New Age Media

In a world where privacy is at best illusive, more likely illusory, the question of exactly what personal information can be released to the public remains sticky at best. What exactly rises to the level of “fair game” in revealing personal data has always been measured against the backdrop of the famous 1964 U.S. Supreme Court defamation case, Times vs. Sullivan, in which a higher standard of responsibility had to be assessed against the publishers of false information to the extent that person who is the subject of the false revelation may have been deemed a “public figure.” The court held that “actual malice” (generally viewed as knowing or reckless disregard of the truth, a factor that changes as the immediacy of the publication changed; breaking news as opposed to an historical review). In 1988, the Supreme Court (Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell) extended this standard beyond slander and libel to cases which alleged infliction of emotional distress. Public figures had less protection than mere mortals, even if they were thrust into the limelight other than by their own choice.

But what happens when what is revealed is actually true but reflects a private fact that the subject doesn’t really want the world to know about? Will this standard be applied to privacy as well? We were taught at an early age not to ask a woman’s age, because that just wasn’t polite. Yet if you are casting a movie, you might not want to audition women in their 70s for a role more appropriate for a teenage ingénue. So in a motion picture industry database, one might think that listing a fully accurate date of birth for an actor would be a truthful depiction (no defamation possible) which is not presented to torment the subject, but rather to inform various entertainment industry professionals of relevant information (including a photograph, list of film and television credits, etc.) might be appropriate. Film and television companies might find this useful in making good casting decisions. No negligence. No malice. No recklessness. No negative intentions whatsoever.

Ah, but what happens when an actor has one of those “looks” that encompasses roles that might be much younger… someone like actress Junie Hoang (her stage name, anyway, pictured above), whom the New York Times (March 4^th) called “B-movie actress who used to get nameless roles like the Headless Woman in ‘Domain of the Damned’ or the Zombie Postwoman in ‘Z: A Zombie Musical.”” Though she is over 40, Ms. Hoang clearly looks significantly younger than her physical age. When Amazon-owned IMDB (an entertainment Website/database, with a “for pay” enhanced site: IMDbPro) accompanied Ms. Joang’s profile with her birth date, pretty normal information for that site, Ms. Joang was outraged, filing suit in federal district court in Seattle under a “Jane Doe” pseudonym against the site and Amazon. She claimed that with this older age posted for all to see, she lost roles that she might otherwise have been offered just based on her looks. As time passed, her name was finally identified, and a form of mini-celebrity ensued.

“According to Ms. Hoang’s suit, the IMDbPro professional portion of the site, which charges an annual access fee, used her credit card information to learn her real name, Huong Hoang. Then, she asserts, the site ‘scoured’ publicly available data to find and publish her birthday, July 16, 1971 — which remains posted… Amazon’s lawyers and a company spokeswoman declined to comment, citing a company policy against public discussion of pending litigation. But in their multiple legal responses, they have alternately dismissed Ms. Hoang’s claim as ‘selfish, contrary to public interest and a frivolous abuse’ of the court, and bluntly denied the assertion that credit card information had been used to identify her.

“What the Amazon team has not done yet is to disclose how IMDb did, in fact, link the actress Junie Hoang, a stage name, with the IMDb Pro subscriber Huong Hoang, one of perhaps 600 people in the United States with the same name, according to a public records database maintained by Nexis. If credit card information had been used, Amazon’s lawyers say in court filings, there still would have been no violation of law or the company’s privacy agreement...

“But IMDb looms large because of its reach — it claims more than 110 million monthly unique visitors worldwide and is often at or near the top of movie-related Google searches. And while its publication of vital statistics might not affect the stars, whose lives are widely scrutinized anyway, many second-tier performers and film workers believe the site exposes them to a film industry bias against older people… The Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists both criticized IMDb last October for its habit of publishing ages. ‘It is time for IMDb to step up and take responsibility for the harm it has caused,’ they said in a joint statement.” