Social Implications

   by  Andrey Belenko 

      All of the social implications of information technology and libraries are far-reaching and too numerous to tackle here. They range from copyright infringement – customers borrowing library-owned CDs and DVDs and then copying or ripping the content of those materials for their own use, and sometimes for commercial sale, to the larger issue of privacy and the protection of customer’s information. Technology has created a world where it is easy and often expected that “materials” will be “shared.” But is this the right approach, particularly when it pertains to libraries, their resources, and the customers they serve?

      Luciano Floridi, a modern-day philosopher who’s work has centered on the philosophy of information and information ethics, wrote about the concept of confidentiality (2005), the “sharing of private information with someone, either explicitly or implicitly,” as an agent, a contract of sorts that should be negotiated carefully, because it is a “bond that is hard and slow to forge properly.” (2005, p. 197) Confidentiality is also, according to Floridi, a “bond very brittle and difficult to restore when it comes to betrayal.” Has the concept of confidentiality changed over the last 10 years? It could easily be argued so, when teens are readily sharing very intimate, visual details about themselves with virtual strangers, when there are publicly-expressed opinions that there is no such thing as privacy any longer, given the pervasiveness of information and communication technologies. The processing capabilities, the pace, the quantity and the quality (Floridi, 2005, p. 186) of the data that is collected, recorded and shared has changed dramatically in the last 10 years, and will continue to change exponentially. The recent revelations about the collection, storage and monitoring of data formerly believed to be private by the National security Agency have gone far in exposing the changes in the modern-day idea of privacy. A study published in 2010, “Strangers on a Plane: Context-Dependent Willingness to Divulge Sensitive Information” (John, Acquisti & Loewenstein, 2010) revealed that participants were willing to reveal very private details about themselves and their behaviors, despite a lack of reassurance that their responses would remain private. In fact, the less secure the assurance, the more they were apt to reveal. The greater the assurance of privacy, by giving a privacy/confidentiality statement at the beginning, the less the respondents were willing to share. This indicates a major shift in the concept of confidentiality, over a period of just six years.  

      What could be behind this shift? Technology has to be the biggest factor. As of January 2014, 90% of American adults have a cell phone; 58% have a smartphone. 74% of adults who are “online” use social networking sites. 90% of adults age 18-29 use social networking sites. “The growing ubiquity of cell phones, especially the rise of smartphones, has made social networking just a finger tap away. Fully 40% of cell phone owners use a social networking site on their phone, and 28% do so on a typical day.” (Pew Research Internet Project, 2014) We have become accustomed to sharing our personal lives in increasingly public spaces. Yes, Facebook has privacy features, but those features change regularly, and many users don’t keep up with them. In 2008, only 50% of users had created a private profile. (Lepper, 2011; page 175). Instagram photo posts are, by default, totally public, unless users actively set up a private profile. Teens are more apt to do this than adults (Pew Research Internet Project, 2014). But teens are also more apt to share personal information, including their real name, photos of themselves, their school name, the city or town they live in, an email address and a cell phone number. More teens ages 14-17 are sharing this sort of information today than did in 2006. (Pew Research Internet Project, 2014). Considering the number of friends or followers teens have on social media, their networks often spread beyond the people they come into direct contact with, at school, church or other organizations. It would seem that teens definition of private, or privacy is very different from older generations’ definitions. They don’t appear to be overly concerned about third-parties getting or having access to their information for marketing purposes; in fact, they seem to accept it as a way of life or part of doing business. Could the traditional stance of libraries with respect to customer privacy, i.e., libraries being the bastion of confidentiality and intellectual freedom, protecting customers at all costs, be an outdated concept?

      Or is it a moot point? If people are getting more and more accustomed to sharing private information, is it a library’s responsibility to protect their privacy? We have invited so many things into our lives that rely on computing – smartphones, pacemakers, the cars we drive, watches, glasses, cameras, security tags and RFID tags, to name but a few. Things that communicate with the world beyond us, with our implicit permission. Cloud computing is the way of our future, at least as far as we can see into it; it is convenient, present, and accessible. Pervasive computing, ambient intelligence, everyware – “the increasing presence in our everyday lives of information and communication technologies (ICT) that are too small to notice, or integrated into appliances or clothing or automobiles, or are aspects of services we use willingly. (Pimple, 2011) Should libraries adopt Google’s model, and put the onus of privacy protection onto the customer? (Bodle, 2011) Has Google’s model been an insidious influence on users’ views of privacy? Google’s privacy policy iterates privacy as a “commodity to be traded in exchange for perceived benefits.” (Bodle, p. 163) The collection of user data is framed as necessary to enhance the user experience. The fact that the policy also cloaks Google’s true reason for collecting user data – the selling of that data to companies so that they can create targeted ads, to create more revenue for Google – should not be ignored, though it often is. The convenience of keeping our information accessible, via cloud computing, and always present, via pervasive computing, comes with considerable privacy risks. The purveyors of the products we use and rely on often downplay these risks.

