Thread by @RohanIrvine

Next up is @TimothyKariotis — Privacy, from laws to norms how privacy can influence design.

#UXA2019 #uxaustralia

Tim opens with an acknowledgement of country.

The actual title of Tim's talk is Sex, Drugs and Privacy

Tim did a pop quiz to emphasise that while we say we value people's privacy we answered questions that impacted the privacy of those around us.

Privacy in the digital age is collective

Why do we care about privacy?

Privacy by design is a monolithic concept that we need to not only react to privacy intrusion but design ways to stop intrusions and protect us in our design.

What does it mean to do privacy by design is not about Doing privacy.

It's about questioning privacy and being critical.

Why does society care about privacy now? We live in an information Age and information is capital for us to interact with the world.

We need to consent to get access to services

Privacy was that the government wasn't able to interact in your space. Protection from the state.

What does it mean now that privacy is from corporations.

Privacy is the right to be let alone.

We should have control what information people knew about us.

Private spaces: we have control
Public space: we don't have control

This is really hard to understand in today's age where we spend more time in public.

The public private boundaries are collapsing.

We have new and easier ways to collect and use your data.

GDPR sits in this individualised definition of privacy.

The issue with individual concept of privacy is it realise on the fact we have choice

But we don't really have choice.

The individual conceptualisation of privacy does not include an understanding of power.

If we want privacy to work for us we need to understand the social value of privacy.

Privacy has to be a social good if it is to have power.

Contextual integrity is not about control.

It's about what it means in context.

Privacy is the appropriate flow of information specific to a concept.

When we a freaked out by a technology is that is breaks a context specific norms.

How we conceptualise privacy norms

You need to identify all these parameters to understand.

CCTV: You don't know whos watching on the other end, who it's being sent to.

How can we evaluate a technology to understand if it breaks our privacy norm.

We need to assess Power & Norms.

When we talk about power

What are the key interests
What are the moral and political interests
What are the values, goals and ends

My health record breaks the privacy norms.

The argument is that it makes your healthy but we don't have any data whether that is the case.

Context is really important.

It's also very hard to define.

What you define as your context is going to impact who you finally your design with.

It defines who you will exclude from the design

One question Tim asks is what are the types of context?

Here are a few.

What we see
What we experience
What we frame context as - often through the technology we built
We choose how to design it
How context changes through use of technology

Context is about what connections you're making and what disconnections you making

Context collision or context collapse is where we are the creepiness of social angst when the norms of context meld, like when your parents added you on Facebook which challenge the social norms you have established.

When we design context we have opportunities at different levels to interrogate what the context we want to create.

What it looks like when we design.

Context collision is the overlap that creates emergent norms.

So who gets to define norms and context?

The national health service designed in norms were supposed to ask whether you opted in. They didn't, they just opened the records.

So why?

They had power and capital.

In different contexts we have different capital.

Cultural capital can better define the concepts and norms.

If you have the cultural capital you have a 'feel for the game's and you know how things work.

As a patient in healthcare you don't get to define those norms.

And you're the one who's going to feel the affects of the defines norm. But you have no way of defining it.

So what's the solution?

Participation.

Norms are institutionalised.

You don't know what the norms are until you run against them. You don't know who has power over you until the exercise it.

How do we start to question these power structures

Who's defining the questions

Who's defining the norms

Before they define what the norms are.

You can have every single norm and information flow in a technology.

How did you come to your decision.

Who made the decisions.

Could technology help upskill its users to have more cultural capital so the patient could translate doctors notes collectives so they could participate in health conversations more equally?

What role do we as designers play facilitating this push for dismantling and shifting power?

If we really want people to not be creeped out by what we design we need to think about what people expect, what are the norms. Not just hand over the GDPR laws to developers.

Tim thinks it's about governance.

Ways to work with our users

Redistribute power so users can set norms

Knowledge governance: what rules and roles are we setting up so people can manage their norms, meet their values and negotiate their values

How can we as designers design things and create a space for users to build community Knowledge governance.

What can we do with technology to give people more controls.

Think of privacy as something you can tangibly interact with.

"What do you expect with your data"
"How would you expect this to be used?"

Start being critical about how your technology defines context and creates norms.

To end Tim is letting the room know it's #WearItPurple day today and wants to acknowledge all the LGBTQI+ folks in our community!

@threadreaderapp unroll please!