Week 6 Tutorial Presentation on Alison Adam’s “Cyberstalking: Gender and Computer Ethics.”
Hello all!!! I’m doing the online tute presentation this week for Alison Adam’s article “Cyberstalking: Gender and Computer Ethics.”
I’m going to follow James’ lead here and just give a brief outline of the main points I found relevant/interesting in the article, and a couple of questions for everyone to comment on afterwards.
The main points of the article:
Firstly, Adam makes the point that “computer ethics” is a newly emerging discipline, which as yet lacks a sufficient body of research. As such a new technological medium, a number of new related social and ethical dilemmas face us: hacking, viruses, copying software, and, most importantly in the case of this article: electronic invasions of privacy.
One of the problems facing the discipline is a split over how to approach these issues: are computer ethics problems new, or are they a new variation of older social problems? The author herself leans towards the latter approach, suggesting that “reading computer ethics problems in the light of existing and older ethical dilemmas has the advantage of connecting information technology to their history.” Adam takes this approach because she doesn’t read the rise of computers and the internet as determinist or inevitable, but instead as “historically rooted”.
As such, Adam suggests that it is beneficial to apply feminist theories to the discipline of computer ethics, and so expose the power relations that are inherently at play within the internet. Whilst the rise of the internet was hailed in the 1990’s as a socially-levelling medium in which gender, age, religion, and race were transcended, Adam instead suggests that the internet has great potential for inequality; and that men and women experience the internet very differently.
Therefore, feminist ethics may be applied as a “fruitful alternative to current directions in computer ethics” in 3 major ways: firstly, feminist ethics counters the predominant theory of internet determinism and secondly offers an alternate to views of the internet as a zone of individualism; and thirdly, reveals the gender and power inequalities that exist online.
How does the internet display power inequalities we ask? According to Adam, there is a huge difference between men’s and women’s access to computers, and their respective usage of the internet. For instance, there have been substantiative statistical studies done on the topic of ethical decision-making online, however Adam suggests that there needs to be more interest regarding the reasons for differences between the way men and women interact online (if any). As such, the author believes that theorists really need to examine the reasons behind why cyber stalking exists, and research possible measures to prevent it, rather than statistically analyse online behaviours.
Adam devotes time also to online sexual harassment as differing to cyber stalking. Using Catherine McKinnon’s definition that sexual harassment is “the unwanted imposition of sexual requirements in the context of a relationship of unequal power,” Adam notes that online harassment and stalking can go either way: both men and women may be victims or perpetrators of online violence.
Whilst Adam does quote some women who find online environments empowering, the author is of the opinion that this position is only accorded to women from privileged contexts. Rather, she is more convinced that the internet amplifies many stereotyped gender roles. Although I agree with the studies Adam notes which show that the internet does not neutralise gender, (Adam writes that men prefer individual freedom online whilst women tend to interact with common-minded internet users online.) I find Adam’s view of gender online to be rather bleak. The author is very suspicious of online identities, and builds a case for awareness of personal safety, and also calls for attention to be directed towards internet service providers. At the time of the article’s publication, in the US, internet service providers were subject to the same laws as telecommunications providers (therefore, they are NOT held responsible for the content published). This was different to in the UK (where law treats internet providers similar to publishing houses, and who must take responsibility to an extent, for content published online).
Typically, the media only highlights extreme cases of cyber stalking, such as the three examples referenced by Adam, which in all three cases the stalker assumed the identity of the victim, to post perverted comments and thoughts on sex sites and make obscene comments randomly under this assumed identity. In a couple of these cases, the victim’s personal details (address, telephone number) were even posted, which the cyber stalker made public on the internet for other kooks show unwanted attention to the victim. In the cases outlined, I actually thought it was more identity theft than Cyberstalking; before reading this article, I had in mind that Cyberstalking typically involves the stalker seeking information about the victim and then bombarding them with unwanted (threatening) attention.
Those thoughts aside, Adam sets these examples up against the laws outlined above. Whilst the internet is built upon the concept freedom of speech, there is a distinct lack of understanding, research and knowledge about privacy online. Adam ties in the point that traditional separations of the private and public sphere are diminished by the internet, and suggests that (in accordance with feminist ethics, rather than liberalism), there needs to be an “ethic of care” in online communities: “rather than ‘self-protection’, we need to understand the interconnectedness of the effects of the problem.” Therefore, we not only need to stop anti-social behaviours such as Cyberstalking, but we also need to confront the problem at its roots to stop the behaviour from recurring. Using Adam’s feminist reading of Cyberstalking, we become involved in looking at the “nature of relationships between men and women by examining the fundamental structures of the way we organise ourselves in society.” In other words, the communities we create online reflect real society and the ways we interact as people. So I think that just like in everyday life, where we have a duty of care to those around us, on the internet we also need to take an interest in those around us in the online communities that we become invested in.
I think that this article is a bit of a ripper really, because it allows us to talk about that ultimate cyber-stalker’s paradise, Facebook (!!!) and other online networking utilities, like MySpace and Bebo. Adam’s article was written in 2001, before the phenomenal rise of Facebook in the collective consciousness of our own generation, so she doesn’t mention anything of the likes of FB. However I really think it is a legitimate cause for concern: we need to question to what extent such networks really are safe, in spite of the “privacy settings” in place!
SO: some questions to get the ball rolling!
Hello all!!! I’m doing the online tute presentation this week for Alison Adam’s article “Cyberstalking: Gender and Computer Ethics.”
I’m going to follow James’ lead here and just give a brief outline of the main points I found relevant/interesting in the article, and a couple of questions for everyone to comment on afterwards.
The main points of the article:
Firstly, Adam makes the point that “computer ethics” is a newly emerging discipline, which as yet lacks a sufficient body of research. As such a new technological medium, a number of new related social and ethical dilemmas face us: hacking, viruses, copying software, and, most importantly in the case of this article: electronic invasions of privacy.
One of the problems facing the discipline is a split over how to approach these issues: are computer ethics problems new, or are they a new variation of older social problems? The author herself leans towards the latter approach, suggesting that “reading computer ethics problems in the light of existing and older ethical dilemmas has the advantage of connecting information technology to their history.” Adam takes this approach because she doesn’t read the rise of computers and the internet as determinist or inevitable, but instead as “historically rooted”.
As such, Adam suggests that it is beneficial to apply feminist theories to the discipline of computer ethics, and so expose the power relations that are inherently at play within the internet. Whilst the rise of the internet was hailed in the 1990’s as a socially-levelling medium in which gender, age, religion, and race were transcended, Adam instead suggests that the internet has great potential for inequality; and that men and women experience the internet very differently.
Therefore, feminist ethics may be applied as a “fruitful alternative to current directions in computer ethics” in 3 major ways: firstly, feminist ethics counters the predominant theory of internet determinism and secondly offers an alternate to views of the internet as a zone of individualism; and thirdly, reveals the gender and power inequalities that exist online.
How does the internet display power inequalities we ask? According to Adam, there is a huge difference between men’s and women’s access to computers, and their respective usage of the internet. For instance, there have been substantiative statistical studies done on the topic of ethical decision-making online, however Adam suggests that there needs to be more interest regarding the reasons for differences between the way men and women interact online (if any). As such, the author believes that theorists really need to examine the reasons behind why cyber stalking exists, and research possible measures to prevent it, rather than statistically analyse online behaviours.
Adam devotes time also to online sexual harassment as differing to cyber stalking. Using Catherine McKinnon’s definition that sexual harassment is “the unwanted imposition of sexual requirements in the context of a relationship of unequal power,” Adam notes that online harassment and stalking can go either way: both men and women may be victims or perpetrators of online violence.
Whilst Adam does quote some women who find online environments empowering, the author is of the opinion that this position is only accorded to women from privileged contexts. Rather, she is more convinced that the internet amplifies many stereotyped gender roles. Although I agree with the studies Adam notes which show that the internet does not neutralise gender, (Adam writes that men prefer individual freedom online whilst women tend to interact with common-minded internet users online.) I find Adam’s view of gender online to be rather bleak. The author is very suspicious of online identities, and builds a case for awareness of personal safety, and also calls for attention to be directed towards internet service providers. At the time of the article’s publication, in the US, internet service providers were subject to the same laws as telecommunications providers (therefore, they are NOT held responsible for the content published). This was different to in the UK (where law treats internet providers similar to publishing houses, and who must take responsibility to an extent, for content published online).
