Digital Shadow - Solove: Information, Liberation and Constraint

How might we protect our reputation online, given the speed with which unflattering or incorrect information can spread?
Tama has given us the answer to this question. If we fear that unflattering or incorrect information is spreading online, or is going to, the best defence is attack with a preemptive strike, namely a Personal Web Presence. This is best done early, so that search engines will have picked up the PWP and keywords of your name will cause the PWP to rank highly.

Another proactive stance is to modify one’s behaviour so that noone will be inclined to publish anything untowards. This would be hard for many to comprehend, especially the very young, but just as little children are taught “don’t talk to strangers”, so must they be trained in digital literacy (“don’t post anything you don’t want your mum/teacher to see”) and general good behaviour (“don’t do anything you’d be embarrassed about”). These sound like motherhood statements, and they are, but they are also values we should be imbuing in our children and adopting as adults.
The examples that Tama showed us in his lecture, and that Solove described, make fine case studies, and could be used more widely.

The internet may be a 'global village' but as Solove points out, it lacks the corrective familiarity of a real village. Or does it?
Even real villages have long memories. Whilst embarrassing information may live forever on the internet, some of the examples we have been shown demonstrate that people can learn from their mistakes and even overcome them (and others don’t). Heather Armstrong (dooce.com) may have been fired, but she has become a very successful blogger – she took advantage of her notoriety. Little Fatty is now a “star” although he was initially “devastated”. Both of these cases demonstrate that the global village can repair reputational damage, or at least compensate for it. Other examples have less happy endings.

Consider Solove's discussion of "John Doe," the anonymous person who contacted him online. If you want to check up on a person, how can you identify truth from misinformation online?
Nowadays, anyone offering themselves for employment or other consideration renders themselves liable to online scrutiny. It is in the interests of both parties for the scrutiny to be critical, but this is not easily achieved. Instruction will be given to “ensure that the source is credible”: this is good advice but it is often difficult to implement, especially when searching in unfamiliar territory or on controversial subjects. In academic pursuits, peer reviewed articles in “respected” journals score high in credibility, but these options are usually not available when investigating the reputation of a prospective employee, for example.
Checking up on someone, a scrutineer must rely on his/her judgment in the particular circumstances. Information on SNSs or in gossip columns would always have to be suspect, while data on government sites or from previous employers would be more credible, but still not infallible. Sources of news items in the media are supposed to be collaborated, but just view Media Watch on ABC1 for exceptions. Images are telling but they make be fake, manipulated or just taken out of context. Personal Web Pages are bound to be positive, by definition, but are not necessarily true. People lie about their past: one case in recent news concerns an 83 year old whose false claims have netted him $400,000 in unjustified pensions. See http://www.smh.com.au/national/fake-war-veterans-five-more-cases-investigated-20091011-gsdv.html .

What if someone has the same name as you? Not so good if they commit a crime or publish dubious photographs of themselves. How can you protect and define your identity as an individual online?
Having the same name as a criminal (or a terrorist) must be particularly hazardous especially if your name is not so common, and you are passing through immigration is some airport somewhere! Such matters make the news from time to time. Online, the problems are potentially similar, and the consequences may be just as embarrassing, inconvenient, expensive or career-busting!
This question reminds me of readings elsewhere in this Unit of the balance between anonymity and self-disclosure. Basically, the more (accurate) information you give about yourself, the less you could be mistaken for someone else or vice versa. For example, including an image with a biography online (in your Personal Web Presence) increases its strength of definition, and may help a scrutineer distinguish you from someone else (only if that someone else has his mug shot in there too!).
But total disclosure in a PWP will surely help overcome mistaken identity in an online search scenario, but that total disclosure must be balanced by an individual desire for privacy.