Notions of Privacy in the Content of Computer-Mediated Communication

Ethical practice in research is guided by federal government regulations (National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register) that were inspired by the Belmont Report (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of each university assures that research adheres to the principles written in the federal regulations (Kozinets, 2010). One such principle is that of informed consent; subjects consenting to a research study must clearly understand the facts of the study and the consequences of their participation (Homan, 1991).  However, research can be performed without informed consent if the place and content are public (Svenningsson-Elm, 2009). In this blog, I examine the latter.

What are the notions of privacy in the content of computer-mediated communication? At first, I assumed that people behave rationally, keeping private matters private and not divulging intimate detail to the public. Then I read the following opinion by Bauman.

"The public is colonized by the private; public interest is reduced to curiosity about the private lives of public figures, and the art of public life is narrowed to the public display of the private affairs and public confessions of private sentiments (the more intimate the better). Public issues, which resist such reduction, become all but incomprehensible." (Bauman, 2000, p.37) 

 "For the individual, public space is not much more than a giant screen on which private worries are projected without ceasing to be private or acquiring new collective qualities in the course of magnification: public space is where public confession of private secrets and intimacies is made." (Bauman, 2000, p.40)

According to Bauman, public perception of privacy is in flux. With the steady barrage of reality television, soap operas, and tabloids, it has become increasingly acceptable to reveal private matters to the public. Exposure to private matters in public has changed people's perception of public spaces.

There is a distinctively public nature about computer-mediated communication, such as open chat rooms or web pages. However, it is not so easy to distinguish private content from public content. Perhaps it is not so much a dichotomy, but a continuum of content from private to public. For the researcher, this poses challenges and ethical concerns. Potentially, are we harming some individuals who fail to perceive the public quality of the Internet?  

Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge, MA. Polity Press.

National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register. Code of Federal Regulations Title 45, Part 46, Protection of Human Subjects.

Homan, R. (1991). The ethics of social research. London; New York: Longman

Kozinets, R.V. (2010). Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online. Sage. Los Angeles, CA, London.

Markham, A. N. & Baym, N. K. (2009). Internet inquiry. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979). Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, Report of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 

Svenningsson-Elm, M. (2009). How do notions of privacy influence decision in qualitative internet research? Internet inquiry. Markham, A. N. & Baym, N. K. (eds.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.