How the slide-deck has helped me:
Key takeaways from the meeting with Prof. Sloan:
Prof. Sloan's notes on what to improve based on my slide-deck:
Revised research questions / proto-thesis: (in italics what has been added): To what extent are individuals able to access, manage, and control their digital data? Are they aware that big tech companies are continually mining their personal information? What kind of personal information gets tracked? How?Should these big tech companies be, in any case, allowed to mine and sell their data without major restrictions? Is the Notice and Choose policy outdated? Is it a broken system? Is it not? Are capitalistic ideals being used to perpetuate a broken system? Are there any past cases in which something similar took place? To what extent is reform needed in the digital privacy realm? What would this reform entail? Of the proposed solutions, which ones are feasible and which ones are not? Why? How should government intervene, and with which motives (protecting digital privacy vs. surveillance)? To what extent are Big-Tech companies responsible for fixing the system they created? Rough Outline by Information: *Note: I've added and eliminated some sections based on the outline of my first prospectus. Moreover, I've linked the concepts to the sources, and taken note of the ideas/concepts that require more research (***). Finally, at the very end, I've added information/concepts that could add to the conversation but that I haven't yet figured out where they would go in the logical progression of ideas.
Organizing my project through conceptual questions? (using the research questions from above, and separating them based on the specific issue they target): Thematic Key Words: (in italics what has been added)
Hypothetical Essay Prompt: Digital Privacy: A fundamental human right that might be impossible to grant. Lenses:
Annotated Bibliography: 1. Research Paper: "The Digital Privacy Paradox: Small Money, Small Costs, Small Talk" Athey, Susan, et al. “The Digital Privacy Paradox: Small Money, Small Costs, Small Talk.” SSRN Electronic Journal, June 2017, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2916489. "The Digital Privacy Paradox: Small Money, Small Costs, Small Talk" is a research paper written by Susan Athey (professor of economics at Stanford University), Catherine Tucker (professor of management at MIT), and Christian Catalini (professor of Technological Innovation at MIT). This research paper studies the results of MIT's digital currency experiment where undergraduate students were asked about their digital privacy concerns and given $100 worth of Bitcoin. The students were then presented with a series of online privacy decisions, which were incentivized at different levels. Through the examination of this data, the researchers studied how incentives can affect our privacy choices, and how, consequently, the Notice and Choice online privacy system might fall short to the complexity of human psychology. The Notice and Choice model involves, as the name suggests, notifying users about the website's privacy policy and allowing the users to decide whether they engage if the website or not. The following are the three main findings:
This source is particularly useful to me due to its unique type. As a research paper, it provides me with concrete proof of how the Notice and Choice model is broken. Moreover, it explains why the model is ineffective in dealing with the complexities of human behavior. The three findings the study reaches provides me with three different pathways to criticize the Notice and Choice model (the Privacy Paradox, Navigation costs, Uninformed consumers). As mentioned in my initial prospectus, I can apply these three findings to my previous research on Facebook:
2. Scholarly Article: "The Structuration of Digital Ecosystem, Privacy, and Big Data Intelligence" Park, Yong Jin, et al. “The Structuration of Digital Ecosystem, Privacy, and Big Data Intelligence.” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 62, no. 10, Sept. 2018, pp. 1319–1337, doi:10.1177/0002764218787863. This academic article, published in 2018, was written by Yon Jin Park (Professor of communication, culture, and media studies at Howard University), Jae Fun Chung (associate professor of strategic, legal, and management communication at Howard University), and Dong Hee Shin (professor of media and communication at Chung Ang University (South Korea)). The article analyzes digital privacy by understanding privacy as transfers of information between producers and consumers. The article dissects digital privacy, providing a conceptual model to assess how the different stakeholders interact in the digital environment. To do this, it first defines four key takeaways:
