Lights, Camera, Privacy!
Actress, Artist & Model Stephanie Corneliussen Chats with Papercut about Privacy & Celebrity
Photographer: Christian Blanchard at ADB Agency
Stylist: Mike Adler at ADB Agency
Hair: Di Dusting at Photogenics ARMY using Oribe
Makeup: Fidel Gonzalez at Photogenics ARMY using Kevyn Aucoin
Manicurist: Chi Phans
PAPERCUT: So we’re gonna start this Interview the way most people start a conversation on surveillance….Google. lol. More specifically Youtube (owned by Google). I found a clip of you talking about a Twitter experience where someone was telling people to burn you. Tell me more about this story. What happened? talk about what you did and did you ever hear from the person again?
STEPHANIE: In all fairness, and by no means am I condoning any incitement of bodily harm — but I do believe it was the poor chaps attempt of ‘sass’. We don’t call it that today, we call it trolling. However, morbid and misguided humor aside, that incident turned out to be a pivotal point in my online experience.
The story goes: At the height of Mr. Robots’ season one, I decided to ‘live tweet’ with the fans during an episode. The “chat” if you will, offered exciting observations from fans and at one point a user directed me to this guy’s Twitter page, with the ominous message: “whoa, you should really see this.”
2 glasses of Chardonnay in, my interest peaked and I landed on his face- and nameless page, filled with unaddressed threads of threats toward my person. In my time on social media I’ve never experienced any ill-will. This was a first and while I could’ve chosen to ignore it, I found myself engrossed in what best be described as a ‘massacre fantasy list’ toward myself and other celebrities, as I wasn’t the only female he wished to burn at the stake. I followed protocol and reported him to Twitter.
Alas, I couldn’t leave it be; his iniquitous display invoked my inner vigilante and the wine — my secret alacrity of a good scuff. I went in deep, scrolling through messages and media posts dating over a year back until I found a screenshot of a tidbit of personal information. Now, the internet is a marvelously scary place for digging up information and within minutes I knew… pretty much everything about him. Including his home address. Now that I had gone from witch to troll, I produced a photo of his residence by help of our friends at google earth and sent it to him. From my account. No response, however I was swiftly blocked, but to no prevail as moments later Twitter deactivated his account. Fairytale ending. Then reality followed, and I spoke of the incident on Chelsea Handler, which resulted in me obtaining collective amnesty by trolls online. I can’t help but to wonder how different my social media experience had been, had I not acted as I did.
PAPERCUT: You also deactivated your Twitter account, which is something that many celebrities do. Why did you decide to deactivate your account? Was this to maintain more privacy or to avoid the trolls? Both? Do you intend to go back on it?
STEPHANIE: Neither. Twitter, which I believe was intended to function as a global scale communication service, has become less of that and more of an absolute cesspool of unfounded opinions. Whether you choose to apply the available measures of protection or not, the negativity still manages to seep through. In your feed, in comments, in a subliminal margin that your conscious mind may choose to ignore, but your subconscious mind still registers. Twitter was affecting my mental health. I’ve been happy without it. I don’t miss it and I don’t see myself going back.
PAPERCUT: Let’s talk about Celebrity Culture. On the one hand, every actor when they start out wants so badly to be famous, but then when it hits, they realize the first downside is the lack of privacy. Paparazzi follows you everywhere and strangers are constantly capturing your every move. What are your thoughts on this? How have you dealt with this? And have your thoughts evolved since you started as an actor till now?
STEPHANIE: Whether actors want so badly to be famous, I think is a broad generalization. Artists want to be recognized for their talents. Fame follows. My exposure to celebrity culture has been modest — possibly a byproduct of portraying stark raving mad characters. Even though social media today offers a unique insight into the actors lives, people still fall in love with the character; the first exposure. I find that people are generally reserved when they encounter me, and approach me slightly differently than they do my colleagues. I’ve only had good experiences. Same goes for the paparazzi. But ultimately, being Danish, I figure that my general conduct and self permitted exposure to that side of the business may be slightly different as well. I have no interest in being page six news.
