I'm  Janet  Protest. I'm  an  Associate  Professor  in Sociology  next  door  and affiliated  with  the  center. I'm  really  excited  today  to  present my  dear  colleague  and  friends and  collaborator  Alex  Marwick, who  is Associate  Professor  of  Communication  and principal  researcher  at the  Center  for  Information  Technology  and Public  Life  at  UNC. And  is  also  a  Microsoft  visiting  Professor here  this  year  at  CTP. And  I  wanted  to  just  take  a second  and  tell  you  a  few  things that  I  think  make Alice's  scholarship  so  outstanding. And  that  have  impressed  me  about  Alice  since I  first  met  her  ten  years  ago. Perhaps  at  the  time  she was  finishing  up  her  work  on what  became  a  book  called  Status  Update. Which  if  you  haven't  read,  it  is  fantastic. It  is  an  ethnographic  deep  dive into  the  status  obsessed  culture  in Silicon  Valley  that  gave  rise to  micro  blogging  platforms that  incorporated  status. The  status  update  is such  a  central  feature  of  the  platform, what  she  does  is  a  deep  archaeology of  the  culture  and  the  communities  that build  these  tools  and build  certain  kinds  of  assumptions into  those  tools  such  that they  become  nationalized  for  everybody  else. Obsession  with  status,  with  cliques, with  likes,  and  with  metrics, She's  really  able  to  narrow down  where  that  comes  from  because  of the  ethnographic  work  she  conducted  in Silicon  Valley  in  the  mid  2000. What  I  appreciate  about  this is  that  it  moves  us  away  from just  thinking  about  the  impacts of  technologies  upon  society. Is  that  they  just  get handed  down  from  the  clouds. And  instead  thinks  about the  communities  that  build  these  technologies and  the  assumptions  that  they're  building in  so  that  we  can  then  better  see what  the  impacts  may be  and  how  we  can  challenge or  take  those  tools  up  rally. Alice  has  since  become  very well  known,  not  only  for  that  book, but  also  her  work  on  micro  celebrity  on line  for  misinformation  studies. And  is  working  on  a  new  book  about conspiracy  theories  on  line, which  sounds  super  fun. But  I'll  also  mention  that she's  very  well  known  in  the  field for  her  groundbreaking  approach to  networked  privacy. Really  reconceptualizing the  notion  of  privacy, or  the  way  that  it  is  interpreted and  assumed  to  work within  computing  communities. And  how  these  ideals  are built  into  machinery  around us  yet  how  that isn't  actually  how  privacy  works  at  all. And  how  we  have  to  take  a  much  more networked  and  relational  approach  to  privacy. And  this  is  a  key  point in  her  book  that  was  just  published this  spring  and  it'll be  part  of  her  talk  today. Please  join  me  in  welcoming  Alice. I'm  so  excited. She's  here  to  speak  today, but  also  here  to  join  us  for  the  year  at Christen  and  be  part of  productive  conversation. Thank  you, Janet  for  that  lovely  introduction. It's  really  wonderful  to be  here  this  year  with so  many  old  friends  and  new. I'm  Alice  Marwick. I  study  the  social,  cultural, and  political  implications  of  social  media. Today  I'm  going  to be  talking  about  my  new  book, The  Privatised  Political  Network  Privacy and  Social  Media,  which  came  out  in  May. It's  the  culmination  of  about  12  years of  research  on  privacy. As  Janet  mentioned  briefly, my  other  research  stream  is on  far  right  and  fringe  disinformation. And  I'm  here  at  CITP  working  on  my  next, which  is  on  how  people  come  to  believe fringe  extremist conspiratorial  disinformation that  they  encounter  on  line. And  I'll  be  teaching  an  undergrad  class, a  sphere  in  the  spring  that looks  at  platform  and  US. Policy  approaches  to  what's typically  called  online  radicalization. I'm  always  happy  to  talk  Q  and on  flat  if  there  is  with  anyone  interested. But  today  I'm  going  to  present the  major  contribution  from  this  book, the  Concept  of  Network  Privacy. And  I  want  to  drill  down into  how  it  relates  to intersectional  systems of  power  and  marginalization. Specifically,  to  illustrate  these  themes, I'll  be  presenting  data  from one  chapter  of  the  book,  Beyond  the  Binary, How  LGBTQ  people  negotiate  network  privacy, which  is  based  on  a  long form  internet  interview  study with  LGBTQ  identified social  media  users  in  the  southeast. And  I  conducted  these  interviews  in  2019. Okay,  second.  I  just  realized, I  don't  think  I'm  actually  on  the  right. I  zoom.  Oh,  there  we  go.  Okay. So  the  book  makes  three  major  claims. Privacy  is  networked, privacy  is  unequally  distributed, and  the  two  are  related, And  I  call  it  the  private  is  political. Because  privacy  violations  are structural,  they  are  unavoidable. And  the  people  who  are  at the  most  risk  from  privacy  violations are  often  the  ones  with  the  most  to lose  when  their  privacy  is  violated. Those  are  those  who  are  marginalized in  other  areas  of  their  life. The  book  combines  privacy  scholarship from  computer  science, legal  studies,  and  the like  with  critical  race  theory, feminist  scholarship,  and queer  and  trans  studies. Because  I  think  this  really helped  me  understand  how  privacy  can be  rethought  to  account  for complex  and  shifting  power  relationships, which  often  are  not  accounted for  in  mainstream  privacy  scholarship. I  do  this  primarily  by deconstructing the  separate  spheres  concept  of privacy  and  instead instantiating  has  in  network just  a  very  basic  overview  of the  classical  liberal  conceptions  of  privacy, which  is  that  the  world  is  laid out  into  two  separate  spheres. If  you've  ever  read the  famous  Warren  and  Brandeis  article, the  Right  to  Privacy, the  highest  sighted  law  Review  article of  all  time. This  is  kind  of  their  whole  jam. You  have  on  one  side  the  private  sphere, the  home  where  personal  life  takes  place. It  is  secluded,  it  is  away from  the  prying  eyes  of  the  public. Historically,  it  is  coded  as domestic,  feminine,  and  emotional. On  the  other  hand,  we  have  the  public  sphere where  one  takes  place  in civic  and  professional  life. And  it  is  coded  as masculine,  civic,  and  rational. When  we  apply  this  model to  modern  internet  privacy, we  get  things  like  the  concept  of personally  identifiable  information,  or  I, I,  which  categorizes  information is  either  private  or  public. Something  either  has  PII  in  it  or  it  doesn't. This  extends  to  the  extensive  shaming  of people  who  put  their  personal information  on  the  Internet, which  is  generally  considered  to  be  public. In  the  US,  privacy  is  an  individual,  right. And  this  gets  instantiated  technically through  individual  privacy  settings. We  believe  that  privacy  is your  responsibility  and  it  is  also your  responsibility  to  either  adjust your  privacy  settings  even  when  they're extremely  granular  in  these, or  just  don't  post  things  on  social  media. Don't  compromise  yourself  by posting  on  social  media. But  because  privacy is  an  individual  responsibility, if  one's  privacy  is  violated, it's  their  fault  you  should  have configured  your  privacy  settings  responsibly. That's  what  Facebook  said. After  hackers  got  half, 1  billion  user  phone  numbers, they  were  basically  like, you  should  do  regular  privacy  checkups on  your  privacy  settings. They,  they  should  not have  shared  pictures  of  their kids  on  social  media. They  should  never  have  taken  nude  photos. I  think  this  quote  from  Nancy  Pelosi is  particularly  troubling. But  privacy  violations  happen  constantly  at such  enormous  levels  that  it  would  be impossible  to  prevent them  through  individual  action. Another  set  of  headlines, how  photos  of  your  kids are  powering  surveillance  technology. Even  if  you've  never  taken  a  DNA  test, distant  relatives  could  reveal  your  identity. The  shady  companies  