Youth & Privacy [Was Re: [LINK] Trends and predictions 2008

[Ivan Trundle]

On 31/12/2007, at 12:07 PM, Roger Clarke wrote:

>> JWT, the 4th-largest advertising agency in the world (largest in  
>> the US)
> ....
>> 2. ... the phenomenon of younger people (gen-x, gen-y) being much  
>> more open with their personal life than baby-boomers, and less  
>> interested in privacy. This will be the new generation gap. I know  
>> this to be an issue already, as a friend working in an un-named  
>> government department is seriously concerned (along with his  
>> colleagues) about the impact of staff being far too 'open' online,  
>> and thus creating endless security breaches.
>
> Typically of ad agencies, the proposition is superficial.

Naturally, but their thinking will influence many.

> A more appropriate set of comparisons is among categories at the  
> same stages of their development, e.g. Baby-boomers at 18-26 cf. gen- 
> x at 18-25 and gen-y at 18-25.
>
> The technologies that were/are available to the three categories of  
> people result in different behaviours.

True: and that is manifest in how we interpret behaviours today.  
Whilst we might not have been so concerned about privacy at 18-26, we  
certainly didn't have the means back then to make it much of an issue,  
and the infrastructure links were weak.

> But:
> (1)  the implication that the values are much different isn't  
> supported
>     by any actual, like, um, er, evidence

It most certainly is, Roger. This is what is troubling the higher  
echelons of security-related government departments (not just  
Defence): I'm not sure how deeply you might be involved, but there are  
deep concerns about how easy it is for agents (of other countries) to  
single out targets working in the government (for information purposes).

> (2)  the implication that later-generation people, at the same age,
>     will be less concerned about privacy than the Baby-boomers is
>     unwarranted

I don't believe that they implied this: on the contrary, they hinted  
that as one entered the workforce or grew older, that these issues  
were more important. Returning to the implications for a nation's  
security, by then the horse has bolted, according to some.

> Other reasons why scepticism is needed:
> (3)  as is the custom, these occasional, blow-in commentators overlook
>     the 'privacy isn't important until it is' phenomenon, i.e.  
> 'privacy'
>     is a highly abstract notion that the vast majority of people are
>     uninterested in;  but it's a label that is applied to many  
> different
>     things that people get very upset about from time to time
> (4)  the utterance is by an ad agency, whose interest lies in playing
>     down the privacy interest so that it doesn't get in the way of
>     their activities

Agreed: but then they used the provocatively titled 'RADICAL  
transparency' for good reason, and no doubt with some deliberation. I  
can't speak for advertising agencies and their overall view on  
privacy, but there is no doubt that if they wish for something, it is  
more likely to influence others.

>> 3. The N-11
>> The next eleven are considered the emerging nations, after the G8+5  
>> (the Group of Eight plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South  
>> Africa), and initially coined by the investment bank, Goldman Sachs  
>> back in 2005. They are, in alphabetical order: Bangladesh, Egypt,  
>> Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, South  
>> Korea, Turkey and Vietnam. Investment in these countries will be  
>> significant in the year to come.
>
> I wonder where Oz and NZ disappeared.

Australia is included in G20 (industrised nations) and G33  
(industrialised), if this is any consolation.

When it comes to numbers, there is the G7, G8, G8+5, G11, G20  
(industrialised), G20 (developing), G33 (industrialised), G33  
(developing), J8, and N-11. And Four Asian Tigers... Poor old NZ  
doesn't get a look-in.

iT