Pollach, I. (2005). A Typology of Communicative Strategies in Online Privacy Policies: Ethics, Power and Informed Consent. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), 221-235. Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, Consumption, Prosumption. The Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13-36. Spurgin, E. (2006). The End of Romance and the Value of Privacy. Public Affairs Quarterly, 20(3), 247-265. Top of Form Bottom of Form Read More