This source if very useful to me due to its breadth. In other words, it provides a lot of horizontal integration between key concepts. For instance, the source provides supporting evidence on how the Notice and Choice system is broken, how economics come into play (exploitation of users ("free labour")), and suggest that regulating though code is the way to go ("code is law"). An interesting angle to explore is the degree of power that the users have in the system; the authors mention that while users do not have the power they are not entirely powerless. Another angle to consider is the authors' discussion on how the current model is perpetuating "digital inequalities". Regarding the persuasiveness of the paper, again, as mentioned, the source was written by distinguished academia. It is important to note however, that while the authors discuss technical concepts (algorithms, and even take on case studies on digital tracking), none of the authors appear to have a technical background. While this doesn't discredit the source, when discussing the technical issues the authors bring up, it'll be important for me to both go back to the authors' sources and conduct my own research. 3. Book: Data for the People Weigend, Andreas S. Data for the People: How to Make Our Post-Privacy Economy Work for You. Basic Books, 2017. Data for the People is a book written by data scientist Andeas Weigend, former chief scientist at Amazon and professor in Computer Science at both Stanford and UC Berkeley. The book aims at educating the reader on how the digital economy works, and how one should interact in the digital space. While I haven't been able to read the entire book (*** Area of further research), I've read small sections of it, and am certain of its value to my research. Weigend goes over the social data revolution, refers to the present time-period as the "post-privacy age" (in other words, "privacy is dead" (Weigend)), calls for data literacy, and writes entire chapters that data transparency and data management specifically. As an industry insider, Weigend also explains what Big-Tech companies such as Facebook, Amazon, and Google are actually doing. For example, about Facebook Weigend claims "Facebook identifies how you actually allocate your attention, recording who and what interests you, and how your interest changes over time" (Weigend 79). The fact that Weigend is a distinguished industry insider is extremely valuable for my research; by reading this book, I'll gain the technical knowledge I was after. Regarding a fresh angle, Weigend also explains how data collection not only benefits Big-Data companies, but also common individuals. It might be that Weigend is too much of an idealist, but this is a new angle that'll allow me to gain an alternative opinion on of the issue of digital privacy. Regarding the persuasiveness of the source, apart from the fact that Weigend has direct experience in Big-Data, the recent publication data (2017) makes the content all the more relevant. 4. Article: "Why Data Ownership Is the Wrong Approach When Protecting Privacy" Kerry, Cameron F., and John B. Morris. “Why Data Ownership Is the Wrong Approach to Protecting Privacy.” Brookings, Brookings, 26 June 2019, www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2019/06/26/why-data-ownership-is-the-wrong-approach-to-protecting-privacy/. The article "Why Data Ownership Is the Wrong Approach When Protecting Privacy" was written by Cameron F. Kerry (politician, Harvard BA, Boston College J.D., and expert in technology and governance studies) and John B. Morris (Yale J.D., and expert in technology and governance studies). The article was published by the Brookings Institution very recently, on June 26 of this year. The article's main points is that data should not be thought of as a commodity. The authors argue that data shouldn't be though of as "mine", "yours", or the "firms": "The trouble is, it’s not your data; it’s not their data either [...] Data is not a commodity. It is information" (Cameron and Morris). The authors, however, recognize that users should have "the rights to know, correct, and delete personal information in databases held by others" (Kerry and Morris). The governance experts point out that while the Notice and Choice model does not work, establishing a system which gives users monetary compensation in exchange for their data would probably be detrimental to the users themselves as there would be greater room for exploitation. Instead, they make the case for transparency as the deciding factor in improving the current system. This source is valuable to my research as it hints at potential solutions that are actually feasible to put in place. The authors argue for key adjustments instead of carelessly proclaiming the system as broken and rushing to the conclusion that a completely different one is needed. This