PAPERCUT: Following this up, and this goes back to your super stalker who wanted to burn you, while it does seem like we’re always being watched, it also feels like we don’t we care? We all post on social media, wear tracking devices, etc. Having played a great role on the Surveillance themed Mr. Robot, where do you stand on the privacy vs. security argument and why?
STEPHANIE: The current discussions about “privacy vs. security” are all social media related — and while Mr. Robot is about hacking and intrusion, the concept of privacy really deserves a broader perspective. The dictionary will tell you that privacy is the right to protect yourself and your personal life from others prying on you; this was a constitutional right long before the internet. Basically, the very foundation of democracy along with free speech and other privileges any citizen in a free country have.
Before the internet and social media, it pertained to privacy of physical letters, public records and personal information being kept secure and only police/federal institutions could access those databases by court order. No private corporation nor individual could do that.
Now, with a digital infrastructure it’s so easy to access information with no real cost attached, and collect enormous amounts of data.
The pre-Internet legislations still apply to both privacy and security in our digital age with regards to emails, public records etc., but the information or data you willingly put forth, is now being recorded by private corporations by use of algorithms and AI; your logging traffic, your conduct, what you search for, read, buy, and even review and comment on — it is all available to someone and sold for different purposes, to someone else. It’s become big business. Advertising business. And while you can call this kind of advertising, with the cookies and the tracking, part of the new digital norm, you have to realize that you are in fact, permitting it yourself.
Privacy on the internet is an illusion. Privacy is now a question of trust in those who “own” your personal information and all the data tracks you leave behind and ultimately your concern should be, what these “owners” do with it. With the recent scandal surrounding Cambridge Analytica and Facebook, it seems that they do whatever they want and for any purpose like influencing politics in the US election and UK’s Brexit campaign.
So who are these “owners”, these corporations and does the legislation that regulate these services in the analogue world even apply to social media and global networks? Had it been the government running these services, we could easily have had a democratic and ideological political debate about privacy and surveillance, but it’s not, so what kind of debate should we be having? And with whom?
The really scary thought is that without forming an understanding on digital privacy and security, how will we handle what comes next? For argument’s sake, let’s turn to the subject of genetics and robotics, what if you combine those ever popular DNA tests, where we all so willingly offer up our genetic codes and cross reference it with our digital footprints and observable behavior? That’s your entire person recorded. What privacy or security protects that? Just like the subject of climate change, this concern requires a collective global effort and participation.
PAPERCUT: Last question on this topic. Europe has a very different view on privacy and security than America does. You were of course born in Denmark, so what are the big differences between your experiences in the US vs Europe. What are the positives and negatives of each.
STEPHANIE: The EU recently passed a law on the right to privacy. The short version is: who owns the data and what can the data be used for. It’s called the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and stipulates that all corporations and institutions on the internet must actively inform the user of the purpose of cookies and data collecting, and must also inform how they intend to contain and protect the use of personal information. Now, this entails that any individual can ask to see what data they have stored and can ask the institutions/corporations to delete it. Ultimately, it also means that the individual can trade the data for money, meaning: you can actually be paid for the use of your personal information, if it’s sold on.
Transparency is a particular difference between Europe and the US. That applies to more areas, such as news and media. Denmark’s public service media is both well trusted and transparent, as well as most commercial media outlets and we are neither naive nor Machiavellian as many other regions in the world. In my country, we fact check everything. But we also use social media and thus fall subject to fake news and trolling. However, I believe that Danes are quite capable of distinguishing between real and fake. It’s part of our cultural heritage and our education system being a modern social welfare state with free education and free health care.
Though I hold a green card to work and live in the US, I am actually a guest in your country — and being Danish I am often surprised of how many differences there are. While personal success and capital is regarded much higher in the US and the cost of living is much lower, much of your agenda on basic human rights and the notion of personal freedom, are already implemented in our daily behavior in Denmark, and the US seem twenty or thirty years behind our notion of social rights. Politics differ as well.
