“I’m Watching You, Wazowksi! Always Watching:” Cybersecurity in an Online World
To begin, I’d like to discuss the example/case study that I found that relates to this week’s topics. In a Forbes’ article titled “Why You Suddenly Need to Delete Google Chrome” by Zak Doffman, Doffman outlines a recent issue in the realm of cybersecurity and invasions of privacy. Doffman writes, “Google has ignored security warnings and launched a new Chrome API to detect when you are idle.” This is a major concern into digital privacy, especially into behavioral tracking. With this new API, Chrome can learn when you are not paying attention to your computer and gain information about your Internet habits. There are many times when I will be working on a paper or reading an article for class and I have to step away from my computer. To know that Chrome may be taking advantage of this time away from my computer feels like a major invasion of privacy since the probe for information has transgressed beyond the digital world into the physical. As I was reading through the reading material for this week’s module, I felt a heavy focus was placed on the way individual apps or sites track information. I think this article poses a great reminder that a lot of these apps are owned by larger conglomerates, highlighting the fact that even a search engine can track as much information, or more, than an individual app or site. This is extremely relevant to our discussion on digital privacy and tracking.
When I was going through the Pew Research Center report, I was surprised to find how torn the pool of survey respondents were on the effect of the algorithms — 38% said the positives will outweigh the negatives and 37% said the negatives will outweigh the positives. It goes to show how controversial this topic can get. Perhaps it was due to contextual framing but I thought that a vast majority of respondents would have said that algorithms were going to have a negative effect for individuals and society. This really made me think about what people are willing to compromise for the ease and efficiency that algorithms offer. Is the sacrifice of your personal information worth it in exchange for the benefits of algorithms? In one sense, algorithms can be seen as an extreme invasion of privacy and a form of boundary-crossing. On the other hand, algorithms allow for user-centered digital experiences that save on time and effort. Now, I don’t aim to make any conclusions but it seems that a fair amount of people are okay with compromising their personal information for efficiency. I guess I am still figuring out where I stand on the issue and how I feel about the positives and negatives of algorithms. Sometimes it can be hard to talk and think about things that we know are there but don’t always recognize and take for granted in many ways.
When it comes to reading Terms and Conditions, I fit into the “mistaken” group (according to Shakar Vendantam) who skips over it all. This has always been something that I have been conscious about in regards to it not being the best idea. I will skim the Terms and Conditions but have never performed a thorough reading (until I read Medium’s Terms for this week’s module). When signing up for an app or website, the process usually goes super fast until you reach the Terms and Conditions — it makes the whole process feel so serious. In reality, this is a good thing. Signing up for a website or application is a very serious thing since you are engaging with a medium to present yourself online (in some form and to some extent). One thing that I found a bit comical when reading through the NPR article was when David Greene mentioned how many apps will require you to engage with the Terms and Conditions (eg. scrolling all the way down, opening a separate webpage, etc.) before allowing you to check the box, confirming that you read it and agreeing to the Terms. I find this so interesting because it shows explicit and deliberate attempts on part of the app to coerce consumers to actually read the Terms and Conditions. Yet, it still doesn’t seem to work. Tying this back to a question I raised in my previous paragraph, how far are individual willing to sacrifice to reap the benefits of the Internet? This extra step of confirmation (similar to that of two-step verification) adds another layer of seriousness to the Terms and Conditions but still doesn’t seem to “scare” consumers into really reading it, even if they are signing over their first-born child.
