What can sexting teach us about privacy? | Amy Adele Hasinoff | TEDxMileHigh

This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx

With each new technology, we must adapt to new privacy concerns. Today, there are growing social and legal debates over sexting, especially among teenagers. Join researcher Amy Adele Hasinoff as she asks the question: Is sexting really the problem, or are we focusing on the wrong thing?

Amy Adele studies media and culture to investigate how we interact with the onslaught of new media and how it affects the way we develop, use, and regulate communication technologies. She’s the author of Sexting Panic, a look at the well-intentioned but problematic responses to sexting in mass media, law, and education. Her research appears in journals like New Media & Society, Critical Studies in Media Communication, and Feminist Media Studies. Amy is also an assistant professor in the Communication department at the University of Colorado Denver.

People have been using media
to talk about sex for a long time.

Love letters, phone sex, racy Polaroids.

There's even a story of a girl who eloped

with a man that she met
over the telegraph in 1886.

(Laughter)

Today we have sexting.

And I am a sexting expert.

Not an expert sexter -

(Laughter)

though, I do know what this means

and I think you do too!

[it's a penis]

(Laughter)

I have been studying sexting

since the media attention
to it began in 2008.

I wrote a book on the moral
panic about sexting,

and here's what I found:

Most people are worrying
about the wrong thing.

They're trying to just prevent sexting
from happening entirely,

but let me ask you this:

As long as it's completely consensual,
what's the problem with sexting?

People are into all sorts of things
that you may not be into,

like blue cheese or cilantro.

(Laughter)

Sexting is certainly risky,
like anything that's fun,

but...

(Laughter)

as long as you are not sending an image
to someone who doesn't want to receive it,

there's no harm.

What I do think is a serious problem

is when people share private images
of others without their permission,

and instead of worrying about sexting,

what I think we need to do
is think a lot more about digital privacy.

The key is consent.

Right now, most people
are thinking about sexting

without really thinking
about consent at all.

Did you know that we currently
criminalize teen sexting?

It can be a crime because
it counts as child pornography

if there's an image
of someone under 18,

and it doesn't even matter
if they took that image of themselves

and shared it willingly.

So we end up with
this bizarre legal situation

where two 17-year-olds
can legally have sex in most U.S. states,

but they can't photograph it.

Some states have also tried passing
sexting misdemeanor laws,

but these laws repeat the same problem

because they still make
consensual sexting illegal.

It doesn't make sense
to try to ban all sexting

to try to address privacy violations.

This is kind of like saying,

"Let's solve the problem of date rape
by just making dating completely illegal."

Most teens don't get arrested for sexting,
but can you guess who does?

It's often teens who are disliked
by their partner's parents,

and this can be because of class bias,
racism, or homophobia.

Most prosecutors are,
of course, smart enough

not to use child pornography
charges against teenagers,

but some do.

According to researchers
at the University of New Hampshire,

seven percent of all child
pornography possession arrests

are teens sexting consensually
with other teens.

Child pornography is a serious crime,

but it's just not the same thing
as teen sexting.

Parents and educators
are also responding to sexting

without really thinking
too much about consent.

Their message to teens
is often 'just don't do it,'

and I totally get it.

There are serious legal risks,

and of course, that potential
for privacy violations.

And when you were a teen, I'm sure you did
exactly as you were told, right?

You're probably thinking,
"My kid would never sext,"

and that's true; your little angel
may not be sexting

because only 33 percent
of 16- and 17-year-olds are sexting.

But, sorry, by the time they're older,

odds are, they will be sexting.

Every study I've seen puts the rate
above 50 percent for 18- to 24-year-olds.

And most of the time, nothing goes wrong.

People ask me all the time things like,

"Isn't sexting just so dangerous, though?

You wouldn't leave your wallet
on a park bench.

You expect it's going to get stolen
if you do that, right?"

Here's how I think about it:

Sexting is like leaving your wallet
at your boyfriend's house.

If you come back the next day
and all the money is just gone,

you really need to dump that guy.

(Laughter)

So instead of criminalizing sexting to try
to prevent these privacy violations,

instead, we need to make consent central

to how we think about that circulation
of our private information.

Every new media technology
raises privacy concerns;

in fact, in the U.S.,
the first major debates about privacy

were in response to technologies
that were relatively new at the time.

In the late 1800s,
people were worried about cameras,

which were just suddenly
more portable than ever before,

and newspaper gossip columns.

They were worried that the camera
would capture information about them,

take it out of context,
and widely disseminate it.

Does this sound familiar?

It's exactly what we're worrying about now
with social media, and drone cameras,

and of course, sexting.

And these fears about technology,
they make sense,

because technologies can amplify

and bring out our worst
qualities and behaviors.

But there are solutions,

and we've been here before
with a dangerous new technology.

In 1908, Ford introduced the Model T car.

Traffic fatality rates were rising;
it was a serious problem.

It looks so safe, right?

(Laughter)

Our first response was
to try to change drivers' behavior,

so we developed speed limits
and enforced them through fines.

But over the following decades
we started to realize

the technology of the car itself
is not just neutral.

We could design the car to make it safer.

