Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 89–101 | Cite as

Successful failure: what Foucault can teach us about privacy self-management in a world of Facebook and big data

Original Paper

Abstract

The “privacy paradox” refers to the discrepancy between the concern individuals express for their privacy and the apparently low value they actually assign to it when they readily trade personal information for low-value goods online. In this paper, I argue that the privacy paradox masks a more important paradox: the self-management model of privacy embedded in notice-and-consent pages on websites and other, analogous practices can be readily shown to underprotect privacy, even in the economic terms favored by its advocates. The real question, then, is why privacy self-management occupies such a prominent position in privacy law and regulation. Borrowing from Foucault’s late writings, I argue that this failure to protect privacy is also a success in ethical subject formation, as it actively pushes privacy norms and practices in a neoliberal direction. In other words, privacy self-management isn’t about protecting people’s privacy; it’s about inculcating the idea that privacy is an individual, commodified good that can be traded for other market goods. Along the way, the self-management regime forces privacy into the market, obstructs the functioning of other, more social, understandings of privacy, and occludes the various ways that individuals attempt to resist adopting the market-based view of themselves and their privacy. Throughout, I use the analytics practices of Facebook and social networking sites as a sustained case study of the point.

Keywords

Privacy Social networking Facebook Foucault Biopolitics Neoliberalism Big data 

References

  1. Acquisti, A. (2009). Nudging privacy: The behavioral economics of personal information. Security & Privacy, IEEE, 7(6), 82–85. doi: 10.1109/MSP.2009.163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albergotti, R. (2014, June 12). Facebook to target ads based on web browsing. Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, A. L. (2011). Unpopular privacy: What must we hide?. Oxford; New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amoore, L. (2004). Risk, reward and discipline at work. Economy and Society, 33(2), 174–196. doi: 10.1080/03085140410001677111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Backstrom, L., & Kleinberg, J. (2014). Romantic partnerships and the dispersion of social ties: A network analysis of relationship status on facebook. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Barkhuus, L. (2012). The mismeasurement of privacy: Using contextual integrity to reconsider privacy in HCI. Proceedings of CHI2012 Austin.Google Scholar
  7. Barkhuus, L., & Tashiro, J. (2010). Student socialization in the age of facebook. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Bazarova, N. N. (2012). Contents and contexts: Disclosure perceptions on facebook. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Seattle, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven [Conn.]: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Binder, J., Howes, A., & Sutcliffe, A. (2009). The problem of conflicting social spheres: Effects of network structure on experienced tension in social network sites. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Binkley, S. (2009). The work of neoliberal governmentality: Temporality and ethical substance in the tale of two dads. Foucault Studies, 6, 60–78.Google Scholar
  12. Blume, P. (2014). The myths pertaining to the proposed general data protection regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 4(4), 269–273. doi: 10.1093/idpl/ipu017.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyd, D. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur foundation series on digital learning—Youth, identity, and digital media volume. Cambridge, M. A.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Boyd, D. (2008). Facebook’s privacy trainwreck: Exposure invasion and social convergence. Convergence, 14(1), 13–20.Google Scholar
  15. Boyd, D. (2014). What does the Facebook experiment teach us? Retrieved from http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2014/07/01/facebook-experiment.html.
  16. Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679. doi: 10.1080/1369118x.2012.678878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Boyle, J. (1997). Shamans, software and spleens: Law and the construction of the information society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Brown, W. (2005). Neoliberalism and the end of liberal democracy edgework: Critical essays on knowledge and politics (pp. 37–59). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Christofides, E., Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2009). Information disclosure and control on Facebook: Are they two sides of the same coin or two different processes? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(3), 341–345. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2008.0226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cohen, J. E. (2012a). Configuring the networked self: Law, code, and the play of everyday practice. New Haven [Conn.]: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen, J. E. (2012b). Irrational privacy? Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 10, 241–249.Google Scholar
  23. Cohen, J. E. (2013). What privacy is for. Harvard Law Review, 126, 1904–1933.Google Scholar
