New identities - self-presentations,

privacies, and autonomies

Dr. Charles Ess

<c.m.ess@media.uio.no>

NB: slides available on request

1. Initial (high modern) ethical frameworks for decision-making in

(Internet) research ethics:

deontology, utilitarianism

2. Underlying conceptions of the individual ethical agent

(high modern) notions of selfhood/identity

(high modern) conceptions of individual privacy as positive good:

definitive for “traditional” Internet Research Ethics (IRE)

3. (Late modern) shifts

frameworks of ethical relationality (ecology ... virtue ethics)

// shift towards relational selfhood / identity, e.g., Social Science theory

historical examples negative conceptions of individual privacy

// contemporary online practices (Porte de Choisy, SNSs, blogs)

changing conceptions of privacy: Gal … Nissenbaum

4. Concluding remarks: implications for IRE?

// copyright and other (high modern) notions of property

NESH guidelines as ahead of the curve

Next step: relational selves distributed responsibility / morality

Possible example for further discussion: Device Analyzer

1. Initial (high modern) ethical frameworks for decision-

making in (Internet) research ethics:

Utilitarianism:

ethical cost-benefit analysis: will (potential) benefits of a given

choice/act/rule outweigh possible harms (=costs)? “Greatest good for

the greatest number”

– primary framework in U.S. – UK?

Deontology:

emphasizes basic rights of autonomous individuals (including life,

liberty, pursuit of property … privacy, etc.) as near-absolute; to be

protected (more or less) no matter what benefits might otherwise

accrue.

– strongly influential in Northern Europe, Scandinavia

(Cf. Stahl 2004)

2. Underlying conceptions of the individual ethical agent

(high modern) notions of selfhood/identity

Relatively closed ethical system:

Possible ethical

choices:

X…

Y…

Z…

X

Consideration …

(utilitarian)

(deontological)

(… )

Choice …

Action(s)

?

2. This conception of the individual ethical agent is affiliated with

the emergence of individual privacy as either

valuable in its own right (intrinsic)

Consideration …

(utilitarian)

(deontological)

(… )

Choice …

Action(s)

?

and/ or necessary for

personal goods: * a sense of self and personal

autonomy

* intimate relationships

* other capacities and abilities

social goods

* the grounds (personal

autonomy/freedom and then the

capacity for dialogue, debate,

etc.) for participating in

democratic society.

(Johnson 2001).

hence individual privacy emerges as a positive good

the spaces in which such deliberation can take place must be protected

(rooted in Fourth Amendment protections against “unreasonable search and

seizure” of private property, among others (Debatin 2011: 49).)

Complication for IRE - 1

(Internet) research ethics as the specific project to protect the

research subject as an autonomous individual with a right to

privacy (and so confidentiality, anonymity, etc.),

BUT from the perspective of either ….

Deontology

e.g. Kant:

capacity to give oneself one’

own rule (auto-nomos)

respect for Others “always

as ends, never as means

only”

Consideration

…

Choice …

Action(s)

autonomous individual

Utilitarianism

focus on consequences of acts

“risk / benefit” analysis

“balance” of risk to subject(s)

vs.

(potential) benefits to society

(Further consequences)

X

(Not to mention … “Data Protection Laws, an Ocean Apart”).

<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/technology/consumer-data-protection-laws-an-ocean-

apart.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130203&_r=0>

3. (Late modern)

changing notions of selfhood changing ethical frameworks

(ecological ethics)

(phenomenology: “We are. Therefore I am” (Natanson 1970, 47)

communicative rationality: the self is “…from the start interwoven

with relations of mutual recognition.” This interdependence,

“...brings with it a reciprocal vulnerability that calls for guarantees

of mutual consideration to preserve both the integrity of

individual persons and the web of interpersonal relations in

which their identities are formed and maintained” (McCarthy

1978,13)

feminist ethics: empathic decision-making within “the web of

relationships” (Gilligan 1982)

virtue ethics: the practices and habits of excellence (“virtues”)

required for relational selves to foster contentment (eudaimonia)

and community harmony (e.g., Hursthouse 1999)

3. (Late modern)

changing notions of selfhood changing ethical frameworks

cf. rise of relational conceptions of selfhood in social sciences,

most especially those models prevailing in contemporary

studies of “Web 2.0” venues such as Social Networking Sites

(SNSs), e.g.,

Irving Goffman, The presentation of self in everyday life

(1959): advances a relational, “very rationalist-strategic

conception of the self” - but also “more symbolic-pragmatic,” as

“all about trying to (re)-establish social order through

intersubjective alignment in interaction” – inclusive of the

emotive? (Stine Lomborg)

Likewise, G. Simmel (1910), “the sociable self”

(Cf. K. Gergen 2009, etc.)

// emerging notions of relational autonomy in

contemporary (feminist) philosophy:

… a loosely related collection of views that share an emphasis on the

social embeddedness of the self and on the social structures

and relations that make autonomy possible. (Andrea Westlund

2009; cf. C. Mackenzie & N. Stoljar 2000; etc.)

contemporary information and computing ethics (ICE):

Luciano Floridi: interconnection and the rise of distributed

responsibility and distributed morality (2012)

(e.g., “the shopping Samaritan,” peer-to-peer lending)

Judith Simon: “distributed epistemic responsibility” (using, e.g.,

Karen Borad’s “intra-actions” as correlative of “entanglement”,

QM understandings of intersubjectivity; Lucy Suchman in HCI,

etc. - 2013)

See “Onlife Project,” <https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/onlife-

initiative>

Complication for IRE 2: shifting emphasis from individual to

relational self//identity

relational self: relational autonomy / webs of relationships …

(close ties / intimsfære) (weak ties)

(larger communities / networks)

Deontology

Consideration

…

Choice …

Action(s)

autonomous individual

Utilitarianism

(Further

consequences) X

Virtue Ethics practices, habits

e.g., patience, perseverance,

empathy

that establish, foster

relationships, e.g., friendship

(Vallor 2009, 2011, 2012)

Why complicated? Because of implications for privacy.

Consider 1: Historical examples of the relational self:

Indigenous traditions – North America, Africa, Australia …

see: Luria’s interviews with pre-literate peasants in Walter Ong

(1988)

still (?) primary sense of self in

Confucian traditions – China, Korea …

Buddhist traditions – India, China, Thailand, Japan …

[In Medium Theory (McLuhan-Innis-Eisenstein-Ong-Meyerwitz-

Baron …): relational self orality]

negative conceptions of individual privacy, e.g., China:

Prior to 1985, the term Yinsi (阴私) – the closest equivalent to “privacy” –

is defined as a hidden, bad thing

(cf. notions of “familial privacy” in traditional Thailand, etc.)

Consider 2: how contemporary online practices show:

shift towards relational selfhood / identity

// contemporary online practices (Porte de Choisy, SNSs)

changing conceptions of privacy (Gal … Nissenbaum)

contemporary online practices

e.g. Porte de Choisy: 1st prize winner of the 2007 PocketFilm

Festival: <http://www.festivalpocketfilms.fr/article.php3?id_article=648>

(the end of bathroom / bedroom privacy)

(Images from David 2009, pp. 81, 83)

// contemporary online practices:

Social Networking Sites as “third spaces” conjoining individual

relational selfhood “publicly private privately public”

Stine Lomborg on Blogging and the Intimsfære (2012):

“phatic communication” between the primary blogger and her

audience, …signals “listenership, reciprocity, availability for

conversation, concern and empathy, and this, in turn, frames the blog

as a personal space” (2012, MS p. 18).

These engagements further involve perspective-taking, “…evident

in the ways the author and readers collaboratively negotiate the

appropriate content on Huskebloggen by attuning to each other.”

(ibid).

