Editing Privacy (section)

==Internet==
{{Main|Internet privacy}}
{{see also|Internet#Social impact|Computer network#Security|Security#Computer security|Information privacy}}

The Internet and technologies built on it enable new forms of social interactions at increasingly faster speeds and larger scales. Because the computer networks which underlie the Internet introduce such a wide range of novel security concerns, the discussion of ''privacy'' on the Internet is often conflated with ''security''.<ref name="privacy-security-debate">{{cite web|title=Privacy vs Security: A pointless false dichotomy?|url=https://missinfogeek.net/privacy-vs-security-pt1/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230131000446/https://missinfogeek.net/privacy-vs-security-pt1/|archive-date=2023-01-31|url-status=live}}</ref> Indeed, many entities such as corporations involved in the [[Surveillance capitalism|surveillance economy]] inculcate a security-focused conceptualization of privacy which reduces their obligations to uphold privacy into a matter of [[regulatory compliance]],<ref name="waldman-industry-unbound">{{cite book|title=Industry Unbound: The Inside Story of Privacy, Data, and Corporate Power|author=Ari Ezra Waldman|year=2021|chapter=One Book in One Page|page=x|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|doi=10.1017/9781108591386|isbn=978-1-108-49242-3}}</ref> while at the same time [[lobbying]] to minimize those regulatory requirements.<ref name="data-broker-lobbying-congress">{{cite web|title=The Little-Known Data Broker Industry Is Spending Big Bucks Lobbying Congress|date=April 2021 |url=https://themarkup.org/privacy/2021/04/01/the-little-known-data-broker-industry-is-spending-big-bucks-lobbying-congress|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422071359/https://themarkup.org/privacy/2021/04/01/the-little-known-data-broker-industry-is-spending-big-bucks-lobbying-congress|archive-date=2023-04-22|url-status=live}}</ref>

The Internet's effect on privacy includes all of the ways that computational technology and the entities that control it can subvert the privacy expectations of their [[User (computing)|users]].<ref name="web-means-end-of-forgetting">{{cite web|title=The Web Means the End of Forgetting|date=2010-07-25|website=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/magazine/25privacy-t2.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190310101907/https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/magazine/25privacy-t2.html|archive-date=2019-03-10|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Cambridge University Press">{{cite book|last1=Cofone |first1=Ignacio |title=The Privacy Fallacy: Harm and Power in the Information Economy|url = https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/privacy-fallacy/547578F2A1AE0C40963105CE066B412E |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2023 |isbn=9781108995443 |location=New York }}</ref> In particular, the [[right to be forgotten]] is motivated by both the ''computational ability'' to store and search through massive amounts of data as well as the ''subverted expectations'' of users who share information online without expecting it to be stored and retained indefinitely. Phenomena such as [[revenge porn]] and [[deepfakes]] are not merely individual because they require both the ability to obtain images without someone's consent as well as the social and economic infrastructure to disseminate that content widely.<ref name="Cambridge University Press"/> Therefore, privacy advocacy groups such as the [[Cyber Civil Rights Initiative]] and the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] argue that addressing the new privacy harms introduced by the Internet requires both technological improvements to [[#Encryption|encryption]] and [[#Anonymity|anonymity]] as well as societal efforts such as [[#Legal methods|legal regulations]] to restrict corporate and government power.<ref name="eff-issues-privacy">{{cite web|title=Privacy|url=https://www.eff.org/issues/privacy|website=[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]}}</ref><ref name="ccri-legislative-reform">{{cite web|title=Legislative Reform|website=[[Cyber Civil Rights Initiative]]|url=https://cybercivilrights.org/legislative-reform/}}</ref>

While the [[Internet]] began as a government and academic effort up through the 1980s, private corporations began to enclose the hardware and software of the Internet in the 1990s, and now most Internet infrastructure is owned and managed by for-profit corporations.<ref name="tarnoff-internet-for-the-people">{{cite book|title=Internet for the People: The Fight for Our Digital Future|author=Ben Tarnoff|year=2022|chapter=Preface: Among the Eels|pages=8–9|publisher=[[Verso Books]]|isbn=978-1-83976-202-4}}</ref> As a result, the ability of governments to protect their citizens' privacy is largely restricted to [[industrial policy]], instituting controls on corporations that handle communications or [[personal data]].<ref>{{Cite web|date=2013-05-02|title=Fighting Identity Theft with the Red Flags Rule: A How-To Guide for Business|url=https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/fighting-identity-theft-red-flags-rule-how-guide-business|access-date=2021-09-28|website=Federal Trade Commission|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine|last=Tiku|first=Nitasha|title=How Europe's New Privacy Law Will Change the Web, and More|language=en-US|magazine=Wired|url=https://www.wired.com/story/europes-new-privacy-law-will-change-the-web-and-more/|access-date=2021-10-26|issn=1059-1028}}</ref> Privacy regulations are often further constrained to only protect specific demographics such as children,<ref>{{Cite web|date=2013-07-25|title=Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule ("COPPA")|url=https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule|access-date=2021-09-28|website=Federal Trade Commission|language=en}}</ref> or specific industries such as credit card bureaus.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Fair Credit Reporting Act|url=https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/fair-credit-reporting-act|access-date=2023-06-18|website=Federal Trade Commission|date=19 July 2013 |language=en}}</ref>

===Social networking===
{{main|Privacy concerns with social networking services}}

Several online social network sites (OSNs) are among the top 10 most visited websites globally. Facebook for example, as of August 2015, was the largest social-networking site, with nearly 2.7 billion<ref>{{Cite web|title=Facebook: active users worldwide|url=https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/|access-date=2020-10-11|website=Statista|language=en}}</ref> members, who upload over 4.75 billion pieces of content daily. While [[Twitter]] is significantly smaller with 316 million registered users, the US [[Library of Congress]] recently announced that it will be acquiring and permanently storing the entire archive of public Twitter posts since 2006.<ref name="web-means-end-of-forgetting"/>

A review and evaluation of scholarly work regarding the current state of the value of individuals' privacy of online social networking show the following results: "first, adults seem to be more concerned about potential privacy threats than younger users; second, policy makers should be alarmed by a large part of users who underestimate risks of their information privacy on OSNs; third, in the case of using OSNs and its services, traditional one-dimensional privacy approaches fall short".<ref>Hugl, Ulrike (2011), "Reviewing Person's Value of Privacy of Online Social Networking," ''Internet Research'', 21(4), in press, http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1066-2243&volume=21&issue=4&articleid=1926600&show=abstract {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140328144007/http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1066-2243&volume=21&issue=4&articleid=1926600&show=abstract |date=2014-03-28 }}</ref> This is exacerbated by [[Data re-identification|deanonymization]] research indicating that personal traits such as sexual orientation, race, religious and political views, personality, or intelligence can be inferred based on a wide variety of [[digital footprints]], such as samples of text, browsing logs, or Facebook Likes.<ref name="Kosinski 2013 5802–5805">{{cite journal|last=Kosinski|first=Michal|author2=Stillwell, D. |author3=Graepel, T. |title=Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|year=2013|volume=110|issue=15|pages=5802–5805|doi=10.1073/pnas.1218772110|pmid=23479631|pmc=3625324|bibcode=2013PNAS..110.5802K|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Intrusions of social media privacy are known to affect employment in the United States. [[Microsoft]] reports that 75 percent of U.S. recruiters and human-resource professionals now do online research about candidates, often using information provided by search engines, social-networking sites, photo/video-sharing sites, personal web sites and blogs, and [[Twitter]]. They also report that 70 percent of U.S. recruiters have rejected candidates based on internet information. This has created a need by many candidates to control various online [[privacy settings]] in addition to controlling their online reputations, the conjunction of which has led to legal suits against both social media sites and US employers.<ref name="web-means-end-of-forgetting"/>

====Selfie culture====
{{further|#Privacy paradox and economic valuation}}

[[Selfies]] are popular today. A search for photos with the hashtag #selfie retrieves over 23 million results on Instagram and 51 million with the hashtag #me.<ref>{{Cite news|date=2013-06-07|title=Self-portraits and social media: The rise of the 'selfie'|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22511650|access-date=2021-03-17}}</ref> However, due to modern corporate and governmental surveillance, this may pose a risk to privacy.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Giroux|first=Henry A.|date=2015-05-04|title=Selfie Culture in the Age of Corporate and State Surveillance|journal=Third Text|volume=29|issue=3|pages=155–164|doi=10.1080/09528822.2015.1082339|s2cid=146571563|issn=0952-8822}}</ref> In a research study which takes a sample size of 3763, researchers found that for users posting selfies on social media, women generally have greater concerns over privacy than men, and that users' privacy concerns inversely predict their selfie behavior and activity.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Dhir|first1=Amandeep|last2=Torsheim|first2=Torbjørn|last3=Pallesen|first3=Ståle|last4=Andreassen|first4=Cecilie S.|date=2017|title=Do Online Privacy Concerns Predict Selfie Behavior among Adolescents, Young Adults and Adults?|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|language=en|volume=8|page=815|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00815|pmid=28588530|pmc=5440591|issn=1664-1078|doi-access=free}}</ref>

====Online harassment====
{{main|Online harassment}}
{{further|Revenge porn|Doxxing|Content moderation}}

An invasion of someone's privacy may be widely and quickly disseminated over the Internet. When social media sites and other online communities fail to invest in [[content moderation]], an invasion of privacy can expose people to a much greater volume and degree of harassment than would otherwise be possible. [[Revenge porn]] may lead to [[misogynist]] or [[homophobic]] harassment, such as in the [[suicide of Amanda Todd]] and the [[suicide of Tyler Clementi]]. When someone's physical location or other sensitive information is leaked over the Internet via [[doxxing]], harassment may escalate to direct physical harm such as [[stalking]] or [[swatting]].

Despite the way breaches of privacy can magnify online harassment, online harassment is often used as a justification to curtail [[freedom of speech]], by removing the expectation of privacy via [[#Anonymity|anonymity]], or by enabling law enforcement to invade privacy without a [[search warrant]]. In the wake of Amanda Todd's death, the Canadian parliament proposed a motion purporting to stop bullying, but Todd's mother herself gave testimony to parliament rejecting the bill due to its provisions for warrantless breaches of privacy, stating "I don't want to see our children victimized again by losing privacy rights."<ref name="ctv-todd-mp-motion">{{cite web |url= http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/in-wake-of-amanda-todd-suicide-mps-to-debate-anti-bullying-motion-1.995254 |title= In wake of Amanda Todd suicide, MPs to debate anti-bullying motion |publisher=CTV News |date= October 14, 2012 |author=CTVNews.ca Staff |access-date= October 17, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029213910/http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/in-wake-of-amanda-todd-suicide-mps-to-debate-anti-bullying-motion-1.995254 |archive-date= October 29, 2013 |df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="2013 Bill C-13">{{cite web | url=https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/05/13/amanda_todds_mother_raises_concerns_about_cyberbullying_bill.html | title=Amanda Todd's mother raises concerns about cyberbullying bill: Families of cyberbullying victims want legislation, but some have concerns about warrantless access to Canadians personal data. | work=www.thestar.com | date=2014-04-13 | access-date=2016-09-12 | author=Boutilier, Alex | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161028011059/https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/05/13/amanda_todds_mother_raises_concerns_about_cyberbullying_bill.html | archive-date=October 28, 2016 | df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref name="Justice Committee on May 13th, 2014">{{cite web | url=https://openparliament.ca/committees/justice/41-2/24/carol-todd-1/ | title=Carol Todd's Testimony regarding Bill C-13 | publisher=www.openparliament.ca | date=2014-05-14 | access-date=2016-09-12 | author=Todd, Carol | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160918140017/https://openparliament.ca/committees/justice/41-2/24/carol-todd-1/ | archive-date=September 18, 2016 | df=mdy-all }}</ref>

Even where these laws have been passed despite privacy concerns, they have not demonstrated a reduction in online harassment. When the [[Korea Communications Commission]] introduced a registration system for online commenters in 2007, they reported that malicious comments only decreased by 0.9%, and in 2011 it was repealed.<ref name="chosun-kcc-registration">{{cite web|title=Real-Name Online Registration to Be Scrapped|url=https://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/12/30/2011123001526.html|website=[[The Chosun Ilbo]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230423035426/https://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/12/30/2011123001526.html|archive-date=2023-04-23|url-status=live}}</ref> A subsequent analysis found that the set of users who posted the most comments actually increased the number of "aggressive expressions" when forced to use their real name.<ref name="kcc-law-real-name-analysis">{{cite conference|url=https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings-article/hicss/2012/06149194/12OmNyKJiDq|title=Empirical analysis of online anonymity and user behaviors: the impact of real name policy|author-link1=A. Acquisti|author-link2=Soodong Kim|author-link3=Daegon Cho|year=2012|publisher=[[IEEE Computer Society]]|edition=45th|conference=Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences}}</ref>

