Internet privacy complex

You know that internet privacy is going to dominate the minds of some this year when politicians start blogging about it.

Dunedin South MP Clare Curran alerted Mack-line to her Red Alert blog on the issue.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg told a live audience on January 9 that if he were to create Facebook again today, user information would by default be public, not private as it was for years until the company changed dramatically in December.

He says the age of privacy is over.

How private should the online information about us be?, asked Ms Curran.

"Whether we post it ourselves, or whether someone posts it about us.

"Social networking sites like Facebook and the subscribers to those sites are confronting this issue.

"The privacy of our information is a huge issue.

"Data privacy is key policy ground for governments around the world.

"There are shifting meanings for what is public and private.

"But I would contend there is still very much a need and desire by people to keep control of information about themselves.

"Which seems to me, to be the important principle."

Ms Curran blogged that she was not sure what right Facebook's founder had to make a decision on behalf of 350 million subscribers.

Privacy was an important issue for policymakers and legislators as well as companies.

The issue came to mind for Mack-line when he was browsing through holiday shots posted on Facebook by families sharing their Christmas and New Year celebrations.

A British academic, Kieron O'Hara, wrote online that people who posted intimate details about their lives on the internet undermined everybody else's right to privacy.

He called for people to be more aware of the impact on society of what they published online.

The rise of social networking had blurred the boundaries of what could be considered private, making it less of a defence by law.

We lived in an era Dr O'Hara termed "intimacy 2.0" where people routinely shared extremely personal information online.

"When our reasonable expectations diminish, as they have, by necessity our legal protection diminishes."

Dr O'Hara, a senior research fellow in electronic and computer science at the University of Southhampton, gave the example of an embarrassing photo taken at a party.

A decade ago, there would have been the assumption that it might be circulated among friends.

Now, the assumption was that it might well end up on the internet and be viewed by strangers.

I am not sure why I found myself subscribed to what can only be described as an extreme adult social network/dating site.

But I know who subscribed me, thanks a lot.

Although I had seen similar sites before, this one (which I won't name) takes intimacy to a new level.

Men, women, couples - same sex or otherwise - delight in entertaining through streaming web cam broadcasts.

Nothing, it seems, is off limits.

Faces are sometimes clearly seen, as are identifying marks and body attributes.

This is a step up from Facebook and YouTube, but just another example of what Dr O'Hara writes about.

The fact that those online are prepared to show their wares and talents appears to lower any standards that might have been in place.

Privacy has long been a thorny issue but there were very few court cases until that of former motorsport boss Max Mosley in 2008.

Mr Mosley sued News of the World over the publication in the newspaper of explicit footage of him secretly taken during an orgy.

He argued that the publication of the footage was an unwarranted breach of his privacy - and won.

Mr Mosley had taken steps to keep his private life private but Dr O'Hara's concern is that other people's disregard for privacy online will spill over into other walks of life.

The latest moves in airport security involve new body scanners and CCTV.

Some are now arguing that privacy has already been infringed.

But the debate can be around privacy versus airline safety.

"Recent security decisions have become a privacy discussion, but if security suffers, the community suffers," Dr O'Hara said.

As Mack-line looked at the many holiday photos being posted, and the online antics of others, the results of a recent UMR poll came to mind.

More than 41% of New Zealanders thought it was morally acceptable for a single person to view pornography compared with 13% who thought downloading copyrighted video was acceptable and 18% who considered downloading copyrighted musical acceptable.

Downloading copyrighted video or music was less acceptable than a married person viewing pornography online without the knowledge of their spouse.

The survey showed that seeing music and video downloads as morally unacceptable did not necessarily prevent people from making such downloads, with substantial proportions of those who have downloaded music or video from unofficial sites saying that such activity was morally unacceptable.

The online boundaries seem to be shifting, and rapidly.