Online Identity: Positive and Negative Aspects of Surveillance

Last week, I discussed how the Arizona shooting incident impacted on the role of social media. The suspect, Jared Lee Loughner’s unusual behaviors can be seen on his MySpace and YouTube pages, such as expressing his anger towards society, and sharing his political opinions with his friends and/or followers. As I read this week’s readings, I found interesting points that can be applied to Loughner revealing his personal information on social networking sites to how online identity is watched by others.

After the 911 attacks, government surveillance was dramatically increased to the United States. We know surveillance of online activities harms our freedom of expression, but it’s inevitable to want to prevent potential dangers on the web, such as fraud and identity theft. For example, people stalk one’s MySpace profile to get personal information then send a threat; 29,000 sex offenders joined MySpace according to July 2007 research (Rosen 2007).

Sometimes surveillance has positive aspects. These days, many people are voluntarily engaged in online social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter to communicate with friends. One of the reasons for joining online communities is to get social support, which reduces depression from stress (LaRose et al. 2001). For example, Thordora twitted a message to show her stress caused from her 3 year old baby crying all day, so she asked her followers if she smothered her baby would it be a crime.  This led me to believe that she needed social support to reduce her depression. After she twitted, her followers reported the incident to police, and they actually visited her to make sure the baby was safe. After police visited, Thordora wrote cynical remarks such as "Don't do any venting in public. Don't network. Don't show anything LESS than perfect bliss…” (Weeks 2009). Weeks also mentions that, unlike Thordora, some people call for help by posting online. I think Loughner, who expressed his willingness to commit suicide, called for help. Loughner posted a photo of his automatic handgun, and a message saying "Goodbye, dear friends...Please don't be mad at me", which was considered as a suicide note (BBC News).

Sometimes police also post surveillance footage of crimes on YouTube for criminal investigations. Whether your intention to post online is to get support or help, your posting may be under surveillance, which means you are being watched by other people “Even though people obviously communicate online with a specific audience in mind, e.g., their friends, the public nature of online social networking makes the information available to a much larger audience, potentially everyone with access to the Internet” (Albrechtslund 2008).

Then, why do people want to expose their online identities? I don’t know why people want to be watched by others, revealing their personal information online, and share it with unknown people. For this unanswered question, I joined Facebook and Twitter. I began a search for groups that catered to my interest, which is figure skating. I found figure skating celebrities, but I was shocked to discover the pages were actually fake, and created by people who remain anonymous. First, I thought the Facebook pages were created by fans to promote these stars. But after reading posts and comments, which spread wrong information, I got the feeling that they were people who wanted to have attention from others rather than just be fans. Luckily, I found Facebook and Twitter both allow users to report any fake pages, so I took action to report the pages; you can report the page as spam in Twitter (figure 1), or report the page as a fake profile in Facebook (figure 2). I liked Facebook better, since it offered more options to users for reporting. Choices for reporting profiles are: 1) fake profile impersonating a public figure or celebrity, 2) impersonating me or someone I know, and 3) does not represent a real person, or pretends to be a celebrity. 

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

After the experience, I read our readings again and found that in order to get attention, and have status online people pretend to be a celebrity (Rosen 2007). Another reason to make a fake page is to get as many followers or fans as possible, and sell the page to the celebrity or related website “MySpace pages (and their related social networks) can be considered tangible assets. An advertisement for a MySpace Friend Adder Script promises 3,000 friend requests per day”, and claims that “If you have 150K friends, you can sell your account for at least $5000…” (Bigge 2006).

In conclusion, people commit crimes online, such as using a fake identity to get commercial benefits. Committing identity theft or privacy invasion, by joining online communities, is a negative way for surveillance to reveal identity. On the other hand, people join online communities, and create profiles whether it’s based on a true or false identity, in order to get positive aspect of surveillance, which is that they need social support from online friends. Also police can prevent and trace criminals through their own online surveillance.

References

Weeks, Linton (2009).  Social Responsibility and the Web: A Drama Unfolds. 8 January 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99094257

LaRose, R., M.S. Eastin and J. Gregg (2001). Reformulating the Internet Paradox: Social Cognitive Explanations of Internet Use and Depression. Journal of Online Behavior 1(2). http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n2/paradox.html 

Albrechtslund, Anders (2008).  Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance. First Monday 13(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2142/1949

Rosen, Christine (2007).  Virtual Friendship and the New Narcissism.  The New Atlantis 17, 15-31. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/virtual-friendship-and-the-new-narcissism

Bigge, Ryan (2006).  The Cost of (Anti-) Social Networks: Identity, Agency and Neo-Luddites" First Monday 11(12). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1421/1339

"Arizona gunman' appeas in court." BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12145117

Positive and Negative Changes in Society Driven by Social Media: An Example from the Arizona Shootings

The news media has reported that Jared Loughner, who shot the Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and killed others, used social media such as YouTube and MySpace. In order to react to this news, it was interesting that not only people but also traditional or old media used social media, too. As a result, later stories dealt with people’s reliance on social media, and its influence on society. What kind of positive or negative effects does the phenomenon have?

The development of technology in recent years has offered us many benefits. For example, we use smart devices such as the iPhone and androids to blog, email, and access social network sites (SNSs) such as Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, Wikipedia and YouTube from anywhere and at anytime. 

In Bridging the Gap: A Genre Analysis of Weblogs (Herring et al., 1999), it is claimed that the primary purpose of most bloggers is to keep a record of daily life and express their feelings. Loughner used MySpace, which is a type of blogging site, mainly for this purpose, offering psychology and crime experts the opportunity to analyze his behavior and character. According to the NY Times, his recent acts and his online activity both offer evidence of his instability (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09shooter.html?_r=1).

In addition, in Blogging as Social Activity, or, Would You Let 900 Million People Read Your Diary?, interviews with selected bloggers, and an examination of their posts, show they have a tendency to express opinions to influence others and release emotional tension (Nardi et al., 2004). Loughner used YouTube and MySpace to share his political opinions, and his unstable emotions. His posts and comments on political issues and daily life, together with the personal information on his profile page, are substantial hints to understanding his character. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship (Boyd and Ellison, 2007), explains how social network sites provide various features to help users identify themselves. Loughner revealed his characteristics, and personal information, in detail using online profiles (Loughner’s YouTube online profile and examples of posts captures from http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-internet-profile-photographs/). 

Arguably, therefore, the development of technology does not always offer benefits. We already know that crimes have been perpetrated through social network sites (stalking, identity theft, etc), and, as we have seen, Loughner used social media to explain his views on perceived negative changes in society. Furthermore, soon after the shootings occurred, National Public Radio’s reporter ‘tweeted’ that Giffords had died, and Reuters, FOX, CNN, and other traditional media outlets repeated this false information (http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/922370--newsmangled-gifford-news-travelled-faster-than-fact; http://www.lostremote.com/2011/01/09/how-an-incorrect-report-of-giffords-death-spread-on-twitter/). This reminded me that Tenopir, in Online Databases – Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall?, introduced Andrew Keen’s warning about sharing information through social networking sites (Carol Tenopir, 2007). Keen was afraid of traditional media being replaced by social networking sites that weaken the authority of information; however it is more ironic to see the traditional media also using social media and losing their authority due to spreading a falsehood. 

In conclusion, it is clear that social media has brought both positive and negative changes to society. I believe the term ‘social computing’ is used when people have an online identity and share information and social activity with others, whether they are friends or any audience connected through the social media.