Most modern-day research suggests that ‘The Era of Privacy’ has certainly diminished and did so a length of time ago, and many theories and research has been established to determine why this is the case. American professor Zittrain uses the term ‘Generativity’, a phrase originally coined by psychoanalyst Erikson, to explain the influence and power of the internet. He describes the concept of generativity as predominantly positive (Zittrain 2009), regarding the successes society has achieved by the most generative technology of them all: The computer and internet. Yet despite the capital the PC has in our world, it also can be seen as one of the commodities which has assisted in ending the era of privacy.
The Concept of Generativity helps explain that society as a whole has influenced how much privacy we have and its decline. Another key observation in relation to our internet use is Moore’s Law. The successful prediction by Moore states that the ‘overall processing power for computers will double every two years’. His prediction was confirmed for a few decades after he first originated his statement. The truth of his law shows us just how much we use processers, essentially the internet, and how our use has been steadily increasing from 1975 to 2012 according to his prediction. The heavy use of computers and the internet in our society has contributed to the Era of Privacy being over. The more time we spend on the web, computers, phones and social media as well as other electronics, the more we put ourselves in high-risk positions whether it be directly or indirectly.
Smart Insights ‘Digital around the world in 2018’ social media and internet survey shows just how active we are online in the present day, and the dramatic increase as compared to many years ago. More than half of our 7,593 Billion population are active internet users, as compared to around 30 years ago when it was a luxury to be able to have frequent access to the world wide web. Furthermore, just under twenty years ago in 2000, the percentage of people who owned a mobile phone was under half the worlds population, 40%. In under two decades, there has been a significant increase with the percentage rising to 95% in 2017. While these statistics show just how vital technology is to our daily lives, it also paints a picture of just how high risk we have put ourselves to issues such as hacking and internet security. Aside from the technological drawbacks, the personal pitfalls must be given some concern such as mental health problems the constant use of cyberspace causes.
Looking at research and actually realizing the lack of privacy we have in relation to communication, technology and in particular the Internet seems relatively shocking however due to our desensitized society, our lack of privacy has become normalized. To ‘Google’ is now a verb in its own right, appearing in The Oxford English Dictionary and meaning to ‘search for information about (someone or something) on the Internet using the search engine Google.’ The world has become part of many people’s daily vocabulary. Google also holds responsibility for breaking down additional further privacy norms with the introduction of street view in 2009- Just under a decade ago. Despite the various number of complaints, the company received the software of street view is still standing strong today, showing the scary influence and power internet companies such as Google possess. In 2009 shortly after the platforms creation, Google were made to agree to reshoot the street view pictures in Japan after privacy concerns. In a statement released the company agreed to ‘Lower the cameras on its cars by 40cm after complaints they were capturing images over fences in private homes’. Despite the reshooting, surely this evidence adds to the already overwhelming archive that the Era of privacy is over.
While large internet corporations such as Google have an extensive amount of power and influence when it comes to the issue and invasion of privacy, another sector can also be held largely responsible for the era of privacy allegedly denouncing. The Media. In 1890, Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis called out the courts, in their lack of recognition to invasions of privacy. The Paper went against the press’ forages for tales and canards arguing that people did, in fact, deserve a private life. The article led the way for dramatic changes in the law and the division between ‘public interest’ and what was just ‘gossip and rumors’. While the article was written over a century ago, its relevance is still pivotal now especially with scandals that have occurred in this decade.
The News International Phone Hacking Scandal provides an exemplary case study with regards to ‘The Right to Privacy’ Article. Despite there being movement and advances in working on the issue of Privacy and ‘public interest’ the News of the World scandal provided the Government with a major setback. If there was any privacy in 2011 at the time the controversy was revealed, it was diminished with this revelation. The problem of privacy invasion was first hinted at in 2005 when The NOTW wrote an article about Prince Williams knee injury which brought about fears that associates of the royal family phones were being hacked. In July 2009 the Guardian Newspaper made claims that NOTW journalists had been involved in the extensive and widespread phone hacking of thousands of celebrities. It was later revealed that the victims were not just celebrities such as royals and pop stars, but also, shockingly the parents of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler and the 7/7 London attack victims. As a result, and post-Leveson inquiry the News of the world was closed, apologies were issued and dismissals and arrests were made. Post News of the World phone-hacking scandal, it is evident that the Era of Privacy is over, but when did the notion of privacy really end? Yes, it has become more publicized recently, not just in 2011 but still to the present day with the current Facebook information leak but previous to these case studies personal, private information not of public interest has still been imparted and broadcasted publically.
It is evident that the Victims of the News of the world phone hacking scandal have grounds to complain, but do people who are just regular social media have the right to complain about their invasion of privacy. We all leave our own digital footprints, and we, directly and indirectly, decide how big these are. Our digital footprint helps show who we are and we add to them every day. Each time you go online your digital footprint is affected and added to by websites and online shopping; social media and your mobile phone. The extent to how much of your information is put out into the world is partly down to you. The difference between the victims such as British soldier’s families or the 7/7 victims and everyone else, is that there is a choice. Every time we log onto Facebook, Snapchat or our emails we are choosing to do so. In 2011 Max Schrems and ‘Europe vs. Facebook’ found out through legal means that Facebook collected Date on every friend request you have ever received and how you responded, every poke you have exchanged and every event you have been invited to through Facebook and your response. Arguably this is not an invasion of privacy, by logging on and using the platform it is expected these basic interactions will be recorded. On further investigation, the ‘Europe vs. Facebook’ team found out that Facebook also records the IP address each time a person logs on to the site and also the camera metadata including time stamps and the latitude and longitude of picture location, credit card information and each users last known physical location. While using Facebook is a choice, should the company have a right to know personal information like this?
Blame is largely placed on the Millennial generation for the cause of the decline of online privacy due to their heavy social media use, yet the largest scandals to date such as the Closure of The News of the World was actually caused by and involved primarily adults. Studies also depict that it is the younger generation who in fact are more concerned about internet security and privacy. One article states that ‘The attitudes, concerns, and practices of 13 year olds are, as you might imagine, quite different from those of 35 year olds’ and argue ‘young adults take more security measures for their online privacy than their elders’.
Predominantly, to decide whether the era of privacy is officially over has never and will never be answered with a deterministic yes or no. Like many concepts, Privacy is Subjective, dependent on context, place, person and a range of other components and factors. Arguably The editors and journalists of News of the World knew that they crossed the lines regarding Privacy and Law, however, do the owners of Facebook and other companies who store personal information of their users think this is wrong? Where do we draw the line?
Yes, The era of Privacy is over. Although there is not one pivotal point where we can be in a consensus of when it ended, the amount of privacy we have now, regarding being online and the internet is certainly less than the amount we had 20 or say even 5 years ago. It Is also important to note the relationship between the decline of privacy and the increase of media and technology on our lives and in our society. Definitions of privacy are ‘A state in which one is not observed or disturbed by other people’ and, linking more to the version of privacy spoken about and referenced in this essay ‘the state of being free from public attention’. It is certain to say in our society today the latter does not always apply and as a result ‘The Era of Privacy’ is Certainly over.