The very nature of cyberspace, in reference to the manner in which information is transferred, alludes to concerns about privacy. There is endless debate surrounding the technicalities and difficulties of regulation and individual rights, and much of the literature on Cyberspace privacy concerns, centres around this aspect. It is not the purpose of this section to discuss these particular legal and philosophical aspects of the hotly contested issue. Rather, an illustration of the social effects and consequences of privacy intrusion will be provided with reference to Goffman's theories of social interaction.
The privacy issue can be broken down into three main components. The first issue concerns the collection of private data by external institutions and agencies. There will be a brief synopsis of the scope of possible privacy intrusion. Following that, the severe implications surrounding the accessibility of personal information will be discussed. The second aspect is the ability of third parties to access private communications between select groups of people. This section will focus on the social rules that govern "eavesdropping" in traditional face to face interaction, and how those rules change with respect to the Internet. Finally, the social effects of privacy intrusion will be examined. Privacy has been a rising concern with the widespread implementation of Cyberspace systems. This personal intrusion alters the rules and assumptions that are inherent in face to face interaction. It is vital to examine how this has changed people's expectations of privacy.
It is necessary to determine the extent of privacy intrusion before continuing with any discussion. The general accessibility of the Internet for individuals also facilitates the collection of private data on these individuals by owners and advertisers of companies. Clickstreams refers to the data that is collected based on which electronic sites are visited, the time spent on each site, and the order of the sites that are visited. (Eisenberg, 120) This capability is especially useful for those companies that wish to appeal to highly specialized groups. Although this may appear harmless enough, the ability to connect records with the individual users creates a disturbing picture. Merely by entering a name, it is possible to discover virtually everything about that person, including their general likes and dislikes, the brand of consumer products they purchase, and what they are interested in when they believe no one is looking. Furthermore, as computer technology advances, there will be an "exponential growth in intrusiveness"(Eisenberg). It is evident that privacy is a valid issue that should be a concern to everyone.
The social effects of this type of privacy intrusion by agencies and companies are far-reaching and they alter the fundamental dynamics and structure of society. Goffman bases his theory on the distinction between front stage and back stage regions. In addition, Goffman states that concealing the backstage region from others is vital in "impression management". (113) Information that is derived from clickstreams may not be the information the individual would make known in the interaction process of creating an impression. For example, if an individual were to go for a job interview, he would not expect his prospective employer to know the brand of suit he wears. Although this may seem like a trivial detail, knowledge such as this may give a clue to the employer as to the range of salary the interviewee is accustomed to, thus indicating where to begin his end of the salary negotiations. In essence, it would be more difficult for individuals to create the kind of impression they would like, since they no longer possess the ability to prepare their "performance" in the back region. The distinction between front and back stage loses the clear demarcation that is so evident in face to face interaction.
Intrusion of privacy is also an issue when discussing technologies such as chat lines and electronic mail. With ability to communicate electronically in forums such as these, the rise of communications confidentially becomes a pressing problem. It is possible for individuals to receive and read messages and correspondances without revealing their presence. There has an increasing number of people who spend much of their on-line time doing just that. These people have been given the name "lurkers". The ability to lurk raises interesting issues. One user admits,
"There is something about seeing these words on your terminal, knowing that there's flesh and blood behind them, real joy being given or offense being taken, that gives you the thrilling, guilty feeling of catching a glimpse through a window at night." (Wright, 20)
The preceding quote makes it evident that the powerful social rules that govern behaviour are blurred and weakened by Cyberspace. Eavesdropping on the private communications of others is normally not considered acceptable. The Internet allows this direct violation of privacy without the invader ever being detected. The desire to gain private information, or "truth, about others is itself a backstage urge that is not overtly and consciously displayed during face to face social interaction. This is exemplified in Goffman's description of one women attempting to discern some information about another individual:
"The...woman, in order to discover what one acquaintance (A) 'actually' though of another acquaintance (B), would wait until B was in the presence of A but engaged in conversation with still another person (C). She would then covertly examine the facial expressions of A as he regarded B in conversation with C. Not being in conversation with B, and not being directly observed by him, A would sometimes relax usual constraints and tactful deceptions, and freely express what he was 'actually' feeling about B." (7)
This complex and elaborate social exchange is entirely unecessary and impossible when interacting in Cyberspace. According to Goffman, traditional forms of communication and interaction are often based on unconscious signals given off by each individual. As stated in a previous section, these signals may include, gestures, body language, facial expressions, and tonality. Obviously, these unconscious expressions of interactions are severely limited, if not obsolete, on the Internet. Hence, another example of the severe alteration of the structure and form of social communication.
