[danah boyd, as usual, bringing exceptional subtlety to questions about privacy, surveillance, and teens. Her work never fails to be amazing. -egg]<\/p>\n
Urban theorist Jane Jacobs used to argue that the safest societies are those where there are \u201ceyes on the street.\u201d What she meant by this was that healthy communities looked out for each other, were attentive to when others were hurting, and were generally present when things went haywire. How do we create eyes on the digital street? How do we do so in a way that\u2019s not creepy? \u00a0When is proactive monitoring valuable for making a difference in teens\u2019 lives? \u00a0How do we make sure that these same tools aren\u2019t abused for more malicious purposes?<\/p>\n
What matters is who is doing the looking and for what purposes. When the looking is done by police, the frame is punitive. But when the looking is done by caring, concerned, compassionate people \u2013 even authority figures like social workers \u2013 the outcome can be quite different. However well-intended, law enforcement\u2019s role is to uphold the law and people perceive their presence as oppressive even when they\u2019re trying to help. And, sadly, when law enforcement is involved, it\u2019s all too likely that someone will find something wrong. And then we end up with the kinds of surveillance that punishes.<\/p>\n
If there\u2019s infrastructure put into place for people to look out for youth who are in deep trouble, I\u2019m all for it. But the intention behind the looking matters the most. When you\u2019re looking for kids who are in trouble in order to help them, you look for cries for help that are public. If you\u2019re looking to punish, you\u2019ll misinterpret content, take what\u2019s intended to be private and publicly punish, and otherwise abuse youth in a new way.<\/p>\n