in  question  are data  brokers  and  the  software  that studies  your  Facebook  friends to  predict  whether  who may  commit  a  crime  is  threat  scoring, which  is  used  in predictive  policing  to  decide what  neighborhoods  and  even  what people  are,  potential  threats. Systems  like  big  data, facial  recognition,  generative  AI, and  genetic  ancestry  testing  reveal personal  information  about people  without  their  consent. And  they're  often  tapping into  sources  of  information that  people  did  not know  were  being  collected. Or  they're  using  information that  are  provided  by others  to  triangulate information  about  someone. And  this  goes  way  beyond information  that  you  actually have  control  over  providing. You  could  stay  completely off  social  media  and  still find  detailed  personal  information such  as  your  home  address, where  you  drive,  your  location. History  could  be  available to  data  brokers  or  local  police. But  socially,  we  all  share  information about  each  other  knowingly  or  unknowingly. People  talk  about  each  other,  they  gossip. Your  mom  posts  unflattering pictures  of  you  on  Facebook, your  cousin  does  23,  and  me, and  all  of  a  sudden  your  DNA  profile is  added  to  the  database. You  provide  personal  information  on one  site  and  a  data  breach, hack,  merger,  or  technological  change by  the  site  compromises  your  data. It's  impossible  to  maintain your  privacy  just  by doing  things  individually. Both  other  people  and modern  social  and  network technologies  leak  information  all  the  time. This  is  normal.  It's  how  networks  work. But  without  recognizing  privacy  as  network, and  by  focusing  constantly  on individual  solutions  to  structural  problems, replace  the  onus  of responsibility  on  individuals. The  separate  spheres  model. Privacy  does  not  work  for  the  modern  age in  which  people's  data  is networked  and  social  connections are  often  publicly  articulated. But  it  doesn't  work  for many  other  reasons  too. And  I  hope  you  will  forgive  me  if  I  do a  little  sideline  down  like feminist  theory  lane  here. Feminist  scholars  of  the  1970s  and  '80s deconstructed  the  separate spheres  concept  quite  thoroughly. If  I  could  recommend  one  article  you  read, it  would  be the  Anita  Allen  and  Aaron  Mac  article, How  Privacy  Got  Its  Gender, which  is  all  about the  Warren  and  Brandeis  article. They  argue  that  Warren  and  Brandeis  were firmly  rooted  in  the bourgeois  norms  of  the  gilded  age, which  forbid  white  women from  participating  in  public  life. Instead,  upper  class  white women's  place  was  in  the  heart, educating  children  in  morals  and  virtues, keeping  the  home  and  supporting  the  husband. And  this,  of  course,  excluded  black  women  and most  poor  white  women  who  had always  had  to  work  outside  the  home. As  well  as  people  living  in  tenements  or apartments  who  lacked privacy  in  the  home.  Right? Most  people  don't  live  in  big  houses where  you  have  like  a  private  yard. And  for  a  lot  of  people, the  home  is  not  a  refuge. As  we'll  see  in  my  presentation, feminist  activists  and  scholars of  the  1970s  and '80s  pushed  back  strongly against  the  public  private  divide. Arguing  that  it  relegated issues  that  were  crucial  to  women's  lives, like  abortion,  contraception, and  intimate  partner  violence, to  the  realm  of  the  personal. Which  made  them  invisible and  difficult  to  combat. The  famous  second  wave  slogan, The  Personal  is  Political. Obviously  my  title  is  a  rip  on that  connected  individual  women's  experiences to  larger  social  structures and  power  relationships. But  they  also  complicated the  idea  of  the  home  as  separate  than  work. Because  for  a  lot  of  women  historically, there  weren't,  has  been  in  the  home like  care,  work,  cleaning, cooking  like  the  home  is  not a  place  for  most  women,  even  today, where  they  sit  down  and  put  their  feet on  by  claiming  that  it  is  not  labor. Domestic  work  remains  unpaid  and  invisible. And  there's  a  bunch  of seven  feminist  political  theory that  doesn't  really  get cited  that  much  anymore. But  is  these  really  great  deconstructions the  public  sphere  theory  while also  maintaining  the  need  for  women, or  nowadays  we  say  women,  non  binary, gender  diverse  people, to  have  ******  that  are  free  from surveillance  and monitoring  while  recognizing  that the  separate  spheres  model excluded  women  from  public  life. All  right,  now  a  little  side  turn  down queer  theory  lane  and  then we'll  go  back  to  privacy. In  the  1980s  and  1990s, queer  theorists  like  Michael  Warner, Lauren  Berlant,  and  Eve  Kosofsky  Sedgwick, also  critique  the  separate  spheres  model, arguing  that  it  institutes a  strict  binary  which does  not  map  to  query  queer  experience. So  this  is  another  great  article, Sex  in  Public,  by  Lauren Berlant  and  Michael  Warner. And  in  this  germinal  article, they  argue  that  queer  sexuality is  relegated  to  the  private, the  closet,  the  love  that does  not  dare  speak  its  name. If  you're  gay  and  you're  holding hands  with  your  husband while  you're  walking  down  the  street, you're  flaunting  your  sexuality. But  if  you're  straight  and  woman holding  hands  with  your  husband, it's  like  keep  it  to  yourself,  get  a  room. That  kind  of  stuff. When  queer  sexuality  exists  in  public, it  is  often  highly  stigmatized  by  forcing stigmatized  sexual  and  gender identities  into  the  private  realm. We  similarly  write  them  out of  participation  in  public. Okay,  what  did  I  actually  do  for  this  book? The  data  from  this  book comes  from  four  studies, two  of  which  I  conducted  with  collaborators, primarily  Dana  Boyd  and  Esther  Hagai, who  I  know  was  here  last  year. Two  of  which  I  conducted  myself. It's  three  interview  studies and  one  focus  group  study. Mostly  long  form  interview  studies  for 128  participants  in  total  and  88  interviews. Then  I  did  qualitative  analysis  of the  interview  data  using  Max  QD. I'm  always  happy  to  talk  qualitative analysis  at  any  time. There's  five  papers  coming off  various  of  these  projects, but  this  LGBT  Q  data  only appears  in  the  book  brand. So  you  can  see  we  have  a  pretty  diverse  set of  participants  here  in  terms  of  race, but  they're  not  very  diverse  in  terms  of  age. The  age  range,  18-49  the  average  age of  interviewees  was  27, and  the  average  age  of all  my  participants  was  22. That's  because  the  focus  groups were  mostly  college  students. So  that  kind  of  took everything  down  a  little  bit. I  said,  so  I  was  like,  fine, I'm  writing  a  book about  millennial  Americans, experiences  of  privacy,  gun. So  that's  what  I'm  doing. There's  a  couple  of  Gen  Xers  in  there, but  not  too  many. So  I  want  to  start  by  sharing  a  story from  my  2019  field  work  to illustrate  how  complicated  these  dynamics can  be  when  they  play  out  in  everyday  life. So  just  to  note  every  name, identifying  information  has  been  changed. The  photos  are  either  stock photos  or  a  couple  of  them are  made  using  Dolly  the  Book. I  also  use  the  pronouns  and  gender,  race, and  sexual  identity  identifications  that my  participants  used  them  in  their  words, I  meet  Jazz,  who  identifies  as 34  white  gender  queer pansexual  uses,  they  then  pronouns. And  a  bustling  Starbucks on  this  chilly  November  afternoon, Jazz  has  spread  their  tablets,  cellphones, sketchpad,  magic  markers,  and  device  charges across  chargers  across the  shared  table  marking  out  their  terrain. Jazz  tells  me  that  this  Starbucks feels  comfortable  because  it  has trans  employees,  young  pistas. Jazz  is  clearly  a  familiar presence  with  curly  hair  and wide  eager  eyes  clothed  in jeans  and  a  comfortable  looking  sweatshirt. Jazz  is  currently  homeless and  sleeping  in  their  car. Like  many  people  living on  the  economic  margins, Jazz  lives  a  precarious and  often  chaotic  lifestyle. Part  of  the  chaos  is  caused  by their  gender  queer  identity  and  atheism, which  Jazz  must  conceal  from their  conservative  Southern  Baptist  family. Jazz,  12  year  old  autistic  son lives  with  his  aunt,  Jazz  sister. And  the  family  sometimes  slips jazz  money  or  lets  him  sleep  on  a  couch. Revealing  themselves  as either  queer  or  non  binary  would cut  off  this  infrequent  but badly  needed  social  support. I  interviewed  jazz  like two  days  after  Thanksgiving. And  they  had  been  kicked out  of  their  grandmother's  house for  refusing  to  say a  prayer  with  the  rest  of  the  families. This  was  very  deep  in  their  family. As  a  result,  on  line  Jazz has  taken  deep  precautions. They  have  two  online  identities. One  uses  their  legal  name and  female  pronouns, the  other  is  under  Jazz, their  preferred  name  and uses  they  then  pronouns. And  a  profile  picture  of  Captain  Marvel  Jazz has  two  e  mail  accounts, two  Twitter  accounts,  and two  Facebook  accounts, and  it's  meticulous  about filtering  information  from  one  to  the  other. They  won't  add  anyone to  the  real  Facebook  profile, which  Jazz  calls  their  page, unless  they've  known  them for  at  least  a  year. And  when  I  scrolled  through  Jazz  page because  they  showed  me they're  both  Facebooks. It  was  very  liberal  activist, Anti  Trump,  like  This  is  2019,  right? So  it's  like  very  fiery  kind  of  stuff. And  the  other  was  full  of  these  very dull,  basic  anodyne  updates. Are  none  of  these  are  real, they're  not  screenshots  from  their  pages, they're  just  random  things I  found  on  the  Internet. But  it's  similar  to  this, like  Happy  Wednesday,  here's  my  kid. Like  how  is  everyone  doing? This  second  page,  the  Jessica page,  is  a  disguise. An  attempt  to  conceal gender  and  sexuality  that  is fluid  and  liminal  behind a  static  sys,  gender  straight  persona. Jazz  explains  why  their Me  page  is  so  intense. Because  sometimes  you've  got  to let  it  out  when  you  have  to  keep everything  locked  in  a  little  box and  then  you  need  an  outlet. Sometimes  you  get  mean  with  it. I've  been  pretty  mean  with  it  on  my  Me  page. But  it's  because  I  need that  release  because  I  don't get  to  be  me  in the  wider  sphere  of  the  world. This  quote  also  speaks  of  the  pleasures  of self  expression  and  social  media  privacy. Scholars,  I  think,  often  overlook the  importance  of  social  media or  in  people's  lives, not  just  for  necessity,  right? Like  you  need  a  social  media  account for  school  or  for work  or  something  like  that. But  it  can  be  immensely  beneficial, especially  to  members  of  minoritized  or marginalized  groups  to  find  social  support. Jazz  is  keenly  aware  that privacy  is  networked  and  that information  flows  through social  and  technological  networks that  are  out  of  our  control. As  a  result,  Jazz  won't  even  add  people  in their  family  who  might  be sympathetic  to  their  true  identity. They  said  because  Singh  had a  friend  who  was  on  both  of  my  friends  list, mutual  friend  would  pop  up. I  have  a  cousin  Emily who  just  friends,  people, she's  like,  oh,  friends, people's  friends  list. Friends  list. When  you  friend  requests  somebody, you  get  to  see  more  of  their  profile. If  she  friend  requested  me  not  knowing it  was  me  and  then  saw  more  of  my  profile, she  might  make  the  connection. Jazz  is  aware  that  Facebook  uses mutuals  to  recommend  users  to  each  other. If  their  page  was  friends  with a  relative  who  was  connected to  their  cousin  Emily, Facebook  might  surface the  page  to  Emily  under the  people  you  may  know feature  compromising  Jazz's  privacy. So  I'll  talk  about  people  you may  know  in  a  couple  of  minutes, but  this  is  a  screenshot of  my  people  you  may  know. It's  basically  Facebook  is  suggesting people  to  you  that  they  think you  might  want  to  friends. Jazz  story  upends  many  of the  assumptions  behind  a  separate spheres  model  of  privacy. They  are  unhoused  and  living  in  their  cars. They  do  not  have  a  home  that  can  be private  in  the  home of  their  family  of  origin. Their  authentic  identities are  stigmatized  and must  be  kept  secret  for  fear  of  retaliation. They're  also  closeted  at  work because  they  work  as  a  line  cook. And  Jazz  describes  kitchens  as very  sexist  places  where their  non  binary  identity would  never  be  accepted. The  things  that  Jazz  wants  to keep  private  from  their  family, such  as  their  gender  and  sexual  identity, their  political  beliefs  and  their  atheism were  totally  acceptable  in most  parts  of  the  liberal  North  Carolina  area in  which  I  interviewed  them. And  in  the  Starbucks  where  we  were  at. It's  not  the  nature of  the  information  itself, which  is  private  or  public, but  the  context  in  which  it is  encountered  and  interpreted. Jazz  is  deeply  aware  of the  networked  nature  of  privacy  and  that these  contexts  can  blur  an  overlap which  is  often  augmented  by  technology. So  when  I  did  some  research  on the  people  you  may  know  feature, I  found  that  Facebook's  rule  of  thumb was  don't  suggest  the  mistress  to  the  wife. Which  is  like,  there's a  lot  to  unpack  in  that, but  there's  been  situations  in  which it  has  revealed  concealed  relationships. Like  people  talked  about their  therapist  being suggested  to  them  as  a  friend, they're  sperm  donor, there,  estranged  relatives. Even  in  some  cases  linking stalkers  with  their  victims  and  Facebook constructs  people  you  may  know by  doing  it  goes  through the  context  that  you  upload and  it  determines  who  you  actually  talk  to. So  if  somebody  is  a  contact  in  your  phone, they  presume  that  you're  a  real  world acquaintance  and  so  they  actually  have a  very  clear  map  of  what your  actual  social  network  looks like  as  opposed  to your  online  social  network, which  may  be  very  difficult. So  it's  a  troubling  feature because  Jazz  has  this  really  precarious  life. They  engage  in  a  pretty  intense  version of  what  I  call  privacy  work. The  tasks,  behaviors,  and mental  heuristics  that  people  engage in  to  maintain  personal  privacy in  the  face  of systemic  networks,  privacy  violations. Privacy  work  is  everything  from  configuring your  privacy  settings  to  uninstalling  Tiktok, to  know,  pulling  down the  curtain  in  your  living  room, to  putting  tinted  windows  on  your  car. It's  anything  that  we  do  to  try to  maintain  our  own  privacy. And  I  want  to  characterize it  as  work  because  I  think  it  is  work. It's  labor,  It's  difficult. It's  unending,  and  it  doesn't work  very  often. It's  one  thing  not  to  let somebody  see  into  your  living  room, it's  another  thing  to  you, make  sure  that  you've  got  your  social  media tight  enough  that  no  information  can  lead. This  work  is  often  ineffective  and  futile. It's  often  based  on folk  understandings  of  privacy and  technology  rather  than the  realities  of  privacy  and  technology. And  even  though  Jazz engages  in  this  really  creative, intense  privacy  work,  like  setting  up these  like  two  persona and  segmenting  them  completely. They  also  know  that  at  any  time their  privacy  can  be  compromised, whether  it's  through  technological mechanisms  like  the  people  you  may  know feature  or  by  social  situations  in  which people  let  things  slip  about  their  identity. Right?  Jazz  story  also  shows  that  privacy, exactly  how  privacy  work, is  unequally  distributed. And  that  privacy  violations  have grave  consequences  for  marginalized  people. By  theorizing  privacy  as networked  rather  than binary  separate  spheres, we  can  better  understand how  privacy  functions  in people's  complicated  lives  and in  relation  to  modern  technology. If  you  read  anthropological literature  on  privacy, for  example,  you'll  see  that privacy  practices  are  extremely  contextual. And  a  lot  of  that  subtlety and  nuance  is  often  left out  of  the  way  that  we  think  about privacy  in  legal  and  technical  terms. Networks.  