While Google and Facebook continue to track every last bit of our internet activity, how much access aught we as users have to such information? How much can we rely on new information systems as being accurate when they depend entirely on aggregate and collective data to produce their statistics? What are the ethical questions involved with data collection when it seems that the bulk of its resources are aimed at constructing more effective advertising as well as painting a digital picture of our lives as we traverse the internet? Danah Boyd and Kate Crawford observes the issue quite exhaustively, and attempt to answer some these questions.
The authors try to argue that ‘Big Data’ collections change the very definition of what we consider to be “knowledge,” but I feel this is as much up for debate as it was before such data-gathering techniques had been implemented into our society. Perhaps knowledge has transcended from beyond just ‘what we know’ to now ‘what we are capable of learning simply due to our constant interaction with resources of information, but that doesn’t necessarily imply that something is incorrect because it was assembled/translated by a computer or that humans are all that better at observing things themselves either. Perhaps they are merely pointing out that the methods of information or ‘knowledge’ transference have undergone a massive transformation during the past decade alone (or century for that matter).
I think one of the biggest provocations of ‘Big Data’ collection is its immense implications in the establishment and maintenance of our personal privacy and individual rights. As Boyd and Crawford point out, while Facebook continues to log away information about your likes and dislikes, pages visited, and keeps a backlog of previous posts on each page, navigating between these things can be cumbersome and confusing. If we can’t retrace the data ourselves, should someone (anyone) else be able to? People plead for transparency on the web, and yet we often aren’t provided the necessary tools to retrace our own steps on the internet. Boyd and Crawford point out that typically only researches have the resources and permission to access the information, and how the choose to interpret and represent it in turn may be entirely subjective. Even when we as users are able to access the information in a straightforward manner, does that make it okay for ‘Big Data’ collectors to be collecting and/or using it initially?
Things start to get scary when governments and corporations are capable of lifting the finest details of our personal preferences and involvements and catering to those tendencies specifically. How much is too much? To cite a pop-culture example, consider Minority Report (2002). In it, Tom Cruise is faced with an environment in which all things are constantly being monitored by video cameras, and personally crafted preference recommendations are offered at every turn based on retina-scanning ID devices which cites a database of the individual’s past activities/habits. This collection of data (in conjunction with a trinity of telepaths capable of foresight) allows for the “Future Crime” division to extrapolate potential murders and arrest assailants before any harm has come to the victim. Things get rather messy when he is implicated in a crime which he has yet to commit, thus raising ethical questions as to how much personal control an individual aught to have concerning their personal identity, interests, and whereabouts. Okay, so maybe that’s not a perfect example but hopefully I’ve made my point...
Even if the data is being collected ‘in our best interest’ (to prevent crime/identity theft/etc), does it do just as much to expose us to an even wider range of threats in terms of data transparency and privacy control? How should we begin to tackle such issues in an age where so much of the information we consume has been the result of ’Big Data’ collection algorithms and aggregated individual responses? Is there any way to strike a balance between safety/convenience and privacy/protection?
An interesting article over the potential influences of ‘Big Data’ collection on privacy.
We should have control over who has access to our data. The fact that social media sights can sell our information to the highest bidder is honestly ridiculous. I don’t want these companies and agencies to know what my hobbies are and the movies I like. I know that they are trying to sell their product to me, but if that is how they are going to do it then I don’t want it. I do believe there should be more transparency. I want to know who has had access to my information and I would also like to know why they are using it. I feel that regulations should be placed on social media sites, so they will give us that information. If they don’t tell us who has access to our information then they shouldn’t be able to sell it. I also believe that a lot of these issues come from people placing too much information on these social media sites. I think internet safety and privacy should be taught in schools. This middle school does an excellent job at taking on this issue when children are just starting to use social media. : https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/discussing-internet-privacy-with-students
ReplyDeleteIf we have our children aware of privacy issues now, we might not have these issues in the future.