A few examples of differences: The average college student is paid approximately $1000 a month to attend University in Denmark, with free tuition. The average American college student, whether public or private pays between $3500-$32,000 to obtain an education.
We have 7 major political parties in Denmark representing 5.7 million people. There are 2 major political parties representing 328 million people in the US.
According to recent data, the average cost of a hospital stay in the US exceeds that of $10,000. In Denmark that amount would be $0.
PAPERCUT: Let’s switch it up. Lol. You were recently named a rising talent to watch. All, which is awesome to get industry recognition, but personally how would you assess your career so far. What have you enjoyed the most, highlights, lowlights, what’s your next challenge.
STEPHANIE: I’m a “big dreams, low expectations” kinda gal. Well, that’s not entirely true, rather I’d say: “big dreams, realistic expectations”. I put in hard work and as the saying goes, it’s supposed to pay off — and it is. By my own standards I’m quite chuffed with my career. I’ve achieved my personal goals, and everything from this point on is pure indulgence. I’ve enjoyed all of it so far, and I don’t think there’s been any highs or lows thus far, simply ripples along the path. For what’s next, I have my eye on creating.
PAPERCUT: The landscape of TV has changed so dramatically over the last few years with everyone including the major tech companies getting into the game. How has this shift affected the things you choose to pursue if at all and or what opportunities do you see?
STEPHANIE: As an actor it doesn’t change much, perhaps only in the sense of more outlets, more work. However as an entrepreneur and creative developer, I too want a piece of the cake. I started developing creative content late last year and I’m hoping to see it come to fruition in the early 2020’s.
PAPERCUT: You have played a number of mysterious roles. What are the types of roles that get you excited?
STEPHANIE: Great writing and great storytelling get me excited. The character can be something completely different from what I’d usually find intriguing, if the writing and world surrounding her is exceptional.
As an actor, your job is to portray any given character withholding your own agenda. The choices that are created for that character are set and it’s your task to bring that person to life whether you “like” them or not. It’s not your place to judge — however, great writing can render that initial disconnect moot. If I get to choose, I prefer to portray characters that exude qualities of my own personal adornment: strong, independent, fearless female characters. With that said, there’s a lot of us, actors that is, and sometimes you have to take on whatever is available to you. It is just a job.
PAPERCUT: Staying on this topic, what do you think was your most challenging role thus far? How did you prepare for it and what was your process for getting into character?
STEPHANIE: I haven’t portrayed her yet, but I have encountered a few characters that were so unlike myself, that the lack of common ground made the process so much longer. A relatable character is always easier to decipher. It’s hard to know someone you’ve never met. Luckily the world is full of different personalities, and I’m not opposed to [“borrowing”] characteristics from real people when I prepare for a role.
PAPERCUT: You’re not “just” an actor, but started out as a model, as well as possess skills in other creative genres such as graphic design and painting. How has each discipline defined your current creative identity?
STEPHANIE: An easy way to describe myself is: I’m good at all things creative — I suck at all things sport. My creativity is a dominant instrument in my existence, I get inspired by even the most insignificant notion. It doesn’t define my identity, it’s a very big part of my identity. I draw, write, paint daily and I feel lost if I’m put in situations where I can’t draw on my imagination. It’s a tool that keeps me grounded, while offering great relief.
PAPERCUT: Now Let’s have some fun with a round of quick fire.
Worst Audition?
My very first audition on tape. The script stated: “she falls to her knees” while delivering the lines, and so I did — dropping 3 feet under the camera setting, obliviously continuing the scene until the Casting Director just started hysterically laughing. I was so embarrassed.
Memorable Onset Flub (film or modeling)?
I’ve managed to split my pants on 3 separate occasions.
Favorite Thing about Living LA?
The weather.
Worst Thing About LA?
The traffic.
What do you miss most About Denmark?
My family. And the food.
Dogs or Cats?
Both.
Favorite DC Comics Character?
Animal Man (I hope they make an Animal Woman)
Dream Role?
Anything Tarantino.