Lurkers would fall under the "discrepant roles" category according to Goffman. He emphasizes and differentiates between three main roles in the presentation of self. These roles are the performer, the audience, and the outsiders. (145) The outsiders are not privy to either of the two regions.. Nevertheless, there are discrepant roles although he states that these types of roles are not as primary as the main ones. One category of discrepant roles includes those that involve false pretenses. For example, the individual in this type of role may pretend that he is part of one group while informing the other group of their secrets, much like a spy. It is evident that Goffman considers these discrepant roles as deviant and not part of the norm. Cyberspace allows a significant increase in these types of roles. Lurkers can spy and inform to their heart's content without fear of getting caught. It is no longer a risky and deviant role.
Thus far, we have discussed the ways in which societal structure, in terms of social interaction, is affected by the non-private aspect of Cyberspace. This analysis would not be complete without mention of people's reactions to this change. Over the last several years, the literature on privacy expectations and perceptions of privacy invasion has been inconsistent. In 1983, Jeffrey A. Meldman wrote that the rapidly increasing use of computer based information technology caused a "substantial and growing concern among the American public over threats to their expectations of personal privacy"(Meldman, 393). During the same period (1983), Dutton & Meadow concluded that the perceived risk of privacy invasion has remained stable since 1974. (1987:168). James Katz and Annette Tassone claim that public concern about this issue rose during the mid to late 1980's. The studies and results have been mixed reviews. This conflict has yet to be resolved. Many theorists agree that expectations of privacy invasion have risen since the widespread implementation of Internet systems. (Eisenberg) Surprisingly, however, there remain numerous theorists who still claim that the threat of privacy intrusion has been blown out of proportion. (Wright)
With the multitude of conflicting data and opinion, it is difficult to discern how the public really feels about the privacy issue. Nevertheless, there is one fact that cannot be ignored: The rise in concern over privacy intrusion is nowhere near being proportional to the rise in intrusion capabilities of Cyberspace communication systems. The fact that the structure of social interaction has changed, as well as the ways in which it has changed, has drastic implications that people may not be aware of at this point. Generally speaking, people do not realize the accessibility of their personal histories and private communications with others. The popular explanation of this phenonmenon is the theory that people value convenience over privacy. ("Privacy", 6) Sara Keisler offers an alternate explanation which involves the concepts of perceived risk versus actual risk. She believes that it is difficult for most people to visualize the negative consequences of sharing personal information. ("Privacy", 6) Thus the perceived risk of privacy intrusion does not correlate with the actual risk of negative ramifications, a few of which were discussed earlier.
Goffman placed great emphasis on social cues that are an inherent part of face to face interaction. People have been relying on these cues since the beginning of civilization. On the Internet, these cues are no longer there to aid in assessing the performances of others, nor to aid in adjusting and planning our own performances. This factor, together with the freedom of anonymity, results in a deceiving illusion of privacy.
It is important to note that there are Net users who do attempt to guard their privacy. For example, they refrain from completing on-line questionnaires, avoid electronic consumer discount cards that links identity to purchases made, and they may even encrypt their e-mail. However, these measures may prove to be futile in the near future as Cyberspace technology advances and expands into further regions of everyday life. Similar to all aspects of the technology explosion, it is virtually impossible to predict the outcomes of growing Cyberspace use. Privacy is a vital and a valid concern. The question is not about whether or not individual privacy is jeopardized. Evidence of this fact has already been presented. The uncertainty surrounds the structure and dynamics of future social interaction and communication. Before adequate measures can be taken to protect individual privacy through government legislation, the general public must become realistically aware of the risks. The first step towards this goal is the recognition and awareness of the drastic change in social interaction, and how electronic interaction differs from face to face interaction.