Typically, the media only highlights extreme cases of cyber stalking, such as the three examples referenced by Adam, which in all three cases the stalker assumed the identity of the victim, to post perverted comments and thoughts on sex sites and make obscene comments randomly under this assumed identity. In a couple of these cases, the victim’s personal details (address, telephone number) were even posted, which the cyber stalker made public on the internet for other kooks show unwanted attention to the victim. In the cases outlined, I actually thought it was more identity theft than Cyberstalking; before reading this article, I had in mind that Cyberstalking typically involves the stalker seeking information about the victim and then bombarding them with unwanted (threatening) attention.
Those thoughts aside, Adam sets these examples up against the laws outlined above. Whilst the internet is built upon the concept freedom of speech, there is a distinct lack of understanding, research and knowledge about privacy online. Adam ties in the point that traditional separations of the private and public sphere are diminished by the internet, and suggests that (in accordance with feminist ethics, rather than liberalism), there needs to be an “ethic of care” in online communities: “rather than ‘self-protection’, we need to understand the interconnectedness of the effects of the problem.” Therefore, we not only need to stop anti-social behaviours such as Cyberstalking, but we also need to confront the problem at its roots to stop the behaviour from recurring. Using Adam’s feminist reading of Cyberstalking, we become involved in looking at the “nature of relationships between men and women by examining the fundamental structures of the way we organise ourselves in society.” In other words, the communities we create online reflect real society and the ways we interact as people. So I think that just like in everyday life, where we have a duty of care to those around us, on the internet we also need to take an interest in those around us in the online communities that we become invested in.
I think that this article is a bit of a ripper really, because it allows us to talk about that ultimate cyber-stalker’s paradise, Facebook (!!!) and other online networking utilities, like MySpace and Bebo. Adam’s article was written in 2001, before the phenomenal rise of Facebook in the collective consciousness of our own generation, so she doesn’t mention anything of the likes of FB. However I really think it is a legitimate cause for concern: we need to question to what extent such networks really are safe, in spite of the “privacy settings” in place!
SO: some questions to get the ball rolling!
- Does the internet need regulation? What sort of laws (if any) are appropriate for a medium whose very foundation is in its capacity to diminish space and create a global online community for sharing and interacting?
- How do you feel YOU interact online: are you comfortable in an online environment, do you think the fact that you have a relative degree of anonymity online changes your interaction (if any) with other users online?
- FACEBOOK: friend or foe? Is Facebook a total invasion of privacy? And again harking back to the “online identities” concept, what facets of your persona do you choose to convey online on your profile?
- Do we have an “ethic of care” for ourselves, our friends, and other internet users? Or is this an impossible concept in an online community of millions? How do the internet communities and relationships we form online reflect those we make in real life?
Happy blogging! (I apologise in advance that this is so long, but I couldn't bear to cut anything out!!) :) Katherine M
18 comments:
Those are some really interesting questions!!!
I'm actually doing a report on net neutrality at the moment, and its interesting reading all these articles for and against it. Most of the stuff I've read has been for net neutrality though - http://www.savetheinternet.com is an obvious place to start.
I think this issue has been a lot more prominent in America - because a lot of big companies over there want to control what information gets to the public. I dont think anyone in the masses would want the internet to be something that depends on money and isps alone though - the internet needs to stay open and free for all to access!!
Also on the point of gender online - one of my friends loves playing online games, but shes forced to use a male avatar coz she cant stand the harassment by male gamers. In this sense I guess gender is kinda stereotyped in cyberspace - because there's this whole stereotype that 'girls don't play video games'.