[NB: (affective) perspective-taking / solidarity critical to democratizing

discourse – from S. Benhabib … J. Dean]

Stine Lomborg on Blogging and the Intimsfære (2012):

In particular:

To maintain the blog as a personal space, self-disclosure plays an

important role through the personal, even intimate, experiences and

emotions revealed in the blog conversation. By this means, both author and

readers balance a fine line between, on the one hand, pressure to

reveal personal issues as a preamble for developing relationships

among participants and, on the other hand, a norm of non-

intrusiveness to protect each other’s [individual] privacy. (ibid)

The upshot, finally, is

a sense of shared personal or intimate space [intimsfære] that

correlates with Georg Simmel’s account of “the sociable self” – a self

engaged in a network of relationships,

where sociability means “highlighting similarities and de-emphasising individuality in

conversation by „hiding‟ intimate and potentially uncomfortable topics because serious

discussion disturbs and threatens the continuity of conversation” (Simmel, 1910: 130-

136, cited in Lomborg 2012, MS 17).

Such a self, as Lomborg puts it, is “one that is attuned to the norms and

practices within the network of affiliation” (ibid). ( Very “Japanese”!!)

// changing conceptions of privacy / privatlivet

At the same time …

Every teenager wants privacy. Every single last one of them, whether

they tell you or not, wants privacy.

“Waffles,” in boyd and Marwick 2011.

What kind(s) of “privacy” / privatlivet?

Some suggestions –

“parochial space” – in which “familiar and certain levels of privacy and

safety are engendered” (Bassett & O’Riordan, 2002);

Privacy as “fractal” (Gal 2002)

young people’s “savvy uses” (my term) in sharing information

among specific groups (van der Velden & El Emam 2012);

“privacy concerns are not static; mHealth device users may

change their sharing decisions over time” (Prasad et al, 2012,

122)

individual privacy + “personal spaces” as negotiated via phatic

communication online (Lomborg 2012)

// changing conceptions of privacy:

Gal … Nissenbaum

Individual privacy

group privacy public

“publicly private” “privately public”

relatively unknown

“friends” - but still highly

private / personal

information re. identities,

sexual orientation, but

not, e.g., home address

close friends, relatives -

videos on YouTube

“hidden” by tagging them

so that only friends and

relatives would know

how to find them

(Patricia Lange (2007) in McKee & Porter 2009, 78)

“publicy”

// changing conceptions of privacy / privatlivet

What kind(s) of “privacy” / privatlivet?

Nissenbaum (1998; 2004; 2010) suggested the use of a new

framework of contextual integrity based on the norms of information

flow and on the idea that one engages in self-disclosure within a

context that involves situational expectations of privacy.

Contextual norms, that include norms of appropriateness and

norms of flow of distribution, are often implicit, variable, and

incomplete.

In particular, Nissenbaum (2010) suggested that one might disclose

information in a specific circle, but desire to keep it private from other

circles. [ “publicly private” / “privately public”]

In other words, information is not either public or private. It is not

either secret or overt. There are, instead, many nuances of secrecy

and disclosure.

-- Fornaciari, 2012; Niamh Ní Bhroin

4. Concluding remarks:

(i) // copyright and other (high modern) notions of

property

(ii) NESH guidelines (2006) as ahead of the curve?

13. The obligation to respect individuals’ privacy and close

relationships

Researchers shall show due respect for an individual’s privacy.

Informants are entitled to be able to check whether confidential

information about them is accessible to others. Respect for privacy aims at protecting individuals against unwanted interference and exposure. This

applies not only to emotional issues, but also to questions that involve sickness and health, political and

religious opinions, and sexual orientation.

Researchers should be especially compassionate when they ask questions that involve intimate issues

and they should avoid placing informants under pressure. What is perceived as sensitive information can

vary from one individual or group to the next.

Distinguishing between the private and public spheres can sometimes be difficult when it comes to

information about behaviour that is communicated and stored on the Internet. When using material from

such interactions, researchers must pay sufficient attention to the fact that people’s understanding of what

is private and what is public in such media can vary. (NESH 2006 B.13, p. 17)

Cf. Danish, Norwegian conceptions of privatlivet and intimsfære as

already conjunctions of [individual + (small) group] ”privacy”?