Privacy  is  the  desire to  maintain  agency  over how  information  moves  through social  and  technological  networks. What  information  means  changes as  it  moves  across  contexts. And  information  is  not  public  or  private, but  exists  on  constantly shifting  spectrum  of  visibility. We  all  share  information  about  each  other, whether  knowingly  or  unknowingly, and  the  information  collected  about  you on  line  often  implicates  other  people. We  talked  about  threat  scoring, that's  one  example  of that  information  moves  through these  technologically  connected  networks and  as  it  moves  from  context  to  context, it  is  given  different  meaning. I'll  talk  about  a  couple of  examples  from  that  later. Rather  than  thinking  of  privacy  as an  individual  responsibility  that  has to  be  individually  protected  by  each  person, we  can  use  networks  privacy  to start  envisioning  collective  solutions  to privacy  violations  and  stop  blaming individuals  when  their personal  information  leaks. I  know  this  is  coming  late  in  the  talk, but  here's  the  structure  of  the  book, the  empirical  chapters  here. 45.64  is  on  gender  and  harassment, five  is  on  socioeconomic  status, and  six  is  from  the  LGBTQ  study. But  throughout  the  book, I  tried  to  take a  fairly  intersectional  approach when  it  came  to  my  participants. Today  I'm  going  to  focus  on  some more  stories  from  chapter  six. This  group  I  found  interesting because  when  I  started  doing  this  study, I  thought  that  LGBTQ  people might  face  different  privacy challenges  than  other  people. And  for  the  most  part  they  don't. But  on  the  other  hand, they  do  deal  with  information that's  traditionally  considered  stigmatized, non  normative  gender  and  sexual  identities. My  participants  strategized  how  to  manage, disclose  disclosures  that  are stigmatized  in  some  contexts but  not  in  others. They  use  a  lot  of  different kinds  of  privacy  work. They  deal  with  intersectionality  and  how  it plays  out  with  different  types of  personal  information. But  they're  also  able  to  harness  many  of the  properties  of  network technologies  for  their  own  ends, to  normalize  their  identities, to  help  others  who  are  struggling, and  to  educate  people  about  LGBTQ  issues. I  met  Carlos  and another  Starbucks  in North  Carolina,  a  different  one. I  spent  a  lot  of  time  in coffee  shops  for  the  study. Slight  wearing  black  rimmed glasses  and  hip  sneakers. He  told  me  over  coffee  that  he loves  making  fancy  cocktails, watching  horror  movies,  and  going  to  museums. Carlos  is  both  gay  and  undocumented. He  grew  up  in  rural  North  Carolina, where  he  was  open about  his  immigration  status, but  kept  his  sexuality  quiet. He  did  this  both  at  school, after  he  saw  a  sort  of scandal  that  happened  in  his  high  school when  two  boys  held  hands  in the  hallway  and  at  home, where  he  felt  that  his  traditional Catholic  Colombian  family  would  disapprove. But  his  conscious  decision  to  conceal his  sexuality  from  his  family and  school  community  was  undercut. When  he  turned  18  and he  first  visited  a  gay  bar, a  club  promoter  snapped a  picture  of  him  shirtless  and  drunk, posted  it  on  line  and  tagged  him  in  it. You  know,  You  think  people would  know  better,  right? His  mom  saw  it  and  asked  him  about  it. Carlos  not  yet  ready  to  come  out  at  home, made  up  a  story,  but  he  describes this  as  being  outed  by  Facebook. And  he  was  by  no  means the  only  person  who had  a  story  like  this  to  tell. The  photo  moved  from  a  context  in  which it  was  acceptable  party  photos  on a  gay  club  website  to  one in  which  it  was  not  his  mother's  Facebook. However,  as  Carlos  has gotten  older,  he's  now  married. He's  in  his  late  '20s. He's  much  more  open  about  his  sexuality. He  talks  about  his  husband  at  work. He  posts  photos  of  him  and  his  husband at  Pride  Parades  on  Facebook. He  sees  this  as  a  very  mild political  act  of  normalization, but  he  is  much  less open  about  his  undocumented  status during  the  Trump  administration  than  he was  during  the  Obama  administration. During  the  Obama  administration, he  was  unlikely  to  be deported  if  he  didn't  do anything  illegal  in  high  school. He  shared  the  fact  that  he  was  undocumented to  increase  the  visibility of  undocumented  people, to  give  them  a  face, to  show  that  they  live  in every  community  and  show that  they're  not  like  dangerous  others. He  has  Daka  status  and  is  a  dreamer. But  when  I  interviewed  him  during Trump's  presidency,  he  was, for  obvious  reasons,  much  less  open  about  it. Carlos  hates  everything about  immigration  law. He  has  joined  a  whatsapp  group of  undocumented  people in  the  area  who  alert  each other  when  there  is  a  local  raid, a  network  of  people  who  share his  privacy  norms  and  goals around  sharing  immigration  information. If  Ice  was  going  to  be  raiding like  a  local  store  factory  or  something, people  would  share  that  on Whatsapp  and  everybody  else would  kind  of  scatter. Carlos  Story  illustrates  the  mechanisms through  which  network  privacy operates  and  it  shows the  difficulty  of  drawing  lines between  public  and  private. He  experiences  privacy  as  intersectional. His  sexuality  and  his  undocumented  status are  both  separate  central  to  his  life. While  his  privacy  needs  vary, as  the  stigma  attached  to each  identity  waxes  and  wanes, he  has  to  deal  with  both. He  can't  consider  them separately  on  Facebook  network's  privacy. Took  out  his  agency  to  come  to his  mother  with  important  consequences. He  was  homeless  for  a  while. He  was  estranged  from  his  family and  information  that  he  felt  safe  to  provide. In  one  context,  the  Obama  administration, he  no  longer  felt  safe  under the  Trump  administration's aggressive  immigration  enforcement  policies, but  unfortunately  it  is  still  out  there. So  Carlos  story  really  illustrates  that information  is  never  just  private  or  public, but  located  on  a  spectrum  of visibility  due  to  context  and  audience. That  what  we  consider  private, each  of  us  changes  in  Moors. When  I'm  talking  about  context, a  lot  of  my  thinking on  this  was  very  inspired  by the  philosopher  Helen  Nissan  Baum and  her  theory  of  contextual  integrity. In  contextual  integrity,  Nisa's  theory is  that  information  norms are  specific  to  a  context. And  so  the  example  she  always  gives  is  like, if  a  Dr.  asks  you  like,  hey, how  did  you  get this  horrible  rash  or  something, you'd  probably  feel comfortable  sharing  that  with  them, but  you  don't  want  other  people  talking about  or  gossiping  about your  horrible  rash,  right? Like  there's  many  situations in  which  that  would  not  be an  acceptable  topic  because the  doctor's  office  has  a  certain  set of  norms  around  privacy. It's  governed  by  Hipaa. You  and  your  Dr.  obviously both  want  what's  best for  you  and  your  health, but  you  don't  want  the  Dr.  then  turning around  and  telling other  people  what  they  saw, that  would  be  a  gross  violation  of  privacy. And  she  says  that  people perceive  privacy  violations when  information  flows  from a  situation  with  one  set  of  norms  to  another. You  provide  it  in  one  situation  with a  certain  set  of norms  and  it  flows  to  another. And  that's  a  contextual  integrity  violation. If  we  dig  deep into  communication  scholarship, you'll  find  that  information  is  always  shared within  certain  contexts and  within  certain  audiences. And  that  