Beldad, de Jong, and Steehouder (2011) raise some interesting points in their review of the literature related to information privacy. First, it is apparent that privacy and control go hand in hand. That is, one’s perceived privacy seems to have everything to do with the amount of control he or she possesses and would like to maintain over his or her personal information. While this differs by individual, personal data has also become a commodity, which, in my opinion, is what makes research on information privacy both challenging and interesting. Some people seem to provide access to their personal information quite freely, while others exercise great caution in determining which information to provide publicly. Furthermore, we live in an age where personal information is often not only required by governing bodies and companies, but also by other individuals (i.e., mobile application developers) in order to reap certain benefits. Sure, we consumers can use cues such as online privacy statements, third-party seals of approval, and security mechanisms, but in a society where personal data has been commoditized, how can we really know whom to trust?

I was pleasantly surprised to read Bodie’s (2011) article about Google’s privacy policy communications. I found Bodie’s take to be refreshing, given all the positive media hype that often surrounds Google. I agree that it can deceitful for companies to shift privacy protection responsibilities to the user and to use misleading linguistic forms, as mentioned in the article. Furthermore, Google’s practice of “obscurity through simplicity” and implementing different supplemental privacy policies for fifty products is doing a disservice to its users. However, I also feel that users should take responsibility for the technologies they use, similar to the way people must take responsibility for their use of any product, service, or system. To me, this is part of being a “smart consumer”.

The debate between Ford (2011; 2012) and Jurgenson and Rey (2012) about publicity and privacy as a continuum or dialectic is a curious one to consider. Ford’s (2011) distinction between spatial and personal privacy was particularly interesting. Although it may be true that “…in order to maintain personal privacy, we need private spaces in which to keep our information private” (Ford 2011), Ford (2011; 2012) and Jurgenson and Rey (2012) contend that this barrier is breaking down. I understand the points made by Jurgenson and Rey; however, it makes more sense to me to consider the modern relationship between publicity and privacy as a continuum. As noted by Ford (2011), social media users reveal much about their private lives to the public realm of the Internet. Moreover, in her rebuttal piece (2012), she makes the point that the social media technology itself impacts how users manage access to that content. As such, it appears that a continuum exists, ranging from highly private, where information is very restricted and controlled by the user, to highly public, where information is very open and not controlled by the user. In my opinion, this continuum is the best way to think about the relationship between public and private as we plunge headfirst into a digitally- and socially- connected world.