My Thoughts on the ideas of O’Donnell, Willinsky, Engalls, Bates and Klassen
Contemplating the depth of the choices we make on daily basis concerning the use of technology can become a psychologically overwhelming task, therefore it is no surprise that many may choose not to consider the implications of these choices. O’donnell (1999) makes a powerful point by using the example of our acceptance of a fourty thousand death toll per year in exchange for the convenience of driving at fifty miles per hour. Considering this statistic every time one begins to drive can be very unpleasant as can the detailed reading of an agreement we sign every time we mindlessly click “Agree” at the end of a long text we quickly scroll through while we eagerly await the quick download of a new application on our smartphone. As O’donnell proposes, the negative consequences deserve conscious and careful consideration which may be problematic for individuals to carry out when trying to maintain the pace of life currently set by the media and every day practice of most technology users.
Aside from sharing private information through technology due to our own negligence, we may also fall victim to the change of laws and regulations governing the sharing of private information in our country and other countries to which our information is passed. As new technology is integrated with the old (Engalls, 1999) and as the laws of the country governing the server we are using on the world wide web change we become even further affected by multiple factors that are often well beyond our control. I felt a sense of nostalgia while reading Bate’s commentary on Klassen’s “Cloud-based educational technology and privacy.” Only four years ago, Bates expressed gratitude for the freedom of expression and strength of privacy laws in British Columbia. He stated “I want to be free to be able to discuss the reasons that drive terrorists to murder without being put on a no-fly list without appeal.” Event today, many Canadians express similar views, however the recently passed Bill-C51, may prevent many Canadians from enjoying these freedoms in the years to come.
Considering the multiple opportunities to share afforded by technological advancements, it is interesting to note the opposite movement in terms of restrictions on freedom of expression and a decrease in the strength of privacy laws in Canada. These recent changes in Canadian law also create a necessity for Canadians to become familiar with the laws of other countries governing the servers of the websites they may be using or to which they may be releasing private information indirectly due to the changes in Canadian law. The inter-connection of the world-wide web not only affords access to information around the world, but also creates a necessity for users to be aware of restrictions and laws around the world. This becomes important when considering education and calls for global engagement in research and pressing public issues at all levels of education (Willinsky, 2002). Technology affords plenty of opportunities, however the implications of its use are multidimensional and demand education about rights and freedoms, global internet censorship and media literacy at the university, high school and perhaps even the elementary level. In my opinion, anyone using technology needs to become well educated on these issues prior to independent engagement with any technological devices.
Bates, T. (2011, 25 March). Cloud-based educational technology and privacy: A Canadian Perspective. [Weblog entry.]
O’Donnell, J. and Engalls, J. (1999). Cambridge Forum Radio Broadcast. Audio recording.
Government of British Columbia. (2014). Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Victoria, BC: Queen’s Printer.
http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/96165_00
Government of Canada. (2015). Bill C-51: Anti-terrorism Act 2015. https://openparliament.ca/bills/41-2/C-51/
Klassen, V. (2011). Privacy and Cloud-Based Educational Technology in British Columbia Vancouver, BC: BC Campus.
http://www.bccampus.ca/files/2013/08/Background-Paper-Privacy-and-Ed-Tech.pdf
Willinsky, J. (2002). Democracy and education: The missing link may be ours. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 367-392.
Hi Valentyna!
Thank you for your take on privacy laws. Certainly, every new technology adds a layer of discussion, and that is great, as long as it is open and sincere, like any other discussion. Interestingly enough, we seem to understand “internet laws” as special of different than any other law or regulation, and we seem to apply the same criteria for many things. We do things online that we would never do offline, for instance.
So, following up with your remarks I want to point your attention to a commentary recently published about Mark Zuckerberg. The main point that this piece discusses is the fact that the CEO of Facebook declared “the end of privacy” back in 2010, and yet, he recently invested 100M USD in gaining privacy for himself and his family.
What do you think? Are these two different kinds of privacy?
http://boingboing.net/2015/05/21/mark-zuckerberg-just-dropped-a.html
Hi Ernesto,
Thank you very much for sharing the links regarding Zuckerberg’s privacy. I do think that these are two different kinds of privacy. One’s presentation online (especially a public figure and a millionaire) may not necessarily be a reflection of one’s private thoughts or behaviour whereas behaviour within the home is personal and private. Most people are slowly becoming aware that any communication online, even if private, is slowly becoming a public medium and when writing or expressing views or sharing images online, one must consider that the audience observing these images or expressions could potentially exceed the size of an audience observing a mainstream media broadcast. Thus any online expression may potentially become a public expression.
Although the motivation for Zuckerberg decision to change the privacy policy of Facebook may not be based on the reasons that he presents publicly, he does make a valid statement when noting a change in culture and a tendency for people to share more information publicly than ever before.