actually  shapes  how  we put  the  information  together. You  probably  speak  differently  at school  than  you  do  with  your best  friends  or  your  family. Use  different  words,  different  terms. You  might  use  profanity  or slang  in  some  contexts  and  not  in  others. If  you  get  fired, you  might  tell  your  partner, your  mom,  your  best  friend,  your  next  boss. You  might  tell  that  story  in a  very  different  way,  right? And  information  is  given  meaning  through the  social  and  technological networks  in  which  we  all  live. But  when  information  moves  across  networks, it's  recontextualized  and  reinterpreted. It's  taken  out  of  context, it's  misinterpreted. It's  combined  with  other  pieces of  information  to  create  new  meanings. And  this  is  also  often experienced  as  a  privacy  violation. As  contexts  and  relationships  change, information  that  was  once  safe  to provide  becomes  unsafe  things. We  were  once  okay,  making public  are  no  longer. I  also  met  Andre  in  North  Carolina, unlike  Carlos,  but  like  jazz, Andre  is  deeply  closeted  at  home. He's  19  gay  and  black. His  family  is  Jamaican, a  culture  he  describes  as  homophobic. And  although  he  has  known  he  is gay  for  most  of  his  life, he's  only  really  started admitting  it  recently. He's  very  careful  about  filtering out  his  family  from  all  his  social  media, especially  Instagram,  which  is the  one  he  uses  most  often. When  he  was  14,  his  mother  found  his  phone, read  all  his  text  messages, including  those  between  him and  his  first  boyfriend, and  confronted  him  about his  sexuality,  which  he  denied. So  they're  in  this  don't ask,  don't  tell  situation. He  can't  be  himself  at  home, but  he's  very  out  at  his  job. He  works  at  minimum  wage job  in  a  cell  phone  store. The  kind  of  place  that  puts  up big  pride  displays  every  June, which  is  at  least  on the  surface  of  gay  friendly. And  he  enjoys  being  able  to  be himself  with  his  coworkers  and  joke  around. I  will  note  that  Jazz  and Andre  live  in  the  same  city. But  it's  about  the  context of  the  workplace,  right? Like  a  line  kitchen  versus a  corporate  retail  environment, where  the  difference  is  there. Our  traditional  view  of  privacy, Visa  v, the  queer  community  has  been  the  closet. The  idea  that  people  are  forced  to  keep their  queer  identity  secret  in  public because  of discrimination  in  the  public  world. And  if  you  think  about  the  closet as  a  dichotomous  space, it  doesn't  describe  any  of the  experiences  of  the  people  that I've  spoken  with  in  this  chapter. Neither  does  the  divide between  private  and  public. Like  many  queer  people, Jazz  and  Andre  are  not  able to  express  non  heterosexual, non  gender  conforming  identities  in the  traditionally  private  ******  of  the  home. Jazz  feels  that  they  can  be themselves  at  Starbucks, a  form  of  privatized  public  space, or  on  Facebook,  and  networks public  run  by  a  corporation. Andre  can  be  openly gay  at  the  corporate  least  in controlled  cell  phone  store where  he  works  or  on  Instagram, a  subsidiary  of  Facebook. Please  note  that  I'm  not  saying  here  that corporations  are  the  savior of  gay  visibility  or  anything  like  that. I,  it  was  very  interesting  to me  that  for  many  of  the  people  I  spoke  with, there  was  a  reversal  or flip  in  where  safety  was  located. But  in  order  to  maintain  the  situation, which  are  open  in some  contexts  and  not  others, you  have  to  do  an  enormous amount  of  privacy  work. Otherwise,  these  contextual frames  of  home  work, friends,  family  collapse  on  each  other. You  have  to  stop  the  risk  of  nosy  friends, coworkers  or  relatives  from deliberately  revealing  information across  contexts. Assessing  this  context  and  determining what  information  is  appropriate  to share  is  not  always  easy. Kayla  is  a  teacher.  She's  24. Her  partner  is  a  woman, she  identifies  as  a  lesbian and  they  have  a  five  year  old  child. She  is  only  out  as an  ally  of  the  public school  where  she  teaches, even  though  it's  a  very  liberal  area  and there  are other  gay  and  clear  teachers  at  the  school. Every  school  year  she mulls  over  whether  she  should be  open  about  her  family  with  her  coworkers. She's  out  to  her  family  of  origin. She's  out  on  Snapchat  where she  has  a  small  curated  group  of  friends. And  she's  out  on  the  Facebook. Mom  blogs  that  she  belongs  to, but  at  school  she's constantly  assessing  the  situation. I  think  partly  this  is  because I  interviewed  quite  a  few  teachers. And  teachers  are  often bound  by  strange  respectability  norms, which  are  extremely  different based  on  where  in the  US  you  live  and  whether  you teach  it  a  public  or  private  schools. She  said,  I'll  be  in a  situation  like  when  I  was  in my  orientation  for  new  teachers and  we  were  talking  about something  and  there's  relevance, like,  oh,  my  girlfriend and  I  have  to  sit  there  and  contemplate  like, do  I  want  to  say  that  and how  do  I  want  to  word  it? Do  I  want  them  to  know  there's a  split  second  decision sometimes  where  you  think  do  I  say  it, how  do  I  say  it  and  that  kind  of  thing, or  is  it  even  relevant? Many  of  the  people  I  spoke  with talked  about  how  the  model  of  coming  out, that's  often  on  television shows  and  movies  are  like, you  come  out  once,  everyone's  like, oh  good  for  you  and  then  you're  just  out. But  instead,  they  constantly had  to  assess  situations  for whether  it  was  safe  for  them  to  come out  and  how  much  of  that  they wanted  to  do  in  the  situation  to  the  point where  some  of  the  more  kind  of radical  people  in  my  sample, one  of  them  shaved their  head  because  they  wanted  to divest  themselves  of  the heterosexual  male  gaze, as  they  put  it. But  it  was  this  sort  of  potent  visual  symbol of  queerness  that  they  wanted. They  didn't  want  people  to  be  unsure, they  didn't  want  to  have  to  come  out. And  some  people  would  come  out  on  Facebook and  try  to  cover  everybody  at  once. But  in  most  situations, there's  this  constant  dichotomy or  this  dialectic  of  like, should  I  or  shouldn't  I  come  out? This  understanding  or  lack of  understanding  of  context  and audience  is  even  more true  online  because  it's often  extremely  hard  to  tell who  is  actually  listening. And  also  we  all  know  that digital  information  can  be screenshot  and  shared. Determining  context  is  next  to  impossible. I  interviewed  another  person, a  college  student, who  was  outed  to  his  sister because  he  matched  with  one  of her  best  friends  on  Grinder. And  her  best  friend  screenshot the  Grinder  profile  and sent  it  to  his  sister  and  was  like, isn't  this  your  brother? And  she  was  like,  yes. You  know,  again, something  a  little  bit  more  positive. Unlike  the  people  that  we've seen  who  are  outed  against  their  will, other  participants  discuss deliberate  decisions  that  were  often politically  motivated  to  share information  that  is  often  considered  private. And  I'm  calling  this  strategic  visibility. Intentionally  making  oneself  seen  in a  desired  way  for  personal  or  political  ends. Blake  is  a  19  year  old  trans  man. He's  very  visible  on social  and  he's  very  into  like  answering questions  and  being  a  visible  role  model  for young  trans  men  and social  media  really  allows him  to  reach  a  wider  audience. It  means  he  doesn't  have  to  come  out  of the  closet  as  trans  over  and  over  again. He  said,  even  if  I  see someone  on  social  media  that  I  don't  know, I'm  you  need  something, let  me  know,  advice  or  anything,  please. It's  okay.  The  way  you're feeling  is  valid.  