It was inevitable that, the more we interact online, the more we place our privacy at risk. This occurs in everything we do on the Internet, from social media browsing to buying and banking. Few, if any, websites do not require some basic information from the user, and I believe most of us experience a moment of anxiety every time we supply this, and no matter how often we have done so in the past. Then, the anxiety grows with increasing reports of how easily our data is accessed. The recent Cambridge Analytica scandal alone reveals how vulnerable we are to limitless types of manipulation, exploitation, and theft (Robinson). We then try to investigate our digital footprints, which are the traces of ourselves and our critical information left behind when we interact with an online site. This is what I attempted to do, approaching the effort as someone else armed with only my name, and seeing what random searches on several major engines would reveal about myself.
Apart from concerns with financial information as exposed, and as the sites I use for such things are generally secure, my intent was to see what others would see about me on more personal levels. Basically, my footprint is what may be called “mysterious.” Searches immediately show that I subscribe to the major social media sites of Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and Facebook. What I find interesting in these results is how they are presented as a kind of marketing tool; each result suggests that joining the site will give whomever access to contacting me. Beyond that, however, only the most minimal information is revealed, and this is due to my consistent practice of not providing more information than is necessary. In my estimation, there is no reason to do otherwise. In each social media arena, it is up to me to decide with whom I will share my information, through private messages and, if I so choose, post, tweets, and pictures. I am certainly aware that any social interaction online still offers realities which may be used elsewhere, misinterpreted, or draw unwanted attention to myself. Some facts are usually there to be seen because I deliberately allow this. For example, I both wish to be identified as someone studying graphic design, with ambitions for that as my career, and perceive no risk in making this known. I will admit that, early in my social media experience, I made the mistake of supplying some details about my political beliefs. In very little time, and especially as the sites rely on algorithms (Kim 40), I began receiving a great deal of spam emails about political movements. I have since adjusted those digital footprint elements and am no longer so bothered. The primary point I cannot overstate is that I am committed to exercising as much control over my digital presence as is possible in a world wherein technology is making information sharing all too easy. I believe that, more than ever, we all must take responsibility for how deeply we wish to connect online, and be aware that setting out any information in a profile opens the door to intrusion.
The above notwithstanding, however, there are still issues. For example, I never reveal my full date of birth because that is simply “too much information,” and I know it could be used to access other, more secure data (White, King, & Tsang 407). The reality we all must confront is that we cannot know to what extent technology is enabling access, now who is legally or illegally seeking access. One search, for example, revealed my full name and a range of people with similar names, along with their birth dates. I have the impression that all of this is very formulaic, and particularly in social media; simply, no one can know what you do not provide. This is then my own strategy for creating a positive digital footprint. More exactly, the positive is enhanced when the information is most minimal. At the same time, the minimalist strategy also requires a careful choosing of what to post, and because we all seek to present ourselves as individuals in the online forums. There is a fine line between too much revelation and not enough to generate interest. To present myself as real and appealing, then, I tend to use humor more than any direct statements. For example, I have shared a joke on Facebook to diffuse political tension, which generated many “likes.” I would like to be perceived as someone others are curious about, rather than as a fixed identity attractive to some and not so to others.
I think we must all realize that who we are cannot be represented in virtual contact, so moderation and humor are the best means of setting ourselves out there as interesting. Lastly, also, my care with my footprint extends to possible work and/or internships. Employers in all fields check social media with an eye to recruiting, and this is why I actively post sample of my design work. In the sites, this is identified as mine and I take steps to protect it, as in adding watermarks or tags that cannot be removed. Beyond employment possibilities, these efforts are gratifying. They expand my digital footprint to reflect my being an artist, which says what I most want people to know. Then, simply posting my work allows me to gain both feedback and greater objectivity. In the final analysis, I believe that we are obligated to be extremely careful about what digital traces of ourselves we create, but awareness of that also promotes opportunity.
- Kim, Carolyn M. Social Media Campaigns: Strategies for Public Relations and Marketing. Routledge, 2016.
- Robinson, Meyer. “The Cambridge Analytica Scandal, in 3 Paragraphs.” The Atlantic. 20 Mar. 2018. Web. 3 June 2018. < https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/the-cambridge-analytica-scandal-in-three-paragraphs/556046/>
- White, Bebo, King, Irwin, and Philip Tsang. Social Media Tools and Platforms in Learning Environments. Springer, 2011.
