Situating privacy online. Complex perceptions and everyday practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Media and research reports point to the issue of privacy as the key to understanding online behaviour and experience. Yet it is well recognized within privacy-advocacy circles that ‘privacy ’ is a loose concept encompassing a variety of meanings. In this article we view privacy as mediating between individuals and their online activities, not standing above them, and as being constantly redefined in actual practice. It is necessary to examine, therefore, what individuals are reacting to when asked about online privacy and how it affects their online experience. This article is based on data generated in the Everyday Internet study, a neighbourhood-based, ethnographic project being conducted in Toronto, Canada, that investigates how people integrate online services in their daily lives. We propose that there are three organizing ‘moments ’ of online privacy: the moment of sitting in front of the computer, the moment of interaction with it, and the moment after the data has been released in ‘cyberspace. ’ We argue that, while the third moment has been given much media coverage, the first two have not been sufficiently researched. This may be crippling the formulation of effective privacy principles and practices by policy makers and the public. 2
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".