Managing an online identity has become a multimedia affair. Not only can internet searchers type in queries about someone who has aroused their curiosity, they also can seek pictures, videos, and real-time status updates online. Location-based awareness in mobile devices adds another layer of information that can be searched.\u00a0 Avid users of mobile devices may voluntarily reveal their identity and location to certain websites, thereby allowing almost anyone to learn their whereabouts. Surveillance, even the most benign kind, has moved out of the realm of private investigators and into the hands of the general public.<\/p>\n\n
Much has changed since our 2007 Digital Footprints<\/i> report<\/a>. At the time, the idea of the then-new facial recognition technology being touted by photo search services like Polar Rose seemed radical. Today, facial recognition technology is standard in many new digital cameras, and applications like Polar Rose are soon going to be fused with the cameras and internet connections on users\u2019 phones. Google Goggles, a service that lets you use pictures taken with your mobile device to search the Web, doesn’t offer facial recognition for now, but the underlying capability is there.[1. Google has publicly stated that they have made a deliberate decision to withhold facial recognition features from the public version of Google Goggles for now, but prominent technology experts like Tim O\u2019Reilly have had \u201cfull versions\u201d of the Google Nexus One phone demonstrated to them, showing the ability of the phone\u2019s camera to detect and accurately identify an individual. See: http:\/\/radar.oreilly.com\/2010\/01\/the-nexus-one-vs-iphone.html<\/a>] As with any major technological advance, there are great potential benefits and risks associated with how these tools ultimately get used. See someone at a conference that you recognize but can\u2019t remember his name? Aim your camera at him and instantly pull up the search results connected with his image online. Having a drink at a bar? Would you mind if another patron who took a liking to you could snap a picture and look you up? Planning on attending a political protest? Would you reconsider if you knew you could instantly be identified by the counter-protesters? <\/p>\n\n Even those who choose to be relatively conservative with the information they share on the internet\u2014favoring usernames in lieu of real names when posting comments or creating an online profile\u2014are becoming easier and easier to identify. According to one prominent study from the field of re-identification research, the vast majority of Americans (87%) can be identified with only three pieces of information: gender, zip code and date of birth.[2. See \u201cComputational Disclosure Control,\u201d by Latanya Sweeney. Available at: http:\/\/groups.csail.mit.edu\/mac\/classes\/6.805\/articles\/privacy\/sweeney-thesis-draft.pdf<\/a>] Given that this information is easily gleaned from many online profiles created for popular sites like Facebook, users may be more exposed than they realize. Other new studies have shown that seemingly anonymous profiles that express unique preferences\u2014such as movie lists on Netflix\u2014can be used to identify users.<\/p>\n\n Recent changes in the default settings associated with Facebook and the launch of Google Buzz have prompted a heated public discussion about whether or not the public cares about \u201cprivacy\u201d at all.[3. For instance, see: \u201cBeyond Google and Evil: How Policy Makers, Journalists and Consumers Should Talk Differently About Google and Privacy\u201d by Chris Hoofnagle (http:\/\/firstmonday.org\/htbin\/cgiwrap\/bin\/ojs\/index.php\/fm\/article\/view\/2326\/2156<\/a>)] But as prominent legal scholars and social media experts have repeatedly argued, a user\u2019s sensitivity to specific privacy concerns is highly dependent on context and is often oversimplified.[4. For example, see: Understanding Privacy<\/em> by Dan Solove (http:\/\/www.hup.harvard.edu\/catalog.php?isbn=9780674035072<\/a>) and \u201cMaking Sense of Privacy and Publicity\u201d by danah boyd (http:\/\/www.danah.org\/papers\/talks\/2010\/SXSW2010.html<\/a>).] For instance, a user of a social networking site may not care if friends and family know that she is a fan of a certain political candidate on Facebook, but she may prefer not to broadcast those preferences to her employer or neighbors. <\/p>\n\n One of the interesting tensions inherent in the realm of online reputation management is that users want to have a sense of control over their information, but they sometimes take the path of least resistance when making choices about how they manage their profiles and other content connected to their name online. Whether that means accepting the default privacy settings of an application or skipping over the fine print in a \u201cterms of service\u201d agreement, decisions about how one\u2019s identity is communicated to the world can be made in haste and under the assumption that everyone experiences some level of \u201cprivacy through obscurity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n Popular media coverage of young adults and technology use has often suggested that younger generations have little regard for practicing discretion when sharing information online.[5. See, for instance: \u201cKids, the Internet, and the End of Privacy: The Greatest Generation Gap Since Rock and Roll,\u201d by Emily Nussbaum. New York Magazine<\/em>. Available at: http:\/\/nymag.com\/news\/features\/27341\/<\/a>. See also, a quote from the forthcoming book by David Kirkpatrick, The Facebook Effect<\/em>: \u201cThe older you are, the more likely you are to find Facebook\u2019s exposure of personal information intrusive and excessive.\u201d] However, the findings in this report suggest that, when compared with older users, young adults are more active online reputation managers in several dimensions. When compared with older users, they more often customize what they share and limit whom they share it with. Other recent research has also disputed the notion that young adults and even teenagers simply \u201cdon\u2019t care\u201d about privacy.[6. See \u201cHow Different are Young Adults from Older Adults When it Comes to Information Privacy Attitudes and Policies,\u201d Chris Hoofnagle et al. Available at: http:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589864<\/a>. See also: \u201cYouth, Privacy and Reputation,\u201d Alice E. Marwick, et al. Available at: http:\/\/cyber.law.harvard.edu\/publications\/2010\/Youth_Privacy_Reputation_Lit_Review<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n Personal information has become a form of currency that is shared and exchanged in the social marketplace today. Yet, while the management of users\u2019 online identities has arguably become more complex and multi-faceted over time, internet users have become <\/i>less likely to worry about the amount of information available about them online. <\/p>\n\n