source also touches on an angle I haven't explored much: the degree of protection that commercial advertising has under the first amendment: "Commercial advertising [is] within free speech protection on the basis of a strong interest in the free flow of commercial information" (Kerry and Morris). While I'm far from being legally literate, the authors are Harvard and Yale law school graduates, so, a the very least, it's something worth exploring. Finally, regarding the persuasiveness of the article, it is clear that the fact that the authors are Harvard and Yale Law School graduates, that they study governance and technology at the Brookings research institute increase the credibility of the article. On top of this, the recent publication date also adds to this. 5. Opinionated Scholarly Article: "Data Transparency: Concerns and Prospects" Laoutaris, Nikolaos. “Data Transparency: Concerns and Prospects [Point of View].” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 106, no. 11, 2018, pp. 1867–1871., doi:10.1109/jproc.2018.2872313. "Data Transparency: Concerns and Prospects" is a scholarly article written by data scientist Nikolaos Laoutaris. The opinionated article analyzes how digital privacy has evolved over time and how increasing transparency would solve many of the modern problems. Laoutaris goes over pixels and cookies, outlining how tracking can serve users positively (by providing relevant content) and negatively (by obtaining and perhaps releasing sensitive information). Interestingly, he explains how digital privacy suffers from the tragedy of the commons (an economic concept where all entities have access to a common resource, and, as a result, the resource gets exploited as entities act in self-interest). In the case of digital privacy, Laoutaris claims that "consumer privacy and trust in the web and its business models are a shared commons that can be over-harvested to the point of destruction (Laoutaris). As a intended economics major, I'm very excited about delving deeply into digital-privacy through an economic lense. Laourentis also argues that a technological problem can only be tamed by a technological solution: "complex technology can only be tamed by other, equally advanced, technology" (Laourentis). I believe that the idea of using tech to tame other tech could provide the basis for a interesting angle on the issue at play. Moreover, regulating through tech connects nicely with the previously mentioned solution of 'programming as policy'. Finally, regarding the credibility of the source, it is important to note that Laourentis is a research professor at IMDEA Networks Institute in Madrid, has a PhD in computer science from the University of Athens, and has focuses his research in digital privacy and advertising. 6. Elizabeth Warren's proposal to break-up Big-tech: Warren, Elizabeth. “How We Can Break Up Big Tech.” Elizabeth Warren, elizabethwarren.com/plans/break-up-big-tech. The 2020 democratic presidential candidate has proposed to break up Big-Tech. This source explains her reasons for proposing such a controversial solution. Published on her website, the note explains that "today Big-Tech companies have too much power [...] over our economy, our society, and our democracy" (Warren). While from the entire article it seems that the the two driving factor behind her proposal is Big-Tech's influence over politics and their alleged anti-competitive behavior, digital privacy is clearly part of Warren's rationale: "[Big-Tech companies have] used our private information for profit" (Warren). While I've criticized Warren's solution as overly-simplistic, and accused her of being a populist, she does acknowledge the limitations of her solution: "Of course, my proposals today won’t solve every problem we have with our big tech companies" (Warren). By doing so and acknowledging the limitations of her own proposal, Warren makes herself more credible. Moreover as an accomplished professor of Law in bankruptcy it is clear she knows what she's talking about. On another note, I have to admit I'm ideologically challenged as I'm very supportive of capitalism, and splitting firms that have grown — almost — naturally seems wrong. However, firms not respecting people's privacy is as wrong... if not more... I think it would be very interesting to include some of this give and take in my research paper. Moreover, I also wish to examine the charges she imputes on Big-Tech; therefore, I want to delve deep into the legalities of her proposal. I also think that it is important to consider if the Big-Tech industry would even survive such a split-up, given that the Big-Tech revenue model would be shattered to pieces — literally. Perhaps this could lead to some discussion of the 'best-worst' (lack of privacy but access to all of the services provided