The built-in camera lens in my laptop always makes me think about George Orwell’s novel, “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” in which he describes a gloomy futuristic society that is constantly viewed and listened to by ”Big Brother,” a totalitarian entity.
Unless you’re on the FBI hotlist, however, I find it hard to believe that – despite its technological ability – the government is watching you.
What online users should be concerned about, though, is their digital freedom of speech, invasion of their privacy and the security of the personal information they post online.
The exponential and widespread use of services on the Internet has saturated the World Wide Web with personal, financial and residential information. Online tools like Google Earth and Facebook not only make it easier to check if the grass is greener on the other side of the computer screen but also can be used for malicious and illegal purposes.
Last February, Denise Finkel, an 18-year-old from New York, filed a lawsuit against Facebook and a group of her high school peers for defamation, appealing for $12 million in punitive and compensatory damages after the latter unjustly attacked Finkel’s character in their Facebook group.
The “innocent until proven guilty” concept in Finkel’s case means that without evidence of fault no one – including her peers through the aid of Facebook – has the right to publically accuse her of anything.
In courts, a person cannot be tried without proper evidence; in news writing, a reporter cannot propose allegations without credible documentation; and in advertising, a company cannot make a statement without having data to substantiate its claims.
Should online claims on “personal” profiles and discussion groups be substantiated by documents as well? Who should be responsible for verifying the accuracy of the posted information, the publisher or the writer?
As it turns out, even your own comments on your own Web page can potentially get you in trouble.
Last month, Don Leone, a game-day gate worker for the Eagles was fired after posting a hasty comment on his personal Facebook profile, criticizing the team management’s decision not to renew their contract with Brian Dawkins.
Leone worked for the Eagles for six years and was fired, cold heartedly, over the phone a few days after posting the comment – even though he had already deleted the comment at his own discretion.
Would the same happen if the comment was said out loud and overheard by a member of the Eagles management? When does the obligation to the company you work for end and your personal opinion begin?
Leone was not in uniform when he made his remark and the only link to his job might have been a note on his profile. Does online interaction constitute private life if it is potentially viewed by thousands if not millions?
The prevalent use of the digital medium comes with both benefits and disadvantages. Google’s Street View feature, for example, which displays 360-degree photos of almost every crossroad in the country, takes us to places we can’t easily reach, but, occasionally, it also discloses unflattering images of individuals who got caught in the frame.
Another issue pertaining to privacy and security of information is computerized information systems.
President Barack Obama’s Recovery plan reserves $20 million to research security issues that would accompany the president’s plan to implement the use of electronic medical records, an online database that would presumably reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of care.
Surely, this may also jeopardize patients’ privacy and the integrity of their information, just as online transactions put consumers’ credit card information at risk.
We live in a digital age of discovery in a lawless virtual land that raises many uncertainties and questions of ownership. Until our IT experts, legal minds and law enforcers find a way to protect our digital rights, watch what you post online, read carefuly the terms of use, and beware of seemingly innocent online services that might put your wellbeing in harm’s way.