      The discussion of the social implications of information ethics will be ongoing. Changing trends in technology, changing definitions of privacy, changing practices of social interaction, changing expectations of library users – all need to be factored in, and reviewed on a regular basis. The larger issues of information privacy can overshadow day-to-day ethical dilemmas (attempting to educate customers about copyright infringement and the illegal “copying” of music and videos from legally borrowed CDs and DVDs), but both are important to the future of libraries. “Information is more than transmitted, it transforms.” (Briggle, 2009) Information ethics will continue to evolve, grow, be redefined and possibly redefine perceptions as well. Information does indeed transform, and as Sir Francis Bacon is quoted as saying, "Knowledge is power." Knowledgeable information professionals will continue to monitor the social implications of information ethics and will respond appropriately, through education when necessary and applicable, and through leadership and modeling of best practices, particularly where they apply to information privacy, and protecting the rights of library customers and their information needs. While individuals may willingly surrender at least some of their privacy if they perceive a benefit to doing so, (Culnan, 1993), information professionals have an ethical responsibility to maintain the highest possible standards for their customers.

Reference List:

Bodle, R., Ph.D., Privacy and participation in the cloud: Ethical implications of Google’s privacy practices and public communications. In B. Drushel, & K. German, (Ed.) The ethics of emerging media: Information, social norms, and new media technology (pp. 155-174). New York, NY: Continuum Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/kentstate/detail.action?docID=10884739

This chapter examines the ethics of online privacy by analyzing Google’s privacy policy, specifically how Google shifts the responsibility for keeping information private from the service provider to the user.

Briggle, A., & Mitcham, C. (2009). From the Philosophy of Information to the Philosophy of Information Culture. Information Society, 25(3), 169-174. doi:10.1080/01972240902848765 
Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=38419291&site=eds-live&scope=site

This paper discusses the correlation between the philosophies of information and information culture, and posits that they can combine to create an information culture.

Culnan, M. J. (1993). How did they get my name?: An exploratory investigation of consumer attitudes toward secondary information use. MIS Quarterly, 17(3), 341-363. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9404050726&site=eds-live&scope=site

This study examines attitudes about the secondary use of personal information, specifically the unauthorized sharing of personal data. 

John, L. K., Acquisti, A., & Loewenstein, G. (2011). Strangers on a plane: Context-dependent willingness to divulge sensitive information. Journal Of Consumer Research, 37(5), 858-873. doi:10.1086/656423 Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=58510401&site=eds-live&scope=site

This article examines the vulnerabilities of consumers when navigating increasingly complex privacy issues created by new information technologies.

Lepper, T. S., Facebook: Student perceptions of ethical issues about their online presence. In B. Drushel, & K. German, (Ed.) The ethics of emerging media: Information, social norms, and new media technology (pp. 175-188). New York, NY: Continuum Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/kentstate/detail.action?docID=10884739

This resource examines college students and their online presence and perceptions of privacy while using Facebook.

Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Cortest, S., Gasser, U., Duggan, M., Smith, A., & Beaton,  Teens, social media, and privacy. Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (2014, January) Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/05/21/teens-social-media-and-privacy/ 10/26/14

This article provides a breakdown of the issues surrounding teens, social media use and their perceptions of privacy.

Pimple, K. D. (2011). Computing ethics surrounded by machines. Communications of the ACM, 54(3), 29-31. doi:10.1145/1897852.1897864 Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=59423962&site=eds-live&scope=site

This article discusses the potential benefits of pervasive information technology and the moral responsibilities that accompany its use.

Social Networking Fact Sheet. (January 2014) Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (January 2014) http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/social-networking-fact-sheet/ Retrieved 10/26/2014

This site provides statistical data on the use of social networking sites.

These resources were chosen for their scope, their relevancy to the subject of social implications and information ethics, and for the depth and breadth of knowledge of the authors. Effort was made to include recent material, as well as information written early on, in the field of information ethics, to give perspective to a subject that needs to be continually examined.