(iii) Next steps: relational selves distributed responsibility /

morality

// emerging notions of relational autonomy in

contemporary (feminist) philosophy:

… a loosely related collection of views that share an emphasis on the social

embeddedness of the self and on the social structures and relations that

make autonomy possible. (Andrea Westlund 2009; cf. C. Mackenzie & N.

Stoljar 2000; etc.)

contemporary information and computing ethics (ICE):

Luciano Floridi: interconnection and the rise of distributed responsibility

and distributed morality (2012)

(e.g., “the shopping Samaritan,” peer-to-peer lending)

Judith Simon: “distributed epistemic responsibility” (using, e.g., Karen

Borad’s “intra-actions” as correlative of “entanglement”, QM

understandings of intersubjectivity; Lucy Suchman in HCI, etc. - 2013) –

see “Onlife Project,” <https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/onlife-

initiative>

Cf. Danish, Norwegian conceptions of privatlivet and intimsfære as

already conjunctions of [individual + (small) group] ”privacy”?

(iv) Implications for IRE: A paradigm shift – and ethical

complications …

Deontology e.g. Kant:

capacity to give oneself one’ own rule (auto-

nomos)

respect for Others “always as ends, never as

means only”

Consideration

…

Choice …

Action(s)

autonomous individual

Utilitarianism focus on consequences of acts

“risk / benefit” analysis

“balance” of risk to subject(s) vs.

(potential) benefits to society

(Further

consequences) X

relational self: relational autonomy / webs of relationships …

(close ties / intimsfære) (weak ties)

(larger communities / networks)

designers

companies

states …

(AAs / Multi-Agent Systems)

Virtue

Ethics

(v) Implications for (Internet) research ethics?

especially as recent apps for smartphones allow researchers into

“private” / privatlivet domains previously inaccessible, e.g.

“Device Analyzer”

The example of “Device Analyzer”

Basic Data

This data will usually be shared online after you had three months to inspect your

data on the website. If you prefer, you can specify easily and directly within the

application that you'd like your data stream to be used only within the University of

Cambridge.

when you turn your phone on and off

the version of the operating system and the type of device

the system's local time

the amount of free internal and external storage

when the external storage card is inserted or removed

which parts of Device Analyzer you use as well as internal logging and crash

reporting (yes, it analyzes itself!)

whether your phone is ringing normally, is silent or on vibrate

the volume of the different audio streams (ringer, media volume, etc.)

the times at which the phone is charging

the battery level and voltage

the times when you take pictures and how many pictures you have

the times when the screen is turned on and off

the brightness level of the screen and whether brightness is dynamically adjusted

when you enable and disable airplane mode …

The example of “Device Analyzer”

Basic Data

when which mode of network connectivity is available

the hashed identifier of the inserted SIM card

whether the phone is roaming or not

cellular signal strength

the amount of data transferred over 3G and wifi

the times when phone calls are made and text messages are sent and received as

well as the number of characters per text message

hashed values for the phone numbers involved

when you enable and disable Bluetooth and wifi

hashed data about wifi networks that are in range

hashed data about Bluetooth devices (hashed) in the vicinity if another application

initiates a Bluetooth scan (Device Analyzer will not initiate a scan by itself)

when you enable tethering or the mobile hotspot

Applications

We will collect the following data about applications on your device:

…

The example of “Device Analyzer”

Questions for consideration, discussion

1) Who would voluntarily share this sort of data with researchers?

utilitarian considerations: benefits to both

the individual participant (more information about one’s own

phone)

+ larger society (as research results will lead to …)

2) What sorts of privacy protections are at work?

Reasonably good ones? (hashed identities, locations, etc.)

+ individual user has control over application (pause, stop, what

data is collected, etc.)

3) BUT: what sort of selfhood / identity assumptions are at work?

…

The example of “Device Analyzer”

similar projects in Scandinavia?

Norway/Denmark – yes!

Christine Von Seelen Schou:

<http://www.wilke.dk/telenorpanel/>

(Telenor + NSD privacy protections)

Sweden – no? (so far …)

volunteers unwilling to install app as too

intrusive;

researchers faced either lack of and/or

conflicting guidelines, policies,

interpretation of applicable laws

Stay tuned!

28