In the US, while federal law only prohibits online harassment based on protected characteristics such as gender and race,<ref name="us-federal-cyberbullying">{{cite web|title=Law, Policies and Regulations|date=24 September 2019 |url=https://www.stopbullying.gov/resources/laws|access-date=2023-06-19}}</ref> individual states have expanded the definition of harassment to further curtail speech: Florida's definition of online harassment includes "any use of data or computer software" that "Has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of a school."<ref name="florida-cyberbullying">{{cite web|title=Florida Anti-Bullying Laws and Policies|date=24 September 2019 |url=https://www.stopbullying.gov/resources/laws/florida|access-date=2023-06-19}}</ref>

===Privacy and location-based services===
{{main|Location-based service}}

Increasingly, mobile devices facilitate [[geolocation|location tracking]].  This creates user privacy problems.  A user's location and preferences constitute [[personal information]], and their improper use violates that user's privacy.  A recent MIT study by de Montjoye et al. showed that four spatio-temporal points constituting approximate places and times are enough to uniquely identify 95% of 1.5M people in a mobility database. The study further shows that these constraints hold even when the resolution of the dataset is low. Therefore, even coarse or blurred datasets confer little privacy protection.<ref>{{cite journal |last=de Montjoye|first=Yves-Alexandre|author2=César A. Hidalgo |author3=Michel Verleysen |author4=Vincent D. Blondel |title=Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility|journal=Scientific Reports|date=March 25, 2013 |volume=3| page=1376|doi=10.1038/srep01376|pmid=23524645|pmc=3607247|bibcode=2013NatSR...3.1376D}}</ref>

Several methods to protect user privacy in location-based services have been proposed, including the use of anonymizing servers and blurring of information. Methods to quantify privacy have also been proposed, to calculate the equilibrium between the benefit of obtaining accurate location information and the risks of breaching an individual's privacy.<ref>Athanasios S. Voulodimos and Charalampos Z. Patrikakis, "Quantifying Privacy in Terms of Entropy for Context Aware Services", special issue of the Identity in the Information Society journal, "Identity Management in Grid and SOA", Springer, vol. 2, no 2, December 2009</ref>

====Ethical controversies over location privacy====
There have been scandals regarding location privacy. One instance was the scandal concerning [[AccuWeather]], where it was revealed that AccuWeather was selling locational data. This consisted of a user's locational data, even if they opted out within Accuweather, which tracked users' location. Accuweather sold this data to Reveal Mobile, a company that monetizes data related to a user's location.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Whittaker|first=Zack|title=AccuWeather caught sending user location data – even when location sharing is off|url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/accuweather-caught-sending-geo-location-data-even-when-denied-access/ |date=Aug 22, 2017 |access-date=2021-11-22|website=ZDNet|language=en}}</ref>  Other international cases are similar to the Accuweather case. In 2017, a leaky API inside the McDelivery App exposed private data, which consisted of home addresses, of 2.2 million users.<ref>{{Cite web|date=March 20, 2017|first=Jeremy|last=Kirk|title=McShame: McDonald's API Leaks Data for 2.2 Million Users|url=https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/blogs/mcshame-mcdonalds-api-leaks-data-for-22-million-users-p-2426|access-date=2021-11-22|website=BankInfoSecurity|language=en}}</ref>

In the wake of these types of scandals, many large American technology companies such as Google, Apple, and Facebook have been subjected to hearings and pressure under the U.S. legislative system. In 2011, US Senator [[Al Franken]] wrote an open letter to [[Steve Jobs]], noting the ability of [[iPhones]] and [[iPads]] to record and store users' locations in unencrypted files.<ref>Popkin, Helen A.S., [https://archive.today/20120714202126/http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/21/6508416-govt-officials-want-answers-to-secret-iphone-tracking "Government officials want answers to secret iPhone tracking"]. MSNBC, "Technolog", April 21, 2011</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Apple faces questions from Congress about iPhone tracking|website=[[Computerworld]]|url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/2507868/apple-faces-questions-from-congress-about-iphone-tracking.html |first1=Gregg |last1=Keizer |date=2011-04-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190720044451/https://www.computerworld.com/article/2507868/apple-faces-questions-from-congress-about-iphone-tracking.html|archive-date=2019-07-20|url-status=live}}</ref> Apple claimed this was an unintentional [[software bug]], but Justin Brookman of the [[Center for Democracy and Technology]] directly challenged that portrayal, stating "I'm glad that they are fixing what they call bugs, but I take exception with their strong denial that they track users."<ref>{{cite web|title=Apple denies tracking iPhone users, but promises changes|website=[[Computerworld]]|url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/2506250/apple-denies-tracking-iphone-users--but-promises-changes.html |first1=Gregg |last1=Keizer |date=2011-04-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230329094239/https://www.computerworld.com/article/2506250/apple-denies-tracking-iphone-users--but-promises-changes.html|archive-date=2023-03-29|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2021, the U.S. state of Arizona found in a court case that Google misled its users and stored the location of users regardless of their location settings.<ref name="state-arizona-redacted-complaint">{{cite web|url=https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/Complaint%20%28redacted%29.pdf|title=Complaint for Injunctive and Other Relief|access-date=2021-06-03|date=2021-06-03|publisher=The Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the County of Maricopa}}</ref>

===Advertising===
{{main|Online advertising}}
{{further|Surveillance capitalism|Mass surveillance industry}}
{{promotional section|date=June 2023}}

The Internet has become a significant medium for advertising, with digital marketing making up approximately half of the global ad spending in 2019.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Global Digital Ad Spending 2019 |url=https://www.insiderintelligence.com/content/global-digital-ad-spending-2019 |access-date=2023-09-30 |website=Insider Intelligence}}</ref> While websites are still able to sell advertising space without tracking, including via [[contextual advertising]], digital ad brokers such as [[Facebook]] and [[Google]] have instead encouraged the practice of [[Targeted advertising#Behavioral targeting|behavioral advertising]], providing code snippets used by website owners to track their users via [[HTTP cookie]]s. This tracking data is also sold to other third parties as part of the [[mass surveillance industry]]. Since the introduction of mobile phones, data brokers have also been planted within apps, resulting in a $350 billion digital industry especially focused on mobile devices.<ref name=":7"/>

Digital privacy has become the main source of concern for many mobile users, especially with the rise of privacy scandals such as the [[Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal]].<ref name=":7">{{Cite news|last=Chen|first=Brian X.|date=2021-09-16|title=The Battle for Digital Privacy Is Reshaping the Internet|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/technology/digital-privacy.html|access-date=2021-11-22|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> [[Apple Inc.|Apple]] has received  some reactions for features that prohibit advertisers from tracking a user's data without their consent.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hausfeld |date=2024-05-16 |title=Privacy by default, abuse by design: EU competition concerns about Apple's new app tracking policy |url=https://www.hausfeld.com/de-de/was-wir-denken/competition-bulletin/privacy-by-default-abuse-by-design-eu-competition-concerns-about-apple-s-new-app-tracking-policy/ |access-date=2024-06-28 |website=Hausfeld |language=German}}</ref> Google attempted to introduce an alternative to cookies named [[Federated Learning of Cohorts|FLoC]] which it claimed reduced the privacy harms, but it later retracted the proposal due to antitrust probes and analyses that contradicted their claims of privacy.<ref>{{cite web|title=Google Facing Fresh E.U. Inquiry Over Ad Technology|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/22/business/google-antitrust-european-union.html|date=2021-06-22|website=[[The New York Times]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230415083901/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/22/business/google-antitrust-european-union.html|archive-date=2023-04-15|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=EFF technologist cites Google "breach of trust" on FLoC; key ad-tech change agent departs IAB Tech Lab|url=https://itega.org/2021/04/02/privacy-beat-eff-technologist-cites-google-breach-of-trust-on-floc-key-ad-tech-change-agent-departs-iab-tech-lab/|access-date=April 16, 2021|website=Information Trust Exchange Governing Association}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Google's FLoC Is a Terrible Idea|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/googles-floc-terrible-idea|website=[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]|date=2021-03-03}}</ref>

===Metadata===
{{main|Metadata}}
{{further|Data re-identification}}

The ability to do online inquiries about individuals has expanded dramatically over the last decade. Importantly, directly observed behavior, such as browsing logs, search queries, or contents of a public Facebook profile, can be automatically processed to infer secondary information about an individual, such as sexual orientation, political and religious views, race, substance use, intelligence, and personality.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Kosinski|first=Michal|author2=Stillwell, D. |author3=Graepel, T. |title=Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior|journal= Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|year=2013 |volume=110|issue=15| pages=5802–5805|doi=10.1073/pnas.1218772110|pmid=23479631|pmc=3625324|bibcode=2013PNAS..110.5802K|doi-access=free}}</ref>

{{main|Privacy in Australian law#Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015}}

In Australia, the [[Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015]] made a distinction between collecting the contents of messages sent between users and the metadata surrounding those messages.