This study presents a conceptual model of understanding algorithmic digital surveillance systems, borrowing insight from Giddens, who proposed the notion of structuration as social practices deriving from the intersection between structure and agents. We argue that the status of privacy, or lack of it, is a product of these interactions, of which the personal data practices and related interests constitute the reproduction of a data ecosystem. We trace the process of data production and consumption, dissecting the interactive dynamics between digital media producers (personal data users) and users (personal data producers). Inadequacies, limits, and social and policy implications of data surveillance and its algorithmic reproduction of identities are discussed.
AcquistiA.BrandimarteL.LoewensteinG. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347, 509-514. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1465
2.
AcquistiA.GrossR. (2006, June). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In DanezisG.GolleP. (Eds.), Privacy enhancing technologies. PET 2006: Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 4258, pp. 36-58). Heidelberg; Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/11957454_3
3.
AgreeP. (2000). The market logic of information. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 13, 67–77.
4.
AltmanI.TaylorD. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
5.
AnannyM.CrawfordK. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20, 973-989. doi:10.1177/1461444816676645
6.
BarocasS.HoodS.ZiewitzM. (2013, May). Governing algorithms: A provocation piece. Discussion paper for Governing Algorithms conference, New York, NY. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2245322
7.
BarocasS.SelbstA. D. (2016). Big data’s disparate impact. California Law Review, 104, 671.
8.
BaruhL.SecintiE.CemalcilarZ. (2017). Online privacy concerns and privacy management: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Communication, 67, 26-53. doi:10.1111/jcom.12276
9.
BourdieuP. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ChenK.ReaA. (2004). Protecting personal information online: A survey of user privacy concerns and control techniques. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 44(4), 85-92.
14.
CrawfordS. P. (2013). Captive audience: The telecom industry and monopoly power in the new gilded age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
DannaA.GandyO. H. (2002). All that glitters is not gold: Digging beneath the surface of data mining. Journal of Business Ethics, 40, 373-386. doi:10.1023/A:1020845814009
FischerC. S. (1994). America calling: A social history of the telephone to 1940. Oakland: University of California Press.
19.
GandyO. H. (2016). Coming to terms with chance: Engaging rational discrimination and cumulative disadvantage. London, England: Routledge.
20.
GandyO. H.JrNemorinS. (2018). Toward a political economy of nudge: Smart city variations. Information, Communication & Society, 1-15. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2018.1477969
21.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Oakland: University of California Press.
22.
GillespieT. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In GillespieT.BoczkowskiP.FootK. (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167-193). Cambridge: MIT Press.
23.
HamiltonK.KarahaliosK.SandvigC.EslamiM. (2014, April). A path to understanding the effects of algorithm awareness. In CHI’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 631-642). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2559206.2578883
24.
HargittaiE.HinnantA. (2008). Digital inequality differences in young adults’ use of the Internet. Communication Research, 35, 602-621. doi:10.1177/0093650208321782
25.
HargittaiE.LittE. (2013). New strategies for employment? Internet skills and online privacy practices during people’s job search. IEEE Security & Privacy, 11(3), 38-45. doi:10.1109/MSP.2013.64
26.
HargittaiE.MarwickA. (2016). “What can I really do?” Explaining the privacy paradox with online apathy. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3737-3757. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/4655/1738
HumphreysL. (2011). Who’s watching whom? A study of interactive technology and surveillance. Journal of Communication, 61, 575-595. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01570.x
30.
JonesM. R.KarstenH. (2008). Giddens’s structuration theory and information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 127-157. doi:10.2307/25148831
31.
LaRoseR.RifonN. (2006). Your privacy is assured-of being disturbed: websites with and without privacy seals. New Media & Society, 8, 1009-1029. doi:10.1177/1461444806069652
32.
LessigL. (2002). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New York, NY: Vintage.
33.
LittE. (2013). Understanding social network site users’ privacy tool use. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1649-1656. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.049
34.
NapoliP. M. (2014). Automated media: An institutional theory perspective on algorithmic media production and consumption. Communication Theory, 24, 340-360. doi:10.1111/comt.12039
35.
NapoliP. M. (2016). The audience as product, consumer, and producer in the contemporary media marketplace. In LoweG. F.BrownC. (Eds.), Managing media firms and industries (pp. 261-275). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
36.
NeumanW. R. (1991). The future of the mass audience. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
37.
NeumanW. R., (2007). The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
38.
NeumanW. R. (2016). The digital difference. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ParkY. J. (2013a). Digital literacy and privacy behavior online. Communication Research, 40, 215-236. doi:10.1177/0093650211418338
41.
ParkY. J. (2013b). Offline status, online status: Reproduction of social categories in personal information skill and knowledge. Social Science Computer Review, 31, 680-702. doi:10.1177/0894439313485202
42.
ParkY. J. (2018). Social antecedents and consequences of political privacy. New Media & Society, 20, 2352-2369. doi:10.1177/1461444817716677
43.
ParkY. J.CampbellS. W.KwakN. (2012). Affect, cognition and reward: Predictors of privacy protection online. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1019-1027. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.004
44.
ParkY. J.ChungJ. E. (2017). Health privacy as sociotechnical capital. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 227-236. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.025
45.
ParkY. J.JangS. M. (2014). Understanding privacy knowledge and skill in mobile communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 296-303. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.041
46.
ParkY. J.SkoricM. (2017). Personalized ad in your Google Glass? Wearable technology, hands-off data collection, and new policy imperative. Journal of Business Ethics, 142, 71-82. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2766-2
47.
QiuJ. L.GreggM.CrawfordK. (2014). Circuits of labour: A labour theory of the iPhone era. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 12, 564-581. doi:10.1177/1461444813511926
48.
SandvigC.HamiltonK.KarahaliosK.LangbortC. (2016). When the algorithm itself is a racist: Diagnosing ethical harm in the basic components of software. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4972-4990. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/6182
49.
SuhJ. J.HargittaiE. (2015). Privacy Management on Facebook: Do Device Type and Location of Posting Matter?Social Media+ Society, 1(2), doi: 2056305115612783
50.
WebsterJ. G. (2010). User information regimes: How social media shape patterns of consumption. Northwestern University Law Review, 104, 593.