  24. Collier, S. J. (2009). Topologies of power: Foucault’s analysis of political government beyond ‘governmentality’. Theory, Culture & Society, 26, 78–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cooper, M. (2012). Workfare, familyfare, godfare: Transforming contingency into necessity. South Atlantic Quarterly, 111(4), 643–661. doi: 10.1215/00382876-1724120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dourish, P., & Anderson, K. (2006). Collective information practice: Emploring privacy and security as social and cultural phenomena. Human-Computer Interaction, 21(3), 319–342. doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci2103_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Duhigg, C. (2009). What does your credit-card company know about you?. USA: New York Times Magazine.Google Scholar
  28. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ericson, R., Barry, D., & Doyle, A. (2000). The moral hazards of neo-liberalism: Lessons from the private insurance industry. Economy and Society, 29(4), 532–558. doi: 10.1080/03085140050174778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Feher, M. (2009). Self-appreciation; or, the aspirations of human capital. Public Culture, 21(1), 21–41. doi: 10.1215/08992363-2008-019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  32. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208–226). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Foucault, M. (1985). The use of pleasure (trans: Hurley, R). New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  34. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–79 (trans: Burchell, G). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Francis, L. (2014–2015). Privacy and health information: The United States and the European Union. Kentucky Law Journal, 103, 419–431.Google Scholar
  36. Fried, C. (1968). Privacy. Yale Law Journal, 77(3), 475–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society, Alexandria, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Grossklags, J., & Acquisti, A. (2007). What can behavioral economics teach us about privacy? In A. Acquisti, S. Gritzalis, C. Lambrinoudakis, & S. D. C. di Vimercati (Eds.), Digital privacy (pp. 363–377). Boca Raton: Auerbach Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Guthrie, K., & Sokolowsky, J. (2012). Obesity and credit risk.Google Scholar
  40. Haggerty, K. D. (2006). Tear down the walls: On demolishing the panopticon. In D. Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 23–45). Cullompton, Devon: Willan Pub.Google Scholar
  41. Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. The British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605–622. doi: 10.1080/00071310020015280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hamann, T. H. (2009). Neoliberalism, governmentality, and ethics. Foucault Studies, 6, 37–59.Google Scholar
  43. Harcourt, B. E. (2014). Governing, exchanging, securing: Big data and the production of digital knowledge. Paper presented at the Big data, entreprises et sciences sociales—Usages et partages des données numériques de masse, Paris.Google Scholar
  44. Hayles, N. K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hoofnagle, C. J., & Whittington, J. (2014). Free: Accounting for the costs of the internet’s most popular price. UCLA Law Review, 61, 606–670.Google Scholar
  46. Hull, G., Lipford, H. R., & Latulipe, C. (2011). Contextual gaps: Privacy issues on Facebook. Ethics and information technology, 13(4), 289–302.Google Scholar
  47. Hull, G. (2012). Coding the dictatorship of ‘the They:' A phenomenological critique of digital rights management. In M. Sanders & J. J. Wisnewski (Eds.), Ethics and phenomenology (pp. 197–220).Google Scholar
  48. Jernigan, C., & Mistree, B. F. T. (2009). Gaydar: Facebook friendships expose sexual orientation. First Monday, 14(10).Google Scholar
  49. Jones, H., & Soltren, J. H. (2005). Facebook: Threats to privacy. Retrieved from http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/student-papers/fall05-papers/facebook.pdf.
  50. King, J., Lampinen, A., & Smolen, A. (2011). Privacy: Is there an app for that? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  51. Koops, B.-J. (2014). The trouble with European data protection law. International Data Privacy Law, 4(4), 250–261. doi: 10.1093/idpl/ipu023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1218772110.Google Scholar
  53. Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24), 8788–8790. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1320040111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lampe, C., Ellison, N. B., & Steinfield, C. (2008). Changes in use and perception of facebook. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, San Diego, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  55. Lazzarato, M. (2000). Du biopouvoir à la biopolitique. Multitudes, 1(1), 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lazzarato, M. (2009). Neoliberalism in action: Inequality, insecurity and the reconstitution of the social. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(6), 109–133. doi: 10.1177/0263276409350283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Liu, Y., Gummadi, K. P., Krishnamurthy, B., & Mislove, A. (2011). Analyzing facebook privacy settings: User expectations vs. reality. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGCOMM conference on internet measurement conference, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  58. Lyon, D. (Ed.). (2006). Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Pub.Google Scholar
  59. Madejski, M., Johnson, M., & Bellovin, S. E. (2011). The failure of online social network privacy setetings Columbia University Computer Science Technical Reports.Google Scholar
