Reading Response 1

Natasha Hightower
Nov 1 · 4 min read
Photo by Kai Brame on Unsplash

There is no clear line between the importance of digital privacy and the commodification of personally identifiable information in a digital capitalistic society.

There are many aspects to digital spying and data collection that must be addressed when it comes to using personal identification and personally identifiable information. What is more important, people maintaining personal privacy and security, or the free flow of useless information that can better serve the overall economy? Is there a way which we can make a definitive choice as to what is more important?

According to Sarah Myers West (2019), the market has been cornered on consumer information with the use of algorithmic modeling and the tracking of cookies. This information is used by the internet companies to create a selling product in the consumer themselves, by selling the background of the individual to those who would want to better know who they’re dealing with. The internet companies have created this technology sector, where the flow of this information could be used to make more money. The issue with this, according to West, is that data capitalism is limited by the boundary created when people begin to wonder whether privacy should be considered more important.

Matthew Crain (2018), states that the commodification of personal information is the limit which prevents total transparency. He makes the same point to the boundary between information commodification and personal privacy importance that was made by West but places the emphasis on the opposite end. Whereas West confronts the issue as a capitalistic venture which is hindered by those wanting to maintain privacy, Crain puts out the importance of privacy is being held back by those who consider the monetary value of the information to be more important. According to Crain, those who make their profits off the data brokering cannot maintain their way of life should they give all access to personal data back to the consumers (Crain, 2018 p.89). This issue is deep, as the creation of international corporations has created a market that spans the globe and the rules of individual countries regarding the information is different between each one. As laws in countries differ on the same situation based on the philosophy of each nation, the creation of a singular law to protect everyone is unreasonable. Likewise, the level which information is bought, sold and transferred involves many layers. Quoting Mott (2014), Crain states that thousands of companies of various sizes generate some $200 billion in annual revenue (Crain, 2018 p.90).

Danah Boyd (2014), makes the point that the youth now needs to be constantly fed new information in order to maintain or increase their digital literacy. The digital environment created by the technology companies has made a lifestyle for the children that sees them gaining massive amounts of information and require a constant source in order to allow them the chance to grow. This information collection that is created by the information corporations creates that necessary data flow. Most of the people, according to Boyd, have little training in being critical of the content which they consume (p. 181). This points to the requirement of gaining new information being more important to the privacy of said information. Had the importance of personal information been pivotal, then the commodification of said information may not have become as valuable as it exploded to be.

John Green, of Crash Course explains the complexity of the digital world which we find ourselves in, as there are always new aspects to find such as the boundary between privacy and the freedom to use information for commercial use. He also makes the same assumption that was made by Boyd, in that the difference between the young and the old reveals the gap in being able to utilize new technologies. The young are more likely to easily adapt and use different forms of technology than those who are older when the technology comes out. John also points out the barrier of information availability in areas with little or no access to the internet.

There isn’t a specific method of using information online, which leads to a disconnect between what people believe is more important: the privacy of individuals, or the ability for the market to make use of information in order to sell things designated as being important to those individuals. There is a cross in what is considered more important, and the decision of the individual with that information in hand will end up being what sets the result in the future. As future generations grow and evolve to better use the ever-changing technology, they will be the ones to choose which is more important.

Resources:

CrashCourse. (2019, January 8). Introduction to Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #1. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLlv2o6UfTU.

Crain, M. (2016). The limits of transparency: Data brokers and commodification. New Media & Society, 20(1), 88–104. doi: 10.1177/1461444816657096

Boyd, D. (2014). Its complicated: the social lives of networked teens. Choice Reviews Online, 51(12). doi: 10.5860/choice.51–7042

West, S. M. (2017). Data Capitalism: Redefining the Logics of Surveillance and Privacy. Business & Society, 58(1), 20–41. doi: 10.1177/0007650317718185

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade