In the contemporary world, the internet assumes a central role in our lives. Many of us, particularly those of my generation, have grown up in tandem with the evolution of social media and content platforms. It’s a journey that began with personal websites on GeoCities, the era of blogging on LiveJournal, forging friendships on Myspace, and leisurely hours spent on Nexopia. These platforms, once integral to our online lives, now occupy significant portions of our collective memory. Consequently, the web has become a complex web of attachment and connection, where the past coexists with the present.
In the realm of academia, my doctoral research seeks to explore the phenomenon of becoming “databound.” This concept revolves around the intricate ways in which we, as individuals, have developed attachments to the data we’ve generated throughout our digital lives—attachments that are marked by a blend of control and surrender.
The Prolific Producers of Data
In our daily routines, we engage in a ceaseless production of data through work, communication, financial transactions, housing arrangements, transportation choices, and social interactions. Often, we remain blissfully unaware of the sheer volume of data we generate, and more critically, we seldom possess the agency to determine how this data is utilized, stored, or disseminated.
This lack of control over our own data has profound implications, the consequences of which are felt disproportionately across various intersections of race, gender, and class. The information pertaining to our identities can be harnessed by algorithms and individuals alike to exert control, foster discrimination, perpetrate harassment, launch doxxing campaigns, and inflict various forms of harm.
In common discourse, personal data privacy is frequently associated with concerns regarding corporate data breaches, the hacking of medical records, or the theft of credit card information. While these concerns are undoubtedly valid, my research seeks to shed light on a different facet of data privacy—one rooted in the late 1990s to the early 2000s, a period seldom considered in our contemporary context.
This particular era witnessed the emergence of popular platforms like GeoCities, Nexopia, LiveJournal, and Myspace. During this time, users generated personal and context-specific data through activities such as diary-style blogs, creative writing, self-portraits (selfies), and participation in fan communities. This user-generated content, unless deliberately removed, retains a digital existence indefinitely—hence the popular adage, “The internet is forever.”
The Arbiters of Data Privacy
The fate of our digital footprints is invariably determined by external forces. Typically, when a website or digital platform ceases to operate or is “sunset,” decisions regarding the disposition of user data are made arbitrarily by the company’s employees.
Proprietary data, which encompasses content generated within a platform and held by the platform provider, falls within the purview of the company. Users are often provided with options to configure their privacy settings or delete content, yet these actions do not invariably eradicate all traces from the platform’s internal database.
While some data, like Yahoo email messages, may undergo regular purging, other types of data persist online for an extended period. In certain instances, this data may be collected and archived by entities such as the Internet Archive, effectively becoming part of our collective digital heritage. However, a consensus or standardized approach to managing this archived data remains conspicuously absent.
Empowering Users: Shaping the Destiny of Our Data
As we traverse this intricate terrain, a fundamental question arises: What should become of our digital artifacts and the associated data? Should users have a voice in shaping the destiny of their online information?
In the course of my research, I conducted interviews with users to gauge their opinions on the archiving and deletion of personal data. Astonishingly, responses exhibited significant divergence. Some individuals expressed disappointment upon discovering that their blogs from the 2000s had vanished into the digital abyss, while others recoiled at the very thought of their continued existence.
These varying perspectives often aligned with contextual factors, such as the original perceived audience size, the sensitivity of the content, the medium of expression (text or images), the use of explicit or vague language, and the presence of links to personally identifiable information, such as contemporary Facebook profiles.
Within the realm of research, there exists an ongoing debate regarding the ethical use of user-generated content and the conditions under which such content can be leveraged.
In Canada, the Tri-Council Policy Statement guidelines stipulate that publicly accessible information carries no reasonable expectation of privacy. However, when it comes to the domain of social media, these guidelines can become nuanced. Furthermore, demarcating public and private realms within digital contexts is often a complex task.
In contrast, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has instigated a paradigm shift in the treatment of personal data by corporations and beyond. This regulation has expanded individual rights concerning data access, amendment, deletion, and portability.
Articles 17 and 19 of the GDPR, which address the right to erasure (commonly known as the right to be forgotten), mark a significant stride toward asserting individual digital privacy rights. Under this legislation, individuals within the EU possess the legal authority to demand the removal of their digital traces if such traces could result in personal harm, injury, or the dissemination of erroneous information.
Reimagining Digital Privacy: A Collective Responsibility
However, certain voices within the discourse on digital privacy argue that an emphasis on individual privacy, rooted in the notion of informed consent, may be inadequately placed in the digital realm. In digital environments, privacy is often a collective experience, and models of informed consent can inadvertently foster unrealistic expectations regarding an individual’s ability to erect boundaries around their data and anticipate future uses thereof.
The notion that users can perpetually “take charge” of their digital lives places a burdensome onus on individuals to engage in constant self-surveillance and diligently curate their digital traces. However, a substantial portion of data production remains beyond the control of users, largely due to the metadata generated as users navigate the online landscape.
If the internet is to fulfill its potential as a space for learning, play, exploration, and connection, the perpetual mitigation of future risks, through the anticipation of how personal information may be utilized, runs counter to these very goals.
As we stand at the nexus of the digital age, our collective responsibility is to reimagine the contours of digital privacy. It’s a journey that requires a shared commitment to understanding the evolving dynamics of data, embracing the complex interplay between individual autonomy and collective experience, and forging a path toward a digital landscape where privacy is not a luxury but an inherent right.
In this ever-evolving digital tapestry, the boundaries of what we can achieve extend beyond the horizon, beckoning us to embark on a collective endeavor to ensure that the web remains a realm of possibility, exploration, and human connection.