SECURING SECURITY

‘It’s a fitting congruity that the simplest way to guage Facebook’s current woes comes via that other unchallenged behemoth of the internet, Google. Type “How do I…” into the search engine and one of the first suggestions it comes up with continues: “delete my Facebook account?” Yesterday it was the ninth top-ranked search term, bringing more than 18m results.’

(The Guardian May 2010)

I am surely not alone in my frustrated, possibly futile, attempts to fulfill  the ever-increasing number of occasions when I must remember a code number, password or some other form of identity. Recording these accumulating means of access and their supposed prevention is an option but universally we are advised against doing so. This advice appears to be generally accepted for in both the public media and our daily conversation there is clear evidence of a continuing commitment to some kind of boundary between the public and the private. But in our already densely digitalised age is this still a tenable position? If so, where do we draw the dividing line?

Any on-line commercial transaction carries some degree of risk but the expected requirements can vary considerably. Why is it so often possible to pay a subscription charge, pay a utilities service bill, buy a theatre ticket, book a flight and hotel or any number of other provisions with little more than declaring the requisite numbers on the debit or credit card but find it necessary to agree a password on so many other apparently similar occasions? Is there some legal or other distinction between buying a BA flight to Rome and a book via Amazon?

Contemporary intellectual discourse has made us acutely aware of the mutually dependent relationship between binary opposites: the significance of either relying upon some conceptual awareness of its contrary. Yet, whatever distinction we might still make between notions of open and closed or public and private, in practice mutual dependence might already have morphed into collusion. There are enough ambiguities in a group of people sharing the same office entrance code that allows access to otherwise confidential material but with an ever increasing number of social networking sites available worldwide the matter becomes infinitely more complex and difficult to resolve.

The current Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines a paradox as, ‘a statement or composition which, despite sound reasoning from an acceptable premise, leads to a conclusion that is against sense, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory’. From some positions of interest it may be reasonable enough that London is generally acknowledged to be the most heavily surveilled  city in the world but from other positions it is a gross intrusion on private space.  Transport companies and others might try to assure us that the presence of CCTV cameras is for our protection but where is the supporting evidence that this amount of surveillance improves our security (whatever advantages it might have for the companies concerned)? Is this situation, like so many others, not paradoxical?

Parallels with Facebook, Myspace  and Twitter readily spring to mind. There are no easy equivalents or generalizations to be made here except to say that it is well-advised to read beyond the reassuring published statements of security each may offer.  Who owns and controls the site might be the first question to ask, buried in subsidiaries as the answer often is.  Information supplied by Twitter users (the terms ‘author’ and ‘follower’ should alert us to implicit subservience) might be collected, shared with third parties or passed on to any future owner of the company. Facebook also collects and retains information, rhetorically linking the site’s prime claim to sharing information with others with its readiness to share this same information with a substantial number of third parties.  MySpace’s slogan is ‘a place for friends’ but it is owned by a subsidiary of News Corporation and does not publish its funding sources separate from those of the parent company. So who does fund the site and whose interests are also being served beyond the ‘friends’?

Every one of these social networking sites carries an explicit invitation to reveal all. Fundamentally they are platforms for voluntary narcissism and repeatedly criticized and even condemned for being so. The easy publication of personal details can readily supply material suited to interests and intentions far removed from those of the supplier. Paedophilia is a recurrent concern but even invitations to one or another party celebration have led to violent intrusion, damage to property and, in one case, death. And the problems do not end there. The relevant site providers have sought to defend themselves and provide tighter security but how can they guarantee security?  How can any organization or any single person do this? We may refuse to participate in or withdraw previous support for one context or another but we cannot opt out of the now entirely digitalized  social structure. To acknowledge that securing security is a collective responsibility and a major international problem is only the beginning. How do we best address this universal dilemma?

‘(Facebook) the social networking giant told BBC News that it was listening to the message from users that it has “made things too complex”. We’re working on responding to these concerns”, a spokeswoman said. “Watch this space,” she added.’

Michael Clarke,

London, 22nd May 2010