Is it "privacy" or us?
Illusions in our understanding
Responding to concerns about in vehicle cameras, inappropriately viewed and shared by company staff, I suggested that the issue is as much one of workplace and societal culture as it is one of privacy.
Oh my. Reactions in the Xsphere formerly known as Twitter!
“How do you reconcile being a ‘privacy advocate’ and then put the onus on the consumer?!” asks one Tweetster.
That, say I, is a very, very big topic—bigger than this piece. And yes, I do see myself as a privacy advocate through knowledge system design and contributions to the field of recorded information management.
Many illusions shape our view on what is acceptable when it comes to personal privacy. Little knowledge shapes the average grasp on how information systems work. That has been true of paper-based systems as much as electronic ones—but that is for another day.
In relation to the case in point, an in-cabin camera turned on by a user-controlled setting is conveyed to staff monitoring car performance (another user-controlled setting). Both the interior and exterior cameras, also controlled by user settings, are a security feature.
The car is watching. Because you told it to.
It can be a relief to be able to check on your car's surroundings when ready to leave on a night out. It is even more reassuring to know that if the driver is nodding off, the car will deliver auditory and visual stimulae to wake that driver up.
Evidently, the culture in at least one workplace (let’s not be naive about how many) enables employees who get a kick out of watching customer videos—and sharing them. Does the risk arise from the camera, or from the employees and the corporation?
Both, of course. Let’s ponder trade-offs more broadly.
Some argue that informed consent covers most issues. But, what is informed consent? Do we mean that kind of consent granted prior to an operation with implications we don’t understand in an immediate or an ongoing sense, and which represent choice when there really is no choice? Then it should be clear that this is about limiting corporate liability. It is not about ensuring a consent is grounded in knowledge that is sufficient to weigh alternatives. Often the alternative is grim. You can choose treatment—while signing away rights of redress—or can choose to remain untreated. Congratulations—your consent, your fault, whatever happens.
We can take a similarly cold comfort from opting out of the security features of a vehicle if we prefer not to “consent” to employees sharing our images for laughs. These are no-win quandaries.
Maybe privacy is something more than whether or not your car has a camera—or your house has windows.
Defining the balance between privacy and security should not be left to those whose interest lies in exploiting our privacy.
An organizational culture that embodies respect for privacy as a human right, along with system design that de-identifies the person as soon as possible, is one example of privacy protection that is more effective than a signed waiver. It takes ongoing attention.
In-built logic to manage metadata safeguards our privacy with accountability. I do not argue for governmental control here. Rather, I support a standards regime that, combined with the market empowers consumers to drive practice toward responsible use of data. Government has a role in articulating the desired outcome. The market has a role in innovating means to achieve that outcome.
It really is up to all of us to learn more about how the systems we live within work. If we do not, we become compliant, objects within system design ignorant of that reality.
Kids need to learn how information systems work and how their design influences the “knowledge” we think we have gained. It’s not too late for their elders, either. At a basic level, it’s up to us to understand and properly manage our device settings: the first line of defence.
We all need to understand ethics and integrity, what they are in context are and how to discern patterns that reveal when decision makers and the systems they run veer from the path.
Good practices can be rewarded, bad practices exposed and shut down.
It is a cultural shift, long overdue.