I definitely think gender stereotypes are more often than not strengthened online through public spaces like Facebook though. The pictures and stuff you post says a lot about you as a person. The whole thing with privacy too - I read somewhere it was really hard to delete a Facebook account. I guess what people don't realize, is that once you upload something - a picture - anything - it can stay floating around on the internet for a very long time if its copied someplace else. In fact its not against copyright to link to someone's picture because its hosted on a server somewhere. So if people dont want dodgy pictures of themselves on the internet, its best not to post them ;)
On a last note, I just wanted to point out a site called 4chan.org - its an anonymous message board system where anyone can post without showing their identity. Because of its anonymity, numerous fads/scandals have arisen from this site. The morality of some of the stuff on that site really questions internet ethics I think - how far is too far? I think the internet definitely changes how people interact online - it gives people more power to express their views and opinions without getting much of a backlash.
Does the Internet need regulation?
I don't dislike the Internet,similar to most people I think the Internet is an invaluable tool filled with an abundant amount of information, but at this point any information one finds on the Internet needs to be questioned. For example many Internet health sites are unregulated.This means anyone who is capable of building a website can be posting information that could literally have life-or-death consequences. I find this very scary.Someone needs to start monitoring the Internet,making sure information is not harmful,dangerous or inaccurate. In response to Cyberstalking, I read this article on a teenage girl in America who was murdered by her Cyberstalker. The man who shot the victim had constructed a website detailing how he had stalked the girl for years,how he felt about her and how much he wanted to kill her. It's not known how many people saw the site,but it was avaliable to the public. The website was perfectly legal and only taken down after the shooting by a company that said they have policies against such sites,but no resources to monitor content. Even more frightening was the fact that the shooter brought information of the Web he needed to track down his victim including the name of her employer and her work address. I believe intense regualtion of the Interent is entirely warrented.
I agree with what you say about the internet and regulation, Jess-Rose.
I touched on this a few weeks ago in the tute with respect to the 'citizen journalists' or something along those lines. I feel there is a danger in relying on this type of information because these type of journalists tend to pop-up online rather than in edited publications. Though many popular edited news sources do succumb to bias and rather subjective reporting, on the internet, as you said, people can more or less write what they want. This may sound great as it promotes freedom of speech and all that jazz, but not everyone will write with the intention of presenting an objective account of the facts. Alternatively, people could push different agendas (smear campaigns, propaganda etc).
As you said there is a need for some sort of censorship. Unfortunately, this seems to be a case of ‘easier said than done’. Opening up content to censorship opens up many different debates about what is real/reliable and what is not. Furthermore, the technical side of it would be a logistical nightmare.
Wow that cyberstalking thing sounds really scary:o! Monitoring the internet is definitely an option...but realistically, it would take an immense amount of work. Plus how do you know you can trust the censors??
I think what makes the internet such a useful medium is the accessibility it gives - basically anyone now can voice their own opinion.
Okay, so there may be dodgy people who have an ulterior motive. And yeah, there is a lot of bias on certain websites too. But there's bias everywhere isn't there? If everything was regulated we'd probably only be looking at one specific view - which kinda degrades the idea of freedom of speech. I just can't imagine a censored internet...too many people with too many different views/cultures to even consider it.
I disagree that someone needs to be monitoring the net. The principle behind the internet is that it is an open forum where you can express any opinion. If someone is out there censoring the internet then it betrays this core principle. I believe the answer lies not in regulating the internet, but educating people on the dangers of the net. Programs through schools where kids use the internet safely, and an older generation who isn't terrified of anything it represents (like some of my teachers), is what we need.
Not internet censorship.
I’m in agreement with Jakki in terms of questioning who would/should have the ability to monitor the net. However I think it’s less about ability and more about power. From a Marxist perspective it could be argued that monitoring the net would be another method utilised by the bourgeoisie to control the proletariat. It could be suggested that white middle class values would be promoted, eliminating the current diversity of views accessible online.
However (I know I’m contradicting myself here , in response to Jess-Rose’s details of the particular site regarding the US teenager perhaps there does need to be a limit to exactly what is allowed online? Arguably a happy-medium which allows freedom of speech without extremities needs to be achieved. Unfortunately I can’t think of such a solution that would please all concerned? Apologies for offering contradictory perspectives!
Just another quick post...