by Big-Tech vs. privacy but no access to Big-Tech services). On a final note, I also think that it could also be super interesting to consider Warren's proposal as a given, and examine what would be the next steps to take for her proposal to work. 7. Warren's Tweet feed that mentions Facebook: Warren, Elizabeth. “(Facebook)+(from:Ewarren) - Twitter Search.” Twitter, Twitter, 13 Oct. 2019, twitter.com/search?q=%28facebook%29%2B%28from%3Aewarren%29&src=typed_query. This source is Elizabeth's Warren twitter feed that mentions "Facebook"; in other words, it is a Twitter search which filters all of Warren's tweets and only keeps those that have the word "Facebook". While simple, this is an incredibly valuable source; as a primary source I'll be able to have a direct account of how Warren justifies her proposal and analyze it accordingly. These are some of the most important phrases I found in these tweets: "Imagine Facebook and Instagram trying to outdo each other trying to protect your privacy", "Over the past decade, Facebook has spent more than $64 million lobbying our government against policies that protect consumer privacy", "Mark Zuckerberg and his team could work on [...] protecting consumers' privacy instead of Facebook's profit" (Warren). Notice how easily the first and the third tweets can be dismissed if examining Facebook's business model: 1. "Imagine Facebook and Instagram trying to outdo each other trying to protect your privacy": This is never going to happen as both Facebook and Instagram profit from collecting data... not of protecting it. If Warren can find a way for Facebook to make money by protecting consumer data instead of leveraging it then she should replace Zuckerberg as Facebook's CEO. 3. "Mark Zuckerberg and his team could work on [...] protecting consumers' privacy instead of Facebook's profit": Notice how Warren presents the two choices as binary... either Zuckerberg can work on protecting consumer privacy OR Facebook's profits. Either one or the other. Not both. This is at the very least interesting: While I might agree that this relation is in fact binary — if not it's like trying to ride two sources at once — by acknowledging that it's either one or the other Warren undermines her own argument... A for-profit-organization is exactly that — a for-profit-organization — and if it is only able to pursue one thing it'll pursue profits. Without profits corporations cannot survive, so Warren is indirectly proposing to destroy Facebook. It is important to note that I can conduct similar searches with other search terms. This collection of tweets will enrich my discussion on the split-up of Big-Tech. Moreover, by including and analyzing some of Warren's tweets, my research paper will be a more engaging read as it provides fun, current, and relevant content. 8. Zuckerberg leaked audios on Elizabeth Warren: The Verge, The Verge, 1 Oct. 2019, www.theverge.com/2019/10/1/20756701/mark-zuckerbergfacebook-leak-audio-ftc-antitrust-elizabeth-warren-tiktok-comments. This is an invaluable primary source we're lucky to have access to: its Mark Zuckerberg's leaked audio. The leaked audio comes from an internal Facebook meeting on July. Apparently, one of the employees recorded Zuckerberg, and then passed on the audio to The Verge. The news site then published the actual audio of the highlights along with a full transcript of the entire recording. Zuckerberg call-out Elizabeth Warren for thinking that "the right answer is to break-up the companies" (Zuckerberg / The Verge). Zuckerberg goes further saying that "if she gets elected president [he] would bet [they] would face a legal challenge and [he] would bet [they] would win that legal challenge". Zuckerberg justifies his position by recognizing that while he "doesn't want to face a major law suit from [their] own government" and that "that's not a position [they] want to be in [as they] care about [their] country and want to work with [their] government", he argues that "if someone is going to challenge something that existential you go to that mat, and you fight" (Zuckerberg / The Verge). Considering Zuckerberg is speaking to a crowd he trusts, this source is even more valuable. Not only is the Facebook founder speaking his mind, but he is not biting his tongue at all. This makes the content of the audio incredibly relevant and credible. 