ICBC? BUT DO YOU?

Hi,

by clicking the title of this post, you can read the article i am referring to.

i would suggest reading the article before carrying on. the comments at the end of the link/article are irrelevant to what i'm blogging about. here's a quick summary. the government is, whether the courts allow whatever what they find to be admissible or not, accessing facebook and myspace to find information about your "private" life.

what do you think? is there a line? is it a floating line? what about your line versus my line, does that matter? last year the australian supreme court ruled that delivering court notices to defendants via facebook is valid, so don't think the concept is all that abstract. new zealand followed suit. and though it may or may not happen in canada, there is no stopping the government (your future employer and your loan operator) from using facebook to create a profile at least partially based on text and images. in person, 55% of communication is body language. what about when there is no voice or body to communicate, only words and 1/1000 images? and just because you're not confronted with the "evidence," they need not tell you that part of the profile they have on you will be based on how you present yourself in those social networking spaces. i for one do not doubt that once you get a sin number, a profile begins to be built, especially if you cross paths with the government in any way, i.e. taxes or collecting a cheque as a teacher.

maybe you're thinking "i have nothing to hide. who cares?" i would see it as a matter of interpretation. you might not, but what about that awkward photo? or the photo someone you don't even know took of you and posted? doesn't matter? i watched a program a few weeks ago on "the passionate eye" about teenage girls and how technology is influencing their self-esteem and their social status. one scenario they went through was of a girl going up a flight of stairs and the boy behind her tripping. the moment when he fell forward and grabbed her while pulling her down, was caught by someone with a phone camera, and in seconds distributed through a labyrinth of social forums and networks. within minutes this girl was a "slut." not only did she not know about it, she couldn't have responded adequately if she had.

what are the implications for our students? talking with a councillor at the school where i did my observation and will do my practicum, i was told that there is a huge problem with girls sending their boyfriends nude/semi-nude photos of themselves and these guys posting them for their friends to see. now, i'm not on facebook or myspace, so i don't know if those sorts of images are even allowed, but the point is, young people may not be aware or care about who sees the images they post and what might be thought about those images. so what about years later when they try to get a teaching job and the district does a little clandestine searching? or a young girl is put into a position where she has to defend herself in court and these old pictures are produced (knowing full well they can't be used but creating a false context)?

to change perspective a bit. do you remember the video we saw early in the semester which followed several teachers around for a year? remember the one teacher who actually began hanging out with a student as sort of a big brother? obviously you would get to know that person in a more intimate way than your other students. you might even find out something pretty unsavoury about his/her life. what would you do? would you involve yourself to that degree. i thought it was pretty perplexing myself. dangerous for both you and the student. but as teachers we will sometimes, i'm sure, be given a glimpse into a life beyond what we see everyday. maybe it's a disturbing poem or a student comfortable enough to talk with you. not that you're spying, but now we're into a similar position that icbc is taking. based on "evidence," an interpretation is made. the poem is made up, the confidence exaggerated or a naive attempt at friendship. in the article, icbc media relations manager, mark jan vrem says that "as a matter of course, we have a duty to protect all our customers." i would respond, at what cost? altruism is all too often dressed up as a noble duty toward "the greater good," while often disregarding the greater repercussions of its "benevolence."

so be careful! be savvy and aware. teach your kids the same thing. at least give them the tools, your knowledge, to defend themselves, because the deck is currently stacked against them and their ignorance is the number one weapon used against them.

NOTE: POSTED THE NEXT DAY...
I wrote at the beginning of this blog that the comments associated with the article are irrelevant to what i'm talking about. i've been thinking about that, and i take it back. they are actually a perfect illustration about the larger, more incriminating issue. NOT 1 PERSON questioned the ethics of the government having access to "private" information. the one who did say anything close to that, seemed to be more confused about who had access to their page, not about the degrees to which government in invading privacy or the implications.

are we therefore tacitly approving of government interference?