Helen Nissenbaum Right To Privacy

Digital technology on websites allow for content to be more visible, shared more efficiently, as well as easier to find when searched for to invisible and convergent audiences, resulting in that content might be available on some sites to audiences without the awareness of the individual who had posted it. This aspect of convergent and invisible audiences is in some cases true for sites that allow for more visibility or privacy, or for sites where users’ various social lives converge. Facebook is a great example in the way that many social workers, friends, and co-workers, even potential employers are able to see not everything but even some things about the user. Helen Nissenbaum offers a different thinking for approaching privacy concerns

The fact that information can be shared yet still be viewed as private leads to the common perception of privacy that limits our ability to consider the concept in its full complexity: We often perceive privacy as our upper hand to control information we share. As Nissenbaum explains, privacy is not a “right to control information about themselves,” (Neissbaum et. al, 2006, p. 1) but instead “ensuring that it flows appropriately.” (Neissbaum et. al, 2006, p. 2). Even though there are multiple definitions of privacy that rely on control over the flow of information, they fail to take into account the fact that just because someone shares information, it does not mean their privacy is being invaded or violated. They may not have control over the information, but regardless, they are more than likely concerned about how the information travels. This distinction and difference in regards to control is probably best described as the clear divider that separates privacy

Privacy is all about limiting access to one’s self-image, behavior, information, etc., whereas property can be defined as ownership, and thus control over information and material goods. As James Grimmelmann explains, the design of social-network environments effectively impairs individual's ability to effectively evaluate their privacy risks. People rely heavily on larned actions to know what is safe and what is dangerous - Grimmelmann cites the age-old “Don’t talk to strangers” as one of these rules. (Grimmelmann, 2010, p. 8) He suggests that what Facebook is doing is, attempting to create the illusion of a setting where employing these rules and evaluating risks in that way is still possible. Perhaps not surprisingly, these signals are the same ones that make it such a natural place for socializing and sharing. People don’t think about privacy risks the way you think they would. Instead, people use all sorts of simplifying and so they think strategic tactics when they consider the risk,