9. Scholarly Article: Privacy-Preserving and Advertising-Friendly Web Surfing Sánchez, David, and Alexandre Viejo. “Privacy-Preserving and Advertising-Friendly Web Surfing.” Computer Communications, vol. 130, 2018, pp. 113–123., doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2018.09.002. (summary and research advancement on the previous prospectus). This scholarly article is written by David Sanchez and Alexandre Viejo, both of which are professors of computer science at Rovira i Virgili University. The researchers propose and test a system that gives the users more control over what data can be tracked by businesses without undermining these businesses' revenue models. The article acknowledges that current tools to increase digital privacy such as Adblock Plus and Ghostery effectively protect users, but completely dismantle current businesses' model. This would lead to the rise of unintended consequences such as an increase in "freemium" and "subscription" models. Moreover, after analyzing the advertising model and the current problems within the digital environment, Sanchez and Viejo propose to find middle ground between internet users and big tech, allowing users to have control over what big tech companies are able to track... yet getting tracked up to a certain extent. The researchers tested this system and proved it could be successful, ultimately concluding that the next step is to "evaluate our system with end users in real scenarios" (Sanchez and Viejo). As one of the few solutions that I've found that has been proposed by academia within the field, this sources will serve me well by helping me ground the solutions I propose. Moreover, as the article mentions, "the work done in this field [testing a system that can conciliate the users' rights to privacy and the companies' need to advertise] is scarce, and almost all efforts so far have focused on designing and implementing very restrictive ad blocking tools" (Sanchez and Viejo). As such, this article will advance my research given it is one of the very few sources I have found that tests a solution to the digital privacy problem. Regarding the credential of the researchers, as stated, both are professors of computer science. On top of this, they've written various papers about web-services, digital privacy, and cloud-computing. 10. Academic Article: "Is the Market for Digital Privacy a Failure: Fuller, Caleb S. “Is the Market for Digital Privacy a Failure?” Public Choice, vol. 180, no. 3-4, 2019, pp. 353–381., doi:10.1007/s11127-019-00642-2. (summary and research advancement on the previous prospectus). “Is the Market for Digital Privacy a Failure?” is an academic article written by Caleb Fuller which examines the issue of digital privacy from an economic stand-point by analyzing digital privacy in terms of market failure. To do so, it discusses and adds to the ongoing debate on issues such as the digital privacy paradox, information asymmetry amongst the internet users, and externalities arising from the collection and selling of personal data. Fuller conducted a survey to explore these issues. He reaches two main conclusions. Number 1. That no privacy paradox may exist at all: "There may be no need to explain a "privacy paradox" than to explain why consumers might express preferences for higher quality goods, but subsequently and regularly fail to demonstrate that preference in their purchasing behavior" (Fuller). He explains: "Stating a verbal preference incurs no opportunity cost; action necessarily does" (Fuller). Number two. While regulating the digital industry has gained popularity, this popularity is unfounded. He argues that there is "little consensus on how government ought to regulate digital privacy," and that many of the issues present in the digital environment are also present in the physical environment (in other words, there are no good reasons for regulation). This is one of the most valuable articles I have found. Aside from considering the topic of digital privacy from an economic perspective, this article goes against the current 'there is a problem' --> 'we need to fix it' current. As such, this article provides me with a completely fresh angle: I will be able to use this article to further complicate my argument by identifying 'not so simple... and yet' and exploring various counter-arguments. Regarding the credentials of Caleb Fuller, he's an assistant professor of economics at Grove City College and a George Mason University Law School's program on economics and privacy. He's written various articles on economics and the economics of privacy. Other sources worth noting: Digital Privacy: Scholarly Article discussing the difference between the social and individual approaches to privacy: Becker, Marcel. “Privacy in the Digital Age: Comparing and Contrasting Individual versus Social Approaches towards Privacy.” Ethics and Information Technology, 2019, doi:10.1007/s10676-019-09508-z. Notice and Choice: Opinion column critique about the Notice and Choice model: Warzel, Charlie. “Privacy Is Not Your Responsibility.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Sept. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/09/17/opinion/alabama-app-privacy.html. Critique for data as a commodity: News article: Marr, Bernard. “Here's Why Data Is Not The New Oil.