A model of Social Eavesdropping in Communication Networks
Social Eavesdropping Defined
Download 409.42 Kb. View original pdf
|
| Social Eavesdropping Defined In ancient cooperative hunter-gatherer societies, open living and awareness of others were necessary to maintain harmony (Locke, 2005, 2010). When societies moved to more domesticated hierarchies, however, walls and other privacy boundaries were constructed, leading to shifts in information sharing and gathering behavior. The English word eavesdropper is a product of this historical transition, referring to a person who secretly listens from under the roof or eaves of a house (Eavesdrop n.d.). We restrict our theorizing to social eavesdropping, the scope of which is bound in several ways. First, we limit our examination to eavesdropping in which individuals gather information from the interactions between two or more people—thus, the term social This behavior excludes watching, monitoring, or listening to lone individuals. 2 The term social is also used because eavesdropping often has a negative connotation and stigma. We propose that social eavesdropping is not always unethical in fact, we argue it maybe prosocial in some cases. For example, preschoolers listen in on their peers questions and subsequent responses, helping them to learn and solve problems on their own (Mills, Danovitch, Grant, & Elashi, 2012). Although the question-asking preschoolers and teachers maybe aware of others listening in, they have not expressed their knowledge or permission to these bystanders thus, this case adheres to the definition of social eavesdropping. Second, we focus on the eavesdropper rather than those involved in the interactions being eavesdropped on (i.e., the communicators or interactants). Like previous work exploring uncertainty (Brashers, 2001) and information management (Afifi & Weiner, 2004), we recognize the importance of the interactants in social eavesdropping. Interactants play a key role in the communication network, provide cues to eavesdroppers, and coordinate privacy boundaries with one another. Interactants navigate potential boundary turbulence (i.e., when privacy rules are misunderstood or violated) if the eavesdropper becomes known (Petronio, 2002). To bound and define the scope of this work, however, we focus on social eavesdroppers and only consider the interactants in relation to the actions of eavesdroppers. Eavesdroppers play critical roles in both the structure of the network and ownership of information because eavesdroppers create new ties and gain new information, possibly covertly. Interactants mayor may not be aware of information-gathering by eavesdroppers. Lastly, we limit the definition of social eavesdropping to processes that involve acquiring information from the interactions of others without their expressed knowledge or expressed permission. Ina communication network, the eavesdropper is a third party or bystander who is ostensibly not the target audience, although they are connected to the interactants through information flow ties. This definition does not imply interactants are necessarily unaware of the third party—rather, their knowledge or permission is Monitoring lone individuals may provide equally important information this type of behavior is simply outside the scope of the definition of social eavesdropping. International Journal of Communication 14(2020) A Model of Social Eavesdropping 3707 not expressly stated or communicated to the eavesdropper. In the following sections, we elaborate on the defining elements of social eavesdropping (a) information gathering, (b) interactions of two or more people, and (c) third parties in communication networks. Download 409.42 Kb. Share with your friends:
|