  60. Martin, K. (2012). Information technology and privacy: Conceptual muddles or privacy vacuums? Ethics and Information Technology, 14(4), 267–284. doi: 10.1007/s10676-012-9300-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society,. doi: 10.1177/1461444814543995.Google Scholar
  62. McCormick, M. (2001). Is it wrong to play violent video games? Ethics and Information Technology, 3(4), 277–287. doi: 10.1023/a:1013802119431.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McDonald, A. M., & Cranor, L. F. (2008). The cost of reading privacy policies. I/S. A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 4(3), 540–565.Google Scholar
  64. McDonald, A. M., & Cranor, L. (2010). Americans’ attitudes about internet behavioral advertising practices. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th annual ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society, Chicago, Illinois, USA.Google Scholar
  65. McMahon, J. (2015). Behavioral economics as neoliberalism: Producing and governing homo economicus. Contemporary Political Theory, 14, 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. McNay, L. (2009). Self as enterprise: Dilemmas of control and resistance in Foucault’s the birth of biopolitics. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(6), 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Nov, O., & Wattal, S. (2009). Social computing privacy concerns: Antecedents and effects. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  69. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Peppet, S. R. (2011). Unraveling privacy: The personal prospectus and the threat of a full disclosure future. Northwestern Law Review, 105(3), 1153–1204.Google Scholar
  71. Protevi, J. (2010). What does Foucault think is new about neo-liberalism?. Pli: Warwick Journal of Philosophy, 21.Google Scholar
  72. Raynes-Goldie, K. (2010). Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning: Understanding privacy in the age of Facebook. First Monday, 15(1).Google Scholar
  73. Reddy, S. G. (1996). Claims to expert knowledge and the subversion of democracy: The triumph of risk over uncertainty. Economy and Society, 25(2), 222–254. doi: 10.1080/03085149600000011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Reiman, J. H. (1995). Driving to the panopticon: A philosophical exploration of the risks to privacy posed by the highway technology of the future. Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, 11(1), 27–44.Google Scholar
  75. Schermer, B., Custers, B., & van der Hof, S. (2014). The crisis of consent: How stronger legal protection may lead to weaker consent in data protection. Ethics and Information Technology, 16(2), 171–182. doi: 10.1007/s10676-014-9343-8.Google Scholar
  76. Semaan, B., & Mark, G. (2012). ‘Facebooking’ towards crisis recovery and beyond: Disruption as an opportunity. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work, Seattle, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
  77. Shah, R. C., & Kesan, J. P. (2007). Governing with information technologies. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th annual international conference on Digital government research: Bridging disciplines \& domains, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  78. Simon, J. (2002). Taking risks: Extreme sports and the embrace of risk in advanced liberal societies. In T. Baker & J. Simon (Eds.), Embracing risk: The changing culture of insurance and responsibility (pp. 177–208). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  79. Solove, D. J. (2007). ’I’ve got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy. San Diego Law Review, 44, 745–772.Google Scholar
  80. Solove, D. J. (2013). Privacy Self-management and the consent dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 126, 1880–1903.Google Scholar
  81. Steeves, V. (2009). Reclaiming the social value of privacy. In I. Kerr, C. Lucock, & V. Steeves (Eds.), Lessons from the identity trail: Anonymity, privacy and identity in a networked society (pp. 191–208). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Strahilevitz, L. J. (2013). Toward a positive theory of privacy law. Harvard Law Review, 126, 2010–2042.Google Scholar
  83. Strandburg, K. J. (2013). Free fall: The online market’s consumer preference disconnect. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2013, 95–172.Google Scholar
  84. Tavani, H. T. (1998). Informational privacy, data mining, and the internet. Ethics and Information Technology, 1(2), 137–145. doi: 10.1023/a:1010063528863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tufekci, Z. (2014). Engineering the public: Big data, surveillance and computational politics. First Monday, 19(7).Google Scholar
  86. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other.Google Scholar
  87. Waddington, D. (2007). Locating the wrongness in ultra-violent video games. Ethics and Information Technology, 9(2), 121–128. doi: 10.1007/s10676-006-9126-y.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wang, Y., Norcie, G., Komanduri, S., Acquisti, A., Leon, P. G., & Cranor, L. F. (2011). “I regretted the minute I pressed share”: A qualitative study of regrets on Facebook. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  89. Wonderly, M. (2008). A Humean approach to assessing the moral significance of ultra-violent video games. Ethics and Information Technology, 10(1), 1–10. doi: 10.1007/s10676-007-9149-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Young, A. L., & Quan-Haase, A. (2013). Privacy protection strategies on facebook. Information, Communication & Society, 16(4), 479–500. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.777757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North Carolina CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations