Social Media Self-Protection Dilemma?
- jamie03066
- Jun 15, 2015
- 4 min read
English: Infographic on how Social Media are being used, and how everything is changed by them. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
This is not an easy topic to address. It is not easy because it concens the potentially negative side of social media again and I duly note the apparent irony. I rely a lot on social media in order to promote awareness of my services and my work in general. This post, like all my online material, will be linked through Facebook, Twitter and my Google page. I see social many benefits, but like the internet that gave birth to these services, we need to acknowledge its darker side and what better place to discuss it than by using it. What I feel makes this issue even more difficult is that the events that inspired me to write this post today - recent criticism connecting terrorism and social media - are not clearcut. In fact, we need to acknowledge that there is something of a dilemma. Recently I wrote a piece on stalking that included quite a lot of discussion on the role of social media in modern-day stalking. The article argued for the way privacy was willingly given up by a culture that is being peer-pressured into sharing many personal aspects of their life with others, and who are influenced by the rise of Z-list celebrities and reality TV. There has been a lot of controversy and justifiable criticism levelled at social media regarding privacy issues and settings on the various popular sites. Between the ability to search profiles anonnymously and the lack of knowledge of other users regarding their own privacy settings, social media culture has been a rich haven for the online predator to use as a tool. However, just as new stalking laws were introduced in 2012 and various other measures have been implented to protect the privacy of online users, GCHQ, the intelligence and security organization directly responsible to the British government and its armed forces, has gone public with its criticism of social media as a means for terrorist groups to operate. Their new chief, Robert Hannigan has been frank in his statement. In an article for the Financial Times, Hannigan has said: "I understand why they
have an uneasy relationship with governments. They aspire to be neutral conduits of data and to sit outside or above politics.
"But increasingly their services not only host the material of violent extremism or child exploitation, but are the routes for the facilitation of crime and terrorism.
"However much they may dislike it, they have become the command-and-control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals, who find their services as transformational as the rest of us.
"GCHQ is happy to be part of a mature debate on privacy in the digital age. But privacy has never been an absolute right and the debate about this should not become a reason for postponing urgent and difficult decisions."
His sentiments are all over the mainstream media. I heard it on a local radio station today and just about every national paper is carrying a report on Hanngan's article. Of course, he is not asking for more public transparency and a slackening of privacy policies for the general public. This is another issue that will worry those who are concerned about state control. As it happens, I have just watched a couple of episodes from "Tony Robinson's Crime and Punishment" and the issue of a nation under surveillence, first brought in under Norman rule. Robinson makes the sobering point about the way laws of the land often hang in the balance between protecting people and dominating them. As he pointed out, habeus corpus has been touched affected in the UK a few times in relative recent history. In particular, the time a suspect can be held without being charged has been increased in line with new laws against terrorism. Given how ancient this law is and how much it underlines how interpretation of human rights, it is little surprising that many are going to be suspicious about snowballing acts of oppression against the innocent because of the threat posed by a minority.
On a personal note, I am very privacy conscious. Despite being quite an open and expressive person, I feel that having certain boundaries regarding how much information an individual allows another to know is part of being an individual. Having grown up in a showbusiness family and seen my family in the media for various reasons, I value my right to privacy. I have never liked the attitude of "having nothing to hide", which doesn't seem like a rational argument to me. It's something of a non-sequitur, as the issue isn't whether or not you have something to hide, but rather that you have a right to protect your personal life so long as it is not harmful to another. Nevertheless, you can certainly see Hannigan's point. Information is power and the ability to coordinate large numbers of people instantly is a worrying prospect when you are dealing with terrorism.
From a self-protection perspective, it highlights how many matters are not straightforward. There are a lot questions I hear in self-protection that cannot be answered with an absolute. As my coach, Mo Teague, would often say, "If you want a guatantee, buy a toaster". Being a promoter of the scientific method I accept the view that we should be wary and suspicious of certainty. It comes down to a judgement call, which no self-respecting self-protection teacher should advise on.
My article on stalking:
Stalking Culture - Old and New
The original Financial Times article.
Comments