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 5 Mar. 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2018/03/05/heres-why-data-is-not-the-new-oil/#50a46aed3aa9. Calculator: Locke, Callum, et al. “How Much Is Your Personal Data Worth?” Financial Times, Big Tech: News article calling for action: “The World's Most Valuable Resource Is No Longer Oil, but Data.” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, 6 May 2017, www.economist.com/leaders/2017/05/06/the-worlds-most-valuable-resource-is-no-longer-oil-but-data. News article with opposing perpsective: cite! https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-is-a-giant-but-bigness-isnt-a-crime-1537534900 Article against Big-Tech split up: Given, Casey. “Big Tech Is More Competitive than Elizabeth Warren Thinks.” Washington Examiner, 13 Mar. 2019, www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/big-tech-is-more-competitive-than-elizabeth-warren-thinks. Potential Solutions: Ted Talk on Cryptography: Dubovitskaya, Maria. “Take Back Control of Your Personal Data.” TED, TED, www.ted.com/talks/maria_dubovitskaya_take_back_control_of_your_personal_data#t-585148 Ted Talk A-commerce: Banta, Derek. “What If Our Data Could Be Protected Online?” TED, TED, www.ted.com/talks/derek_banta_what_if_our_data_could_be_protected_online.
0 Comments
Library Exercise #1: Library Exercise #2: 2a. Rough Brainstorming:
2b. News Articles: News Articles Provided by Prof. Sloan:
Research Paper Found:
Academic Articles Found:
The Digital Privacy Paradox: Small Money, Small Costs, Small Talk Athey, Susan, et al. “The Digital Privacy Paradox: Small Money, Small Costs, Small Talk.” SSRN Electronic Journal, June 2017, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2916489. Summary: This research paper studies the results of MIT's digital currency experiment where undergraduate students were asked about their digital privacy concerns and given $100 worth of Bitcoin. The students were then presented with a series of online privacy decisions, which were incentivized at different levels. Through the examination of this data, the researchers studied how incentives can affect our privacy choices, and how, consequently, the Notice and Choice online privacy system might fall short to the complexity of human psychology. The Notice and Choice model involves, as the name suggests, notifying users about the website's privacy policy and allowing the users to decide whether they engage if the website or not. The following are the three main findings:
How it will advance my research: This research paper will advance my research in various ways. First, as a research paper with three major findings, it provides me with three alternatives I could further examine for my project. Moreover, I can easily connect these three findings to my previous research on social networks. For example, specific to Facebook:
Privacy in the Digital Age: Comparing and Contrasting Individual Versus Social Approaches Towards Privacy Becker, Marcel. “Privacy in the Digital Age: Comparing and Contrasting Individual versus Social Approaches towards Privacy.” Ethics and Information Technology, 2019, doi:10.1007/s10676-019-09508-z. Summary: This academic article, published in July 2019, discusses the recent development of digital privacy, focusing its analysis on the two approaches to privacy: the individual approach to privacy and the social approach to privacy. The article first acknowledges how digital privacy has been progressively undermined, considering the consequences of past progress (social networks) and the risks of current developments (the cloud and big data). As such, it explores how the social and the individual approaches to privacy can be employed to address this problem. The individual approach to privacy is centered on a person's choices, autonomy, and environment. The social approach to privacy considers privacy as a multidimensional social phenomenon that regulates social interactions and human relationships. It ultimately concludes by explaining why, in the digital age, the social approach is more appropriate. In this respect, Becker argues that when privacy is about the access to data that can flow between stakeholders (individuals, businesses, governments, etc), the social approach to privacy is more precise as it engulfs all of these entities. How it will advance my research: Given the recent publication date and the fact that it focuses on how the debate regarding privacy has evolved, this article will allow me to join the academic conversation in an up to date manner. Moreover, I could potentially examine the digital privacy problem under both the individual and the social frameworks, first starting with the individual definition of privacy, and then incorporating the social definition of privacy to delve deeper and further complicate the conversation. The Structuration of Digital Ecosystem, Privacy, and Big Data Intelligence Park, Yong Jin, et al. “The Structuration of Digital Ecosystem, Privacy, and Big Data Intelligence.” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 62, no. 10, Sept. 2018, pp. 1319–1337, doi:10.1177/0002764218787863. Summary: This academic article, published in 2018, analyzes digital privacy by understanding privacy as transfers of information between producers and consumers. The article dissects digital privacy, providing a conceptual model to assess how the different stakeholders interact in the digital environment. To do this, it first defines four key takeaways:
How it will advance my research: This article will advance my research by helping me understand how the different stakeholders of the digital environment interact. Moreover, the numerous real-world recent case studies will allow me to have a clearer picture of the current environment and perhaps give a glimpse into where the industry is heading. Examination of how different authors examine the topic from different angles: The authors tackle the concept of digital privacy from different angles. Susan Athey uses the results of an MIT experiment on digital currencies to examine the digital privacy paradox. Marcel Becker is more theoretical; he goes over the two logical frameworks for understanding privacy (the individual and the social), argues for the merits of both, and ultimately concludes that in today's digital age the social approach is more appropriate. On the other hand, Jin Yong Park tackles the issue of digital privacy with a mixture of theory and real-world applications. Park first defines digital privacy and the roles of the stakeholders participating in the digital ecosystem, and then uses real world case studies to develop his arguments. Library Exercise #3: I initially went to the library with only five books in mind, of which only three were listed as available on OskiCat. However, by searching for books with similar cal numbers, I was able to gather a total of nine books. Library Exercise #4: Prospectus Reflection: Friday, October 4: After almost a week of exploring the topic of digital privacy, my research question has evolved to: To what extent are individuals able to access, manage, and control their digital data? Are they aware that big tech companies are continually mining their personal information? Should these big tech companies be, in any case, allowed to mine and sell their data without major restrictions? Is the Notice and Choose policy outdated? To what extent is reform needed in the digital privacy realm? While I've been unable to synthesize them into a sentence or two, it's a lot more specific than the prompt I used for my discussion post. Moreover, as I overlaid each question onto the next, I identified how everything comes together: policy reform. In this sense, my project could start with the problem of digital privacy, exploring it through different lenses (individual approach of privacy versus social approach of privacy). Once the basics of the problem are outlined, I could then progressively move into exploring possible solutions (policy reform), by taking on real-world case studies. Below you can see a mind-map of this thinking: The fact that policy reform in the digital world is an ongoing debate makes the topic all the more relevant. Mark Zuckerberg's hearing at Congress is ultimately a debate about the degree of power big-tech firms should have. In the 10 hour hearing, Mark Zuckerberg left a series of important quotes I explored in my previous discussion post:
Saturday, October 5: The following are the texts that intrigue me the most (summary for the ones I already summarized is not repeated):
The texts generally agreed that:
Planned research:
Sunday, October 6: Revised searchable thematic keywords (concepts):
Conceptual Questions: Throughout this essay, I plan to explore if big data firms should be regulated, and if so, up to what extent should they be controlled. As such, I first plan to explore if the current method for digital privacy (Notice and Choice) is appropriate, analyzing its benefits and limitations. From there I plan to consider what other models could be employed to replace the Notice and Choice model, what kinds of regulations could be set in place, if these would be beneficial, and if greater transparency could be reached. This framework can be divided into the following conceptual questions:
Hypothetical essay prompt: Digital Privacy: A fundamental human right that's practically impossible to grant. Mapping information and key points into lenses: Rough outline:
Exercise #5: Scholarly Sources:
Privacy-Preserving and Advertising-Friendly Web Surfing:
Exercise #6: Primary Sources:
|