Cyberstalking seems to blur the boundaries between many existing antitheses surrounding the internet. Firstly there is the dichotomy between reality and non-reality (I’m reluctant to use the word fiction as the opposite for reality as this does not seem to accurately reflect online society). Typically offline is synonymous with reality and online with non-reality. However, cyberstalking unites reality with online. If the online arena is unreal how can cyberstalking be anything to fear? Additionally in Adam’s article the examples of cyberstalking she gave ventured out of the online world and into the offline environment in terms of one of the stalkers visiting the house of the victim. Thus this further emphasises the mergence of online/offline, reality/non-reality.
Furthermore the binary of offline and online becomes lessened as one can be punished offline for online crimes. I find this quite a strange concept that boundaries between such supposedly distinct environments can become so blurred. I guess the ultimate question is what is reality? Arguably a question to be raised many times throughout this unit.
A point of interest that unites Adam’s and Jimroglou’s articles is the notion of fixation upon a figure. Adam uses the example of fixation upon a figure of authority as a cause of further cyberstalking. However Jimroglou cites Mulvey who in turn details the preoccupation with the female form. Such preoccupation forms a cult surrounding the viewing of the female body thus creating a fixation. In short, feminists could argue that through the ‘male gaze’ (Mulvey 1988), perpetuated through the media, fixation upon the female body is generated thus endangering women in both an online and offline environment.
Also I agree with you Katherine that I did not initially considering stalking as how it is detailed in the Hitchcock and other examples offered by Adam. I too would have assumed such behaviour as a form of fraud not stalking?
Wow! there are some really great ideas been discussed here :)
The link you included, Jakki for 4chan.org was very interesting- I had not heard of an anonymous message board system, and it would be interesting to have a look!
I think the reading by Deborah Lupton touched on a number of the issues being discussed here. She writes " The user-computer relationship is therefore characterised not only by pleasure and a sense of harmonic blurring of the boundaries between human and machine, but it also inspires feelings of anxiety, impotence, frsutration and fear. There is something potentially monstorous about computer technology in its challenging of traditional boundaries." (page 484)
This fear and unwillingness to trust the internet is definately something that exists within most people. Like the examples people have posted before me, we hear so many horror stories of cyberstalkers etc. Though we still do trust the internet with so much information- from signing up to sites such as myspace and facebook, to entering credit card, employment and address details online.
I don't know if censorship would really prevent this from happening either. I think it is more of an issue of being aware of the risks of the internet, and exercising caution when entering your personal details online.
Facebook- something I'm sure 90% of us use- could be perceived as a cyberstalking tool.
It has the potential for somebodies actions to be monitored quite closely. If you think about the 'tagging' function; if you have abit of knowledge about a person you can see where they were, what they were wearing and what they were doing on a particular night if an album is tagged and includes information about where the photo's are from.
The fact that you can belong to networks also allows everyone in that network to see your page. I was recently made aware that because I'm in the UWA network, everyone who is a part of it can see my profile/pictures....a pretty scarey thought.
I know there is also a 'my events' function which tells all your friends 'james is attending X function on Y date'.
I know they are your 'friends' but some people just accept any friend request because they are looking to network.
I'm not saying it is a tool for stalkers, just pointing out the potential is definately there.
Ps..I am not a facebook stalker and have never used any of these methods :P
auamfAs not much rooms are left, I'd try to briefly discuss 3 or 4 questions raised by Katherine.
Internet regulation:
ALthough some level of regulation are needed, there's never stopped the issues that of computer ethics. Online Sexual harrassment is seldom heard as I am not familiar with workplaces.But there are more offensive when someone to upload others' sexual videos, and thus the victims are not only women but also men as well. This is harmful for one's privacy. I think it should be regulated.
Intreaction in online environment:
The anonymous online surfing did changed our relationshop between other users. In some level, you can concealed your visibility when you are discussing some secret events in a public forum. But as other users didn't know exactly who you are, that seems to be "isolated" from the widely opened public place.(Although you still communicate with other users.)
FACEBOOK: I don't use facebook but definitely I won't be a cyberstalker although I knew how to write computer language.