So in the 1920s, we got
shatter-resistant windshields;

in the 1950s, seat belts;
and in the 1990s, air bags.

All three of these areas - laws,
individuals, and industry,

came together over time to help solve
the problems that a new technology causes

and we can do the same thing
with digital privacy.

Of course, it comes back to consent.

Here's the idea:

before anyone can distribute
your private information,

they should have to get your permission.

This idea of affirmative consent
comes from anti-rape activists

who tell us that we need consent
for every sexual act.

And we have really high standards
for consent in a lot of other areas.

Think about having surgery.

Your doctor has to make sure
that you are meaningfully

and knowingly consenting
to that medical procedure.

This is not the type of consent
with like an iTunes Terms of Service

where you just scroll to the bottom
and you're like, "Agree, agree, whatever."

(Laughter)

If we think more about consent,
we can have better privacy laws.

Right now we just don't have
that many protections.

If your ex-husband
or your ex-wife is a terrible person,

they can take your nude photos
and upload them to a porn site.

It can be really hard
to get those images taken down

and in a lot of states,

you're actually better off
if you took the images of yourself

because then you can file
a copyright claim.

(Laughter)

Right now, if someone
violates your privacy,

whether that's an individual
or a company or the NSA,

you can try filing a lawsuit,
but you may not be successful

because many courts assume
that digital privacy is just impossible,

so they're not willing to punish
anyone for violating it.

I still hear people
asking me all the time,

"Isn't a digital image somehow blurring
the line between public and private

because it's digital, right?"

No, no!

Everything digital
is not just automatically public.

That doesn't make any sense.

As NYU legal scholar,
Helen Nissenbaum, tells us,

we have laws and policies and norms

that protect all kinds
of information that's private,

and it doesn't make a difference
if it's digital or not.

All of your health records are digitized,

but your doctor can't just
share them with anyone.

All of your financial information
is held in digital databases,

but your credit card company can't just
post your purchase history online.

Better laws could help address
privacy violations after they happen,

but one of the easiest
things we can all do

is make personal changes
to help protect each others' privacy.

We're always told that privacy
is our own sole individual responsibility.

We're told, "Constantly monitor
and update your privacy settings."

We're told, "Never share anything you
wouldn't want the entire world to see."

This doesn't make sense.

Digital media are social environments

and we share things with people
we trust all day, every day.

As Princeton researcher,
Janet Vertesi, argues,

our data and our privacy,

they're not just personal,
they're actually interpersonal.

So one thing you can do that's really easy
is just start asking for permission

before you share
anyone else's information.

If you want to post a photo
of someone online, ask for permission.

If you want to forward an email thread,
ask for permission.

If you want to share
someone's nude selfie,

obviously, ask for permission!

These individual changes can help us
protect each others' privacy,

but we need technology companies
on board as well.

These companies have very little incentive
to help protect our privacy

because their business models depend on us

sharing everything
with as many people as possible.

Right now, if I send you an image,

you can forward that
to anyone that you want.

But what if I got to decide
if that image was forwardable or not?

This would tell you, "You don't have
my permission to send this image out."

We do this kind of thing all the time
to protect copyright.

If you buy an e-book, you can't just
send it out to as many people as you want,

so why not try this with mobile phones?

What you can do is we can demand
that tech companies

add these protections to our devices
and our platforms as the default.

After all, you can choose
the color of your car,

but the airbags are always standard.

If we don't think more
about digital privacy and consent,

there can be serious consequences.

There was a teenager from Ohio -

let's call her Jennifer
for the sake of her privacy -

she shared nude photos of herself
with her high school boyfriend

thinking she could trust him.

Unfortunately, he betrayed her and sent
her photos around the entire school.

Jennifer was embarrassed and humiliated,

but instead of being compassionate,
her classmates harassed her.

They called her a slut and a whore
and they made her life miserable.

Jennifer started missing school,
and her grades dropped.

Ultimately, Jennifer decided
to end her own life.

Jennifer did nothing wrong.

All she did was share a nude photo

with someone that she thought
that she could trust.

And yet, our laws tell her

that she committed a horrible crime
equivalent to child pornography.

Our gender norms tell her that
by producing this nude image of herself,

she somehow did the most
horrible, shameful thing.

And when we assume that privacy
is impossible in digital media,

we completely write off and excuse
her boyfriend's bad, bad behavior.

People are still saying all the time
to victims of privacy violations,

"What were you thinking?

You should've never sent that image."

If you're trying to figure out
what to say instead, try this:

Imagine you've run into your friend
who broke their leg skiing.

They took a risk to do something fun,
and it didn't end well.

But you're probably
not going to be the jerk who says,

"Well, I guess you shouldn't
have gone skiing then!"

If we think more about consent,

we can see that victims of privacy
violations deserve our compassion,

not criminalization, shaming,
harassment, or punishment.

We can support victims,
and we can prevent some privacy violations

by making these legal, individual,
and technological changes.

Because the problem is not sexting,
the issue is digital privacy,

and one solution is consent.

So the next time a victim
of a privacy violation comes up to you,

instead of blaming them,
let's do this instead:

Let's shift our ideas
about digital privacy

and let's respond with compassion.

Thank you.

(Applause)