"Multiliteracies for Inclusive Technologies: A Case Study on Location-Based Services and Domestic Violence Survivors"
|
Jennifer Roth MillerJennifer Roth Miller is a student in the Texts and Technology Doctoral Program at the University of Central Florida. Jennifer's research interests explore the convergence of philanthropy, social justice, education, corporate social responsibility, and cause-based marketing in socially constructing collective views on issues such as technology, lifestyle, health, and community. ContentsLocation-Based Services & Privacy Location-Based Services & Privacy Cont. Domestic Violence Survivors & Geolocation: A Case Study Digital Literacy Possibilities for Domestic Violence Survivors Digital Literacy Possibilities for Domestic Violence Survivors Cont. |
Location-Based Services & Privacy Cont.A few online conglomerates-- social media and search giants such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google-- collect and control most of this information (Barrenche, 2012). Acquisitions and mergers happen constantly, narrowing the control of information and normalizing user agreements. Further, these conglomerates have realized the power of location information and are adjusting their business models accordingly (Wilken, 2014). Wilken (2014) asserts social media users should shift their understanding of sites like Facebook from viewing them as social sites to understanding them as mobile location platforms amassing geodemographic information. The evolved model of these sites is to become mobile advertising conglomerates and they need to collect users’ mobile activity patterns to remain competitive to advertisers. Some people prefer the personalized advertisements, while some find them annoying and intrusive. With each privacy agreement and each application, people allow more traces of personal information to be captured (Greenberg, 2013). User agreements tend to be very lengthy, difficult to understand, constantly changing, and composed of legal jargon. User agreements tend to change frequently and access to information is restricted until new provisions are accepted. The demand for immediate information usually results in a quick non-critical acceptance of new agreements and clauses. People are using these technologies non-critically because we live in a society that values immediacy, information, connectivity, and access to online spaces. Critical literacy on the part of users is warranted because smartphones automatically geotag many of our communications through default settings, and over time more applications access our location information to the point it becomes normalized (Barreneche, 2012). This normalization desensitizes people to encroachments on privacy. In fact, privacy has become a cost of technology. In order to realize the conveniences of technology, it is increasingly understood to be in exchange for privacy. Evans (2014) discusses geolocation information as a map. Such maps can be created top-down, bottom-up, or a combination of both top-down and bottom-up. Evans performed a discourse analysis on code from Foursquare check-ins to show how location information and other metadata such as user profile information and reviews are embedded in code. In fact, metadata is attached to posts and is visible in code. Location metadata combined with other data accessible on the network creates a social and historical story of places and activity. Beyond leaving data that can be aggregated into marketing profiles, tech-savvy criminals can extract personal information from code. This presents consequences that traverse digital spaces to result in real offline impact for some users. Realtimeness and geodemographic information meet our culture’s demands for immediacy and relevancy. Facebook, Twitter, Google, and the like are criticized for their incorporation of real-time location dependent information, yet networked device users demand the conveniences these socio-technical assemblages offer. An implicit tension between convenience and privacy exists in uptake. A distinction between front-end and back-end also emerges. Users supply information and receive information through rhetorical front-end interfaces. Back-end databases are created, yet the typical user doesn’t have access to this raw information. However, traces of personal information, location information, and activity patterns are left online and it is possible for tech-savvy people to uncover sensitive information about a specific person if desired. Smartphone-related privacy rights are only beginning to develop (Abbas et al., 2014). In fact, there are no specific statutes to regulate access to smartphone data. It is uncharted territory and only minimal piecemeal legislation exists. In 2013, the Federal Trade Commission released guidelines aimed at making user agreements more fair and easier to understand, yet there is little actual regulation aimed at resolving these issues (Sipior, Ward, & Volonino, 2014). Values about privacy and application use are also shaped by the interfaces and ways sites serve up information in feeds and streams. Gane and Beer (2008) assert that interfaces are points of politics, power, and control. Successful interfaces allow a smooth integration from the human to non-human, or in this case from the offline to the online. The transfer of information is so seamless that many don’t understand or even know what is happening to the full extent. These interfaces were built with specific values and beliefs about privacy. Interfaces rhetorically convince people that sharing personal information is normal and valued. The interfaces force these values and beliefs on users. Mobile devices themselves are interfaces between public spaces and social communication (Silva & Frith, 2012). As interfaces, they sort and shape information and present it in predetermined ways to users. They also shape how we communicate and socialize through technology. Silva and Frith (2012) argue that while the added interfaces of mobile technologies seem to disconnect us from public spaces, they are in fact changing our interactions and creating new spaces while developing a new facet of existing public spaces. Distinctions between public and private are blurring, as are identities in these evolving spaces. In this research on geolocation services as a whole, it became clear that the technology permeates every aspect of the digital experience, from social to utilitarian application. The technology undoubtedly provides significant benefits such as navigation, targeted marketing, recommendations, and social connections, especially with the significant use of mobile devices. Users appear to expect the benefits of the technology in daily life, yet the tension between privacy and convenience remains implicit. In other words, the findings of this study reveal that it wasn’t clear who was concerned with the erosion of privacy and what exactly perceived privacy concerns or consequences were. To gauge users’ actual views on geolocation, this research project employed a casual poll of social media users. Respondents were concerned about robbery, stalking, danger for kids, teens, and women, and government monitoring. Most of the people who responded to the polls were women. Men who responded were not very concerned. Younger Millennial respondents were less concerned overall than older generation respondents. Respondents expressed concerns, but the benefits seemed to outweigh the concerns and degrees of concern varied widely across demographics such as age and gender. This research revealed a potential safety threat for women and children. The perceived danger appeared to be low in the mainstream population. However, the concerns for women’s safety pointed to a non-mainstream population that experienced a significant tangible threat to safety: domestic violence survivors. Location-based services’ effect on this population serves as a useful case study for how new technologies can be adjusted through multiliteracies on multiple fronts to be more inclusive of non-mainstream users. |