"Ethic of care": People in online public discussion need to rely on "ethic of care" rather than individual discipline. On the negative side, commenting someone or something in online community without considering the consequence is destructive. I definitely have this experience that bad attitude towards other users in other forum. In my own experience, the people in online community are somewhat lacking of "ethic of care". I found that it's only exist in online space.
Finally, Thanks for Katherine's presentation and she raised some of the interesting questions!
Mmm i definitely agree - people need to be educated about the dangers and implications of broadcasting personal information online. I guess its really up to the user to determine how much of themselves they want to expose..
Cyber-stalking is something I have never personally considered. Yes I will admit that I do on the odd occasions check up on what my friends have been up too but I have never considered that people may be using the information you give out on say myspace or facebook against you.
As discussed above by james baker, I think it is clear that internet sites such as facebook could be used as a cyberstalking tool. While there are privacy settings, I think the extent to which they offer protection is something to be questioned. I know with photo albums, unless you select to only have them viewed by a select group of people anyone in your network can view them. This therefore brings into question the very thought that people may know where you were and perhaps even begin to realise where you go out. I guess the thing I am weary about in terms of facebook is what information I give, I know my friends have on their page their email addresses and mobile phone numbers, which shows how trusting people are when it comes to the internet.
However in terms of laws to regulate the internet i.e. censorship, I am sceptical as to their effectiveness. Firstly if you look to countries that enforce strong censorship laws such as China, it is clear that they do not always work, for example, in a past lecture we saw a Chinese man who writes a blog about the concerning situations of the Chinese people (sorry I cant remember the mans name). Effectively what I am trying to point out is that in a nation such as China, a regular citizen is able to defy there harsh censorship laws so I question the extent to which it could work in say Australia, a country that is significantly different to China.
Cyberstalking is a scary reality that has come with this new technology, but I don't think that we should all call for internet censorship. Don't you think we have enough of that in our lives already? Although the internet is flooded with bombarding advertisments, it is one of the last free speech bastions left. In the US there is a tv show on MSNBC that adresses this issue by luring potential molesting cyberstalkers to the homes of would be prey and they are questioned, degraded on camera, and arrested. I think education, not censorship is one of the solutions to this epidemic. Ergo, I agree with gender constructions being reinforced on the internet. You see it all the time, people being baited by pictures of objectified women scantily clad. Invited to go to another site and give up credit card information. Again, I think educating people on net safety is the way to go here.
Wowee, having not checked the blog since I posted my tutorial presentation I'm stoked that everyone is getting so in to it, and it just got me thinking: isn't this just the ultimate example of how much the internet alters our interactions with eachother! Using the blogging interface as opposed to being face to face in class, we actually have a bit of a dymanic debate going on here, I suppose being online is such a non-confrontational (if that is the correct word) way of articulating our thoughts. It's a bit of a worry actually, I struggle to come up with much in class but put me online and I have a fine old time commenting away.
That little point aside, I just wanted to mention about what Adam says in the article about internet service providers are legally responsible for: it depends alot on the country (I'm not sure if I mentioned this in the tute summary): In the USA, internet providers are bound by the same laws as telecommunications providers (ie- American versions of Teltra, Vodafone etc), and so they aren't held responsible for content that goes up online by users. But in the UK, according to Adam internet providers are treated more like publishers (ie- newspapers, etc), and are held responsible to an extent for the content that goes up. For example, The Guardian newspaper online has been known to pull articles/blogs that it considers offensive/inciting bad things and so on.
I'm not sure what the rules are here in Australia actually.
As much as it is all well and good to say that the service providers should be censoring content, realistically I don't believe it could ever be logistically possible; the amount of things that go up on the net every day, I can't imagine having to sort through and remove undesirables.
Like Tom said, it really comes down to personal responisibility and plain old common sense. And to an extent, Adam's "ethic of care", to make sure those around us aren't silly enough to fall into any online traps.