Everything  is  valid. There's  a  reason  why  you're  thinking  this, I  promise  Blake  is  really  into  this  idea  of a  visible  publicness  that normalizes  his sexual  and  identity  expression. And  I  will  note  that  I  did  these  interviews in  2019  where  there  was  far less  like  active  transphobic activism  than  there  is  now. I  wonder  how  some  of these  participants  may  have  changed  some of  their  practices  if  I went  back  now  and  did  the  interviews  again. Bonnie  46  is  a  genteel, southern  Trans  woman  in  her  '40s. She's  happy  to  share intimate  information  about her  transition  even  when strangers  ask her  inappropriately  personal  questions. All  of  her  other  trans  friends roll  their  eyes  and  they're  like, please  don't  answer  those  questions. You're  not  making  it easier  for  the  rest  of  us. But  she  shares  intimate  information because  she  wants  to  educate  people. She  says,  I'm  probably  doing a  disservice  to  some  of the  other  trans  community by  explaining  this  stuff, but  I  want  to  help  people  understand  better. Her  friends  deem  this  information  private, but  Bonnie  decides  whether or  when  to  share  it. She  has  an  agency  over  her  sharing, so  it  doesn't  feel  like  a  violation. When  I  was  talking  to  Bonnie, she  told  me  that  people would  sometimes  come  up  and  ask  her the  time  and  she thought  it  was  because  they  wanted  to hear  her  speak  so  they  could clock  whether  or  not  she  was  trans  or  not. And  it  made  me  think  about  how  there's some  aspects  of  self  like our  voice  that  I interviewed  a  bunch  of  gamer girls  for  the  harassment  chapter. And  they  all  talked  about  how they  didn't  like  using voice  chat  because  their  voice  would give  them  away  that  they  were  a  woman. And  then  they'd  get  sexually  harassed. And  there's  so  many  aspects  of  life  like  that where  for  some  people there's  something  that's  private. But  for  other  people,  that's not  a  private  thing  where  it doesn't  reveal other  private  information  about  us. Bonnie  is  careful  about network  privacy  online  because she's  very  worried  about conservative  backlash  and  white  supremacists. She  has  three  groups  of  friends,  poets, activists  and  trans  people, and  they  do  not  overlap  that  much. She  said  most  of  her  poet  friends, she's  like  the  only  trans  person  they  know. She's  afraid  that  if  she  friends  someone  on Facebook  who  has conservative  friends  or  family, which  is  very  normal  in  North  Carolina, that  it'll  open  up  her  trans  and activist  groups  to  docking  or  even  violence. She  worries  for  example  that well  meaning  allies  might  see like  a  trans  news  item  and then  tag  trans  people  in  it, right,  Thus  outing  them  as trans  in  a  very  dangerous  way. Bonnie  is  careful  about  network  privacy, but  she  also  views  herself  as a  role  model  to  younger  trans  people. She  walks  this  really  careful  line  between strategic  visibility  and  keeping her  and  her  community  safe. And  it  was  people  like  Bonnie or  another  person  I  interviewed, Quinn,  who  was  really  active  in sort  of  like  anti  fascist  activism. They  had  these  very  complex  sort of  community  norms  around privacy  protection  that  wasn't  present in  a  lot  of the  other  people  that  I  spoke  with. For  both  Bonnie  and  Blake. Information's  ability  to  flow beyond  its  network  and  context  of origin  helps  them  promote broader  acceptance  of  queer and  trans  lazy  norms. So  I'm  wrapping  up  my  promise. I  do  find  that  queer  people face  challenges  from  networks. Privacy.  And  privacy  work basically  that  all  communities  do. But  I  do  think  there  are  a  couple of  things  that  I  want  to point  out  that  I  learned  from  this  community. The  first  is  I  like  thinking about  privacy  as  non  binary. The  stories  about  this  chapter  show that  network  privacy  doesn't  support these  assumptions  about  separate  spheres  and binary  thinking  which  underpins both  the  original  legal definitions  of  privacy and  the  individual  and  technical  models of  privacy  that  exist  today. It  starts  from  a  total different  set  of  premises. Under  network  privacy, the  closet  is  not  a  binary because  ******  are  not intrinsically  private  or  public. They  are  contextual  frames that  give  meaning  to  information. What  makes  information  private or  public  is  simply your  level  of  desire  to  share  it  with  others. Your  agency  determines what  information  you  share, knowing  that  it  can  leak  across  frames, contexts,  and  audiences  at  any  time. And  there's  a  lot  of  stuff in  the  book  that  goes  into  more  depth about  these  different  choices  that people  make  in  different  communities. Secondly,  privacy  is  intersectional. Different  identity  characteristics are  subject  to different  privacy  challenges  because different  types  of  stigma  wax  and  wane. For  example,  we've  seen,  like  I  said, this  huge  backlash  against the  LGBTQ  community  in  the  last  two  years. And  it's  likely  that  if  I conducted  these  interviews  today, privacy  practices  around  their  gender  and sexual  identities  might  have  changed. A  lot  of  the  young  trans  people, especially  that  I  interviewed  were super  open  about  being  trans. Like  when  I  interviewed  Blake, he  said  he  got  more  crap  from  his  friends  for being  on  Facebook  than he  did  for  being  trans. I  don't  know  if  he  would  say  that  today. Finally,  strategic  visibility or  the  ability  of us  agency  can  really harness  network  privacy  for  positive  ends. This  visibility  destabilizes the  traditional  notions  of  private  or public  because  it  presumes  that queerness  should  be relegated  to  the  intimate, the  secret,  or  the  personal. By  using  the  network's  leaky  nature  to create  visible  queer  preference  presences, LGBTQ  people  use network  privacy  to  their  own  advantage. The  difference  here  is  their  agency,  right? These  participants  are  able  to disclose  for  their  own  reasons, rather  than  having  publicity forced  on  them  by  a  leak. By  sharing  some  of these  stories  for  my  project, I  want  to  show  you  how diverse  attitudes  and  strategies are  towards  privacy  network  privacy, privacy  work. And  how  it  behooves  all  of  us to  sort  of  conceptualized  privacy as  a  social  justice  issue. As  long  as  we  continue framing  privacy  as  individual rather  than  networked  and  ignoring the  ways  that  privacy  is unequally  distributed, we  can  continue  ignoring the  lived  reality  of  network  privacy  and the  unequal  burden  that  it places  on  all  of  us  in  our  everyday  lives. Thank  you. Thank  you  so  much  else.  Let's  open it  up  for  a  few  questions. We  have  some  time  for  discussion. Oh,  go  ahead. Thanks  Mr.  Great.  I  was wondering  if  we  stop  looking  at  privacy. This  is  from  a  legal  standard. Looking  at  privacy  as  binary. But  so  I  as  sort  of  continuous  network, what  would  such  a  legal  standard  look  like? Well,  that  is  an  excellent  question. It  is  very  difficult  to envision  a  legal  standard. We  don't  have  a  lot  of  precedent for  those  types  of  things. I'm  not  a  lawyer,  but  when  you  look  at, you  can  only  bring  a  privacy claim  as  an  individual. You  can't  necessarily. I  think  with  genetic  privacy, that  maybe  gives  us  the  best model  for  looking  at  it, because  genetic  privacy  is all  about  networked  information. Forensic  genealogy, which  uses  genetic  ancestry  databases  to identify  possible  perpetrators  of crimes,  can  identify  somebody. I  think  it's  like  a  second  cousin once  removed  or  a  third  cousin  once  removed. It's  somebody  with  whom  you  share  a great,  great,  great  grandparent. In  most  cases,  I  bet  most  of  us don't  even  know  who  our  third  cousins  are, are  not  in  contact  with  them  at  all. And  yet  there  are instances  of  people  being convicted  now  of  course. Those  instances  are  the publicity  that's  used  to justify  the  use  of  these genetic  databases  by  police. But  anyway,  I'm  getting  off  topic, but  there  are  mechanisms, there's  genetic  privacy  laws being  passed  in  different  states that  are  really  specific  to a  certain  type  of  information that's  intrinsically  networked. But  I  wonder  if  we  can  think  about  how those  same  laws  might  be applied  to  other  forms of  information  as  well. I  think  when  it  comes  to  assessing collective  solutions  to individualized  problems, that  is  something  the  legal  system  is spectacularly  bad  at  doing. I  think  those  solutions  are  probably better  thought  about  through  discourse, through  activism,  maybe  through  technology, than  they  are  through  the  legal  system. Thank  you  for  your  question. Yeah,  thanks.  Yeah,  on  that  point, about  the  technology  angle, I'm  wondering  about compared  to  the  status  quo, Facebook,  what  ways  in  which  it  could  be different  to  make  this  task  easier? I  feel  like  is  there  a  version of  where  you  have  one  account that's  tied  to  physically  your  body  and your  identity  and  that  allows  this  to  happen. Even  absent  someone  you  might  know  features, things  because  we  exist  in  networks, I  think  the  information  is going  to  move  around  anyway. I  really  do.  I  don't think  it's  a  matter  of  making more  intense  privacy  settings or  making  more  privacy  settings. Wendy  Chun  has  this  concept in  some  of  her  writings  that  talks  about basically  destigmatizing  disclosure  and saying  that  if  people's personal  information  leaks, we  should  just  be  fine  with  it. I  don't  think  most  people would  be  okay  with  that. I'm  not  sure  I  see  a  technical  solution. I  think  technologies exacerbate  networks  privacy. But  I  think  even  if  we  ban  data  brokers, which  is  like  always number  one  on  my  list  for  like  any  reason, anytime  I  can  advocate  for  that,  I  will. Even  if  we  ban  data  brokers, even  if  we  pass comprehensive  genetic  privacy  laws, even  if  we  get, you  know,  meticulously  come  through generative  AI  to exclude  personal  information, whatever, I  think  you're  still  going  to  have  people gossiping  about  each  other on  the  Internet,  right? And  I  don't  think  that's a  leak  that  can  be  plugged because  people  always  talk about  each  other  and  they  always  will. I  think  that  that  type of  relational  privacy  is the  thing  that  many  social  media  sites have  tried  very  hard  to  plug. I  think  Facebook,  their  privacy  settings constantly  change  and  which is  the  difficult  thing,  right? Because  you  can  have  your  settings completely  configured  exactly  the way  you  want  them. And  then  six  months  from  now, you'll  find  that  information  is  leaked. So  I  don't  know,  I'm  not  sure  if there  is  a  technical  solution. You  know  in  the  book  I  talk  about, I  give  two  examples  of, I  don't  know  if  you  guys  remember this  that  happened  like  while  I  was writing  the  book  in  2021 when  Ted  Cruz  went  on  vacation  to like  the  Grand  Cayman  Islands  or  something while  Texas  was  like  under  a  snowstorm. And  his  wife  texted  a bunch  of  their  friends  and  was  like, who  wants  to  join  us  at  the  Grand  Cayman? And  somebody  screenshot  it  and  sent  it  to like  the  Washington  Post,  like  mall. But  I  contrast  this  with  like  Linda  Tripp taping  Monica  Lewinsky's  phone  conversations. They're  both  horrible  violations  of  privacy. Like  as  much  as  I  thought  the  whole Heidi  Cruz  thing  was  funny, it  is  a  privacy  violation and  I  do  not  condone  it. But  the  amount  of  effort  and  energy  it took  in  1998  to tape  a  conversation  with  somebody  is immensely  more  than just  screenshotting  something,  right? So  technology  has  certainly made  these  things  much, much  easier  to  accomplish. But  I  don't  think  we  can close  the  barn  door  after the  horse's  loss  its  privacy.  Yeah. What  about  tools? I'm  just  like  on  what  do  we  do  sort  of  angle, but  what  about  tools  to  make  doing this  kind  of  privacy  work  just easier  for  people? Does  talking  these  folks  give you  any  sense  of  like what  are  the  hardest  things about  doing  this  privacy work  in  the  current  climate and  what  might  make  it easier  for  people  who  need  to  do  it? That's  a  great  question.  I'm  on the  Association  for  Internet  Researchers. I  run  the  Risky  Research  working  group, which  is  sort  of  resources  for  people  who  do research  that  might  put  them  in the  public  eye  and  be  harassed. And  we're  trying  to  find good  cybersecurity  guides  for people  because  there's  lots  of good  cybersecurity  guides  for  people. There's  like  a  feminist  cybersecurity this  cybersecurity  guide. But  it's  all  like  install  a  password  manager, spend  your  entire  Sunday  changing  all  of your  passwords  to  something long  and  complicated. Two  factor  off  on  every  single  photo at  the  risk  models that  these  people  are  dealing  with. Right? Not  necessarily,  but  again, people's  privacy  work  is  really  individual. Like  I  interviewed  one  woman,  a  trans  woman, who  went  through  every  photo  she took  and  deleted  the, what  is  it,  the  XI  data  from  it. I  think  most  of  my  participants don't  even  know  that  exists. Right.  And  then  there are  other  people  who  would  be  like, oh  yeah,  my  wife  has a  spreadsheet  with  my  passwords  in  it. Like,  I  don't  even  know  what  it  is. But  there  are  certain  other  things that  I'm  really  private  about. You  know,  I  think  working with  specific  communities  of people  working  with  sex  workers for  example,  or  something  like  that. Right?  Like  a  group  that  shares  at Norms  and  needs.  I  could  see  that  being an  important  and interesting  activist  project, otherwise  I  think  it's  so variable  that  it  would  hard  to  think  of something  that  could  be  specific across  people. Yeah,  yeah.  Thank  you  so  much. On  similar  conversation  of  how we  manage  the  networked  privacy, how  do  we  balance the  need  for  individual  privacy  with the  understanding  that  increased  privacy online  could  lead  to  harm  for  some  people, like  you  mentioned,  sex  workers  and  making in  particular  the  way that  sex  worker  networks  can  be  used  for sex  trafficking  for  other  illicit  activities. How  do  we  balance  both like  technologically  and  legally, like  the  need  for  privacy and  the  need  for  like  safety  online? Yeah,  that's  a  great  question. I  tend  to  be  fairly I  don't  even  know  if  this  maps a  pre  existing  political  position, but  for  the  most  part,  I  tend  to be  pretty  pro  privacy. And  I  tend  to  think  that  when  people  are arguing  against  privacy  protections, they're  usually  using  scare  tactics. They're  usually  using  child sexual  abuse  material  or sex  trafficking  as  the  reasons why  everyone  in  the  world  should  have  apple. Like  looking  through  their encrypted  data  for  example. I'm  not  minimizing  the  harms that  these  things  cause. But  it's  very  interesting  to  me  that the  same  examples  have  come  over  and over  in  the  last  20  years that  I've  been  doing  this  research. And  it's  always  those  two,  right? I  think  that  the  sex  trafficking one  is  especially  rich because  there  is  tons  of  stuff  you  could do  to  help  victims  of  sex  trafficking, most  of  whom  are  immigrant  women that  the  US  does  not  do,  right? So  if  you're  going  to  do  something  to help  trafficked  people, then  I'm  sure  if  you  talk  to some  trafficking  anti trafficking  organizations, they  would  have  some  suggestions. So  yeah,  I  mean, I  think  that's  going  to  be  based  on your  own  sense  of  like  your own  ethical,  moral  standards. For  me,  I'm  going  to  probably come  down  hard  on  the  privacy  end. Yeah,  this  is  fascinating, just  from  a  research  perspective. I  was  curious,  if  you  could  say a  little  bit  about  how  you  went  about findings  like  what  the  consent  process look  like  for  that,  given  your  focus. Sure.  Obviously,  I  got IRB  like  I  do  for pretty  much  every  product  I  do. This  one  mostly  put  up  a  bunch  of  flyers  and coffee  shops  around  North  Carolina. I  drove  around  and  every  town  I  went  to, I  had  this  flyer  with  like  a big  pride  flag  on  it. And  I  stuck  it  on  a  bunch  of coffee  shops  and  I paid  people  $20  for  the  interview. I  got  enough  responses  that  I  was  able  to, you  know,  to  recruit  that  way. That's  a  pretty  like old  school  form  of  recruitment. I've  tried  many  different  forms of  recruitment  over  the  cause of  my  research  career. Qualitative  recruitment  is  like,  I  think, one  of  the  most  difficult  things about  doing  the  kind  of  research  that  I  do. Let's  see,  what  do  we do  for  the  other  projects. For  the  socioeconomic  status  project, we  asked  teachers  at public  schools  and  city  colleges to  recommend  students  to  us. And  then  we  did  snowball  sampling. So  we  train  the  young  people on  interview  methods. And  we  gave  them  like  a  tape  recorder, and  we  paid  them  $50  for  each  interview they  did  with  one  of  their  peers. That  was  like  a  little  bit of  a  participatory  methodology, But  not  really  because  in a  real  participatory  action  methodology, they're  coming  up  with a  research  project  yourself. We  handed  out  like  flyers  at  retail  stores, Then  for  the  harassment  interview, mostly  that  was  just  Twitter. Then  I  posted  on  the  Red  Girl  Gamers  sub red  because  a  friend  of mine  was  a  mod  there.  What's  the  other  study? The  one  that  Esther  did, she  recruited  through  like flyers  on  the  campus  of a  large  Midwestern  University?  Yeah. It's  a  combination  of  depending on  what  kind  of person  you're  looking  for  for  this. It  was  really  there's a  lot  of  gay  people  out  there, queer  people  out  there. Mostly  they  use  social  media. It  was  the  more expansive  your  recruitment  criteria  are, the  easier  it  is  to  find  people  and  finding queer  people  who social  media  was  extremely  easy. Janet,  I  have  a  question  for  you. As  you  know,  I  engage  in a  lot  of  very  extreme  privacy  work. Yes,  I'm  very  happy  to  a  word  for  what  I spent  the  majority  of  my  life doing  my  downtown. But  I  wanted  to  ask  if  a  lot of  this  was  about  other  people  knowing. A  big  concern  for  me  and for  others  is  about  not  just  who  knows, but  what  knows,  which  companies, which  databases. I  wanted  to  know  if  the people  you  interviewed  were  still thinking  about  this relationally  human  to  human, or  if  there  were  non humans  involved  in  that  network. And  if  so,  what the  concerns  were  about say  the  acquisition  of a  database  by  the  merging of  a  company  or  as  you  mentioned, the  transition  from  Dhaka  into  Trumps. Yeah.  Can  you  speak  a  little  bit  about  that or  the  kind  of  visibility  of the  systems  to  these  people? Sure.  That's  a  great  question.  In  one of  the  papers  or  with  Esther, I  think  it's  Which  one? Is  it  the  first  one  or  the  second  one? The  apathy.  I  think  it's  the  apathy  one. It  shows  that  one,  there  was  a  lot  of discussion  of  like  what Amazon  knows  about  me, like  what  the  government  might  know  about  me. And  people  felt  that  there  was almost  nothing  they  can  do  about  it. And  that  concept  is  now called  privacy  utility  or  privacy. Resignation  and  a  bunch  of people  have  written  papers  on  it. But  it's  the  idea  that  your  privacy  is  so massively  violated  on  line  that there's  pretty  much  nothing you  can  do  about  it. Now,  there's  one  set of  scholarship  on  that  that says  if  people  feel  that their  privacy  is  already  being  violated, they  will  do  as  much  to  protect  it. So  it  becomes  it's a  self  fulfilling  prophecy  in  some  way. I  don't  necessarily  think I've  seen  that  in  my  own  data. I  think  that  people try  the  best  they  can  and  they  also feel  like  no  matter what  in  the  privacy  work  chapter, I  have  a  whole  taxonomy  of  privacy  work  and security  through  obscurity is  like  easiest  one. Where  people  are  like  the  government's not  looking  at  me because  they  don't  know  who  I  am. Right.  Like  they're  just  not  paying attention  to  me  because  I'm  just  like an  insignificant  aunt  in  the  system. The  rhythm  that  fit  for  the  internet. Yes,  exactly.  And  just  about  as successful  in  the  socioeconomic  status  paper, we  encountered  a  few  participants who  were  extremely  technically  savvy, whether  because  they  were  trained  in computer  science  or  they  were extremely  on  line. Right.  And  some  of  those  people  had pretty  sophisticated  understandings  of the  sort  of  larger  systemic  data  collection. But  again,  people  don't feel  like  there's  much  you  can  do. Like  as  your  own  experiences  have  shown, the  extent  the  things  you  have  to  do  to prevent  being  tracked  at that  level  are  extremely  difficult. And  in  some  of  my  other  work  we've  written about  how  we  like  the  royal. Me  and  my  colleagues  have  written  about how  often  the  immediate  harms people  feel  are  from  relational  privacy. They  get  kicked  out  of  their  house, their  boyfriend  breaks  up  with  them, they  lose  their  best  friend  or  something. They  lose  a  job,  right? Whereas  a  lot  of  the  impacts  of  being surveilled  by  shadowy  corporations or  government  entities, the  harms  are  much  less immediate  and  apparent. So  it's  not  as important  even  though  it  mostly  feels  gross, like  I  feel  people  feel this  very  affective response  to  being  tracked. Like  they  feel  creeped out  by  it,  but  they  don't  know  what  to  do. Thanks.  Probably  time  for  one  more  question. One  question.  Yes.  I  know  that  you're now  working  on  more  conspiracy  here. I  was  wondering  if  you  see  some similar  in  active  words  to manage  contextual  communication in  my  worlds  colliding. I  hadn't  even  thought  about  that. That's  such  an  interesting  topic. No,  I'm  in  a  lot  of  telegram  groups  and signal  groups  for  non flat  white  supremacist  someday, I'm  going  to  fall  afoul  of  one  of these  government  data  mining  efforts. And  they're  going  to  be  like, wow,  you're  a  bad  person. A  lot  of  them  do  use pseudonyms  or there's  a  lot  of  coded  language. But  I  don't  think  it's  coded  because they're  worried  about the  government  watching  them. I  think  it's  coded  because  a  lot  of these  communities  are  just  like  really esoteric  and  full  of lingo  and  slang  and  jargon. In  order  to  understand  them, you  have  to  spend  a  lot  of  time  in  them. But  certainly,  I  think they  do  practice  some  opsec. The  white  supremacists  are  probably  the most,  none  of  them  are  good  at  it, but  they're  probably  the  best  at  it because  they're  the  ones  who  actually do  criminal  things, whereas  most  of  the  anons  just  sit  on the  Internet  talking  about  how great  Trump  is  all  day, which  is  not  a  crime. So  yeah,  I  think  the more  extreme  of  the  group, certainly  the  ones  that  we  like, the  January  6  organizers, were  just  doing  it  on  Facebook. They  weren't  doing  anything to  try  to  cover  their  tracks because  they  felt  completely like  they  were  going  to  get  away  with  it. Now  maybe  they  are. One  thing  that  white  supremacist groups  on  telegram  do  do, is  they  keep  the  chats  mostly  broadcast  only. And  then  they  open  them  up  for like  an  hour  at  a  time for  like  a  group  discussion, and  then  they  close  them  again. I'm  not  really  sure  what security  function  that  serves, but  it  is  interesting  to  me  because  I  haven't seen  that  in  any  other  internet  communities. Anyway,  that's  a  great  question. Thank  you  for  asking.  I'd  like  to thank  Alice  for  more  time for  sharing  her  work. Thank  thanks.  By  the  boy. Is  it  of  thanks? I'm  working  for  a  very  long  time  trying to eat.