• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Kent Academic Repository Full text document (pdf) Citation for published version Finnemore, Hayley Evans (2020) Negotiating the boundaries of Internet Privacy. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) thesis, University of Kent,. DOI Link to record in KAR https://kar.kent.ac.uk/84401/ Document Version UNSPECIFIED Copyright & reuse Content in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder. Versions of research The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record. Enquiries For any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: [email protected] If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html Exploring the Negotiation of the Boundaries of Internet Privacy Hayley Evans Finnemore Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research September 2020 Word Count: 89,313 Abstract Contemporary discussions around issues of data privacy tend to focus on the potential for data hacks and stolen identities, however, this is not something that many people will need to deal with. Individuals are much more likely to face issues around ‘context collapse’ (Vitak, 2012 p.451) and the daily work involved in negotiating the boundaries of internet privacy. Based on 26 interviews and over three-hundred internet surveys, this thesis examines concerns regarding how respondents feel about how much information they share with companies and online as well as their worries in terms of how much control they believe they have. I demonstrate how concerns tend to be around the contextual nature of privacy (Nissenbaum, 2010), in particular the type of information being shared and who it is being shared with. I make particular use of Raynes-Goldie’s categorisations of privacy in terms of whether it is ‘social’ or ‘institutional privacy’ (p.81), as well as Floridi’s (2005) categorisations of ‘arbitrary’ and ‘ontic’ (p.197/8) information. Today, many believe they have little control over what happens to their data, however that is not to say that they have given up and I argue that small acts of ‘evasion’ and ‘subversion’ (Fiske, 1989 p.2) are employed to avoid sharing information when people do not want to. While these ‘tactics’ (de Certeau, 1988 p.185) can feel empowering to those employing them, ultimately, withdrawing from social media is not easy, particularly given the way in which it has become part of our daily lives. Eschewing social networking sites completely offers greater inconvenience, and potentially a loss of social connection with friends and family, leading to feelings of ambivalence for those opting to take this action. 2 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I owe a debt of gratitude to my participants, who took the time to complete my survey or allow me to interview them, there would be no project without them. A huge thank you also goes to my supervisors – Dr Vince Miller and Prof Adam Burgess, their support and feedback has been invaluable and has greatly improved my thesis. They were also instrumental in persuading me to continue when I was on the verge of giving up. I must also thank Sophie Rowland, Emma Pleasant and Mel Lloyd, without whom this journey would have been a lot less fun, and a lot more difficult. Our WhatsApp group chat has been the source of much encouragement and amusement over the last five years. Thank you to my three newest friends. On a personal note, I would also like to thank my two best friends, Cate Macdonald and Ann Taylor, who were always at the end of a text message, to offer reassurance and remind me that I could do this – even when I didn’t believe it. A special thank you also goes to my parents, Ann and Denis Evans, who, despite not being entirely sure what I’m doing have continued to encourage and support me throughout this journey – I hope I have made them proud. 3 Lastly, I dedicate this thesis to my husband, Andrew, who has been so patient and supportive throughout the last five years – I cannot thank you enough and I hope you know that I appreciate everything you’ve done to support me. On a scale of 1-13, you are definitely an 8. 4 Table of contents Abstract ............................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................. 3 Table of Contents ................................................................................................ 5 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 6 Chapter One: Literature Review ....................................................................... 18 Chapter Two: Methods ...................................................................................... 83 Chapter Three: Standing in the Way of Control ............................................. 116 Chapter Four: Fight the Power ........................................................................ 168 Chapter Five: Context Matters ........................................................................ 218 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 284 Bibliography .................................................................................................... 305 Appendix A: Information Sheet (interviews) ................................................. 329 Appendix B: Consent Form (interviews) ........................................................ 330 Appendix C: Interview Schedule .................................................................... 332 Appendix D: Survey Questions ...................................................................... 335 5 Introduction In June 2013, Central Intelligence Agency sub-contractor Edward Snowden released documents regarding covert surveillance being carried out by the US and UK governments on ordinary citizens (Greenwald, et al., 2013) although it was widely reported on at the time, this was not sustained over a longer period. While I was vaguely aware of his claims at the time, I did not become particularly interested until I saw the film Citizenfour, the following year (CitizenFour, 2014), this film offered further details of the claims made by Snowden and his motivation for releasing the data. After I saw this film, I found it surprising that many of my friends and contemporaries did not appear to be interested or concerned by the claims Snowden had made. This caused a feeling of dissonance for me as I began to consider not only the volume of information I shared on social media but how much those around me were also sharing, seemingly without a second thought. When I spoke to people about Snowden’s claims, many were unconcerned, citing national security concerns as being valid justification for the collection of information by the government. Whilst I understood this argument, it concerned me that there appeared to be such apathy towards the issues highlighted by Snowden and I began to wonder whether I was alone in my concern regarding this. Given the apparent lack of interest from those I knew, my interest waned over time, and I gave the issue less thought, although I did reduce my sharing on social media. However, my interest was reignited late one evening in April 2015, when I saw an episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver which contained an interview with Edward Snowden (Carvell, et al., 2015). While the interview itself 6 was interesting, what was of particular note was that when people on the street were canvased regarding whether they knew anything about Edward Snowden or his claims, many did not know who he was. Regardless of whether they had heard of him or not, many were not worried about the claims that he had made, or what it meant for their data, however this changed when they were presented with a scenario whereby the government could view intimate pictures they had sent to others. At this point, people became much more concerned and/or angry, feeling that their privacy had been violated. This led me to consider the change in attitude that occurred when discussing specific information rather than the broad (and often abstract) notion of privacy itself. It was from here that I came to formulate the outline of my project and consider ways in which I could examine how individuals feel about their internet privacy. It will be useful to pause here to briefly explain what I mean by two key phrases which are used throughout this thesis. When I talk about social media privacy, this is our privacy as it relates to social media sites, broadly in terms of information we share with other users of the site (but potentially also with the owners and/or developers of the site). This definition includes sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. While much of the work in this thesis focuses on social media and our privacy in relation to it, I do not limit myself solely to these sites and so often refer to ‘internet privacy’.

Load more

  356

Copy Link