Interesting discussion, for sure. It is quite awakening to read all these horror stories, and in this context, I feel very naive towards the internet. However, I agree with Ash that Internet should not be under strict regulation, for few reasons. (and many others)
If internet would become strictly regulated, I could imagine that it would be bought into a corporation, or funded/managed by someone who has the power/wealth to decide what can be published according to their interests. The internet would become a one big advertisment/political ideology, and it would not have the similar diversity anymore.
of course,the current form of Internet has it's negative sides, and when it comes to kids for example, i agree again with Ash that Internet education needs to be included in every topic at school. For the rest of us, i still see internet as a thing that does not jump over the computer screen. if it comes too close, you can always turn the computer off. However, referring to my other post regarding Lupton's article, i think that we are currently learning about these things, as they happen.
I think it's also interesting to think the way in which we choose to represent ourselves online. i actually believe that even if we might have an avatar in some online communities, in the end, we always represent our identity as our own. i mean, whatever you do online IS part of your identity, as you choose to do what ever you do. For example, if you have a fake identity on facebook, it might not be you on the photo, but it is still portraying your identity, as you have obviously decided to do so for some reason. ok, i hope this makes sense. i think what i'm getting at is that online is reality as well as offline reality. i don't see a great distinction in that.
Reading this article, I just kept coming back to the fact that it appeared really dated to me. I find this with quite a few of the articles we study - the essence of the idea ia there, but I find it fails to accurately capture the issue in today's context. The internet is such a fast-evolving phenomenon that academic writings on the subject quickly become irrelevant or out-dated. I mean, my relationship with (and reliance on) the internet in, say, 2001 when the article was published, was completely different to what it is today.
As such, Adam's representation of both government and public reactions to the threat of cyberstalking - and the forms cyberstalking actually takes - are now a fairly different ball game.
It is really scary to think how much of our personal information is out there, readily accessed by anyone with the know-how and a bit of luck/opportunity. Similarly, though, we do leave ourselves wide open for such abuse of privacy. For instance, I spy on my little cousins on FB (it's okay, I told them as much - just being nosey) and, in their mid-teens, they seem to have almost no idea of what they should and shouldn't post. The amount of times I've seen that one of them loses a phone and they create a 'group' page for all their mates to post their phone numbers. I find this lack of inhibition weird. Also, the photos? Some of my friends have 500+ up there! Call me uptight, but I just don't want people seeing that much of me. Especially considering some of the shenanigans should never have made it onto a camera in the first place...
Regarding privacy on FB, I believe you can make your site as private as you like (within reason) so that certain "friends" can't access more than your basic info etc. You just have to take the time to change the default privacy settings - which not enough people take the time to do. No one on my network can see my profile unless they're actually a friend of mine and I only invite/accept people I would genuinely like to be sat at a table, having a pint with.
That's two posts where I've mentioned beer.
Hmmm.
Maybe it's time to have a break.
I'll sign off - sorry I didn't say much about the article but it kind of seemed like the discussion was going on a tangent anyway so thought I'd go with it!
In regards to regulation of the internet, like our health and saftey there has to be a point at which we take responsibility for our own situations.
In the same respect as being aware of keeping healthy for instance, it is perhaps our own responsibility to keep ourselves safe online. I can only begin to imagine how difficult it would be for a governing body to regulate the internet and what is available to users. And of course the idea of regulation of the internet begs the question of censorship and freedom of speech. Who would ultimatley decide what can and cannot be seen? There needs to be a greater understanding of information found on the internet and a greater discrection from it's users at to what can be trusted. Too many times have we been feeling ill for example and gone online to check out or symptoms only to find we could infact be dying from a rare disease. Obviously in situations like these, we need to use our brains and remember that not all of the people giving you 'advice' are qualified in any way what so ever!
Social Networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace have indeed created a dangerously accessible way to find out information about other people. But again what we choose to put up on our pages and the information we disclose is ulimatley an individual choice. We know too well how comments and photos can get in to the wrong hands as we have seen happen to a handful of Sporting Heroes. But again, one needs to be savvy about what they make available. The only gripe I do have in regards to this is is other people tagging dodgy photos of you on their page. Then what?
That's a very good article.
I'm a private investigator and I specialize in online infidelity investigations and cyber stalking intervention.
I can appreciate your perspectives
I'd love it if you visit my blog at www.emailrevealer.com and give me some feedback.
I'm always looking for new insights so I can better serve my clients.
Post a Comment