This is Not Your Grandma’s Dating App

When a colleague started dating online, she chose to go by her previously never-used middle name to give herself some semblance of privacy and security. Her life is somewhat public, and fiercely guarding her reputation is of paramount importance. Conversely, when considering interaction with someone online, she would methodically do a background check, searching for any red flags.

Privacy and reputation go hand-in-hand; activities or expressions we choose to engage in have aspects of exclusivity. What we share with those closest to us may not be what we want to share with the rest of the world. It doesn’t have to be provocative or controversial. Online dating is not something that raises an eyebrow, but I can understand someone preferring not to be the subject of office chit-chat or make themselves vulnerable to unscrupulous characters or being misjudged by something they posted years ago.

The online world has dramatically changed our perception of privacy; it’s not the same as it was for earlier societies or even a generation ago.

That’s why companies like yourself.online exist to help manage your online image and reputation. And because they’re an awesome company, PPLSI, the parent company of LegalShield and IDShield, acquired yourself.online, to enhance our mission to?protect and empower people with the tools and services needed to affordably live a just and secure life, in both the real and virtual worlds. I’m pleased to say their services are now included in our IDShield plans.

Yes, this is a shameless plug because I’m fortunate to be the CEO of PPLSI! Nevertheless, our mission is one I firmly believe in and ceaselessly advocate for. Here’s why:

The concept of privacy has deep historical roots in sociological and anthropological examinations about how it’s valued and guarded in various cultures. The historical origins in familiar philosophical discussions, notably Aristotle’s distinction between the public sphere of political activity and the private sphere associated with family and domestic life, have informed our collective consciousness, even if subliminally.

Indeed, different cultures have various inclinations about what's public and what’s private, even regarding personal space. We Americans prefer a generous amount of space, as comically demonstrated in the “close talker” TV episode of Seinfeld. Other regions of the world have different preferences. This is reflected in how we consider the security of our digital identities or online personal data.

Back in October, I wrote: “We now have an online identity, an identity tied to bank accounts, social security numbers, and a slew of data we don’t want to be shared with the world. This is new, something no human being on earth has experienced until recent decades, and comes with new concerns, beyond drawing the curtains or locking your doors. Locks were invented for a reason. So was cybersecurity.”?

I further discussed privacy in last month's essay: "'If you're not paying for a product, then you are the product.’?The implication is that the digital services we use every day make money by providing personal data to advertisers who place tremendous value on our data.”

We have laws concerning these issues.?

In American law from the 1890s onward, privacy protection was justified largely on moral grounds. John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, inspired by Locke, imagined privacy rights by putting them in the context of the societal good. The Founders didn’t specifically venerate privacy because they saw moral virtue as more fundamental and precious to society than a private space that permitted shameful conduct. That’s why privacy is not mentioned in our Constitution.

?Since the 1965 case of?Griswold v. Connecticut, when Justice William O. Douglas discovered individual privacy rights via “penumbras, formed by emanations,” our laws have kept pace, adding to the right to privacy. At the same time, our private data is used by countless entities, and it seems we have less and less of it. Or are required to give up more of it, as evidenced by the IRS’s facial recognition standards.

The right to privacy is often balanced against the state's compelling interests, including the promotion of public safety and improving the quality of life. That’s why we’ve been kicking around controversial vaccine mandates, in effect nullifying aspects of the previously sacrosanct HIPAA laws.

As public opinion evolves regarding relationships and activities, the boundaries of personal privacy also shift, primarily due to social media and a preponderance of online "sharing." The definition of the right to privacy is a malleable concept, and our vulnerabilities are expanding to fit the space.

Fundamentally, it’s up to us as individuals to present ourselves online as we would in person. It’s also up to us to understand our vulnerabilities online. It’s essential to know how statements and information we post can be taken out of context and weaponized by those with nefarious intent, or more innocently, misinterpreted.?

Some of this we can manage on our own; in other aspects, we need assistance. That’s why I’m passionate about my job, believe in my company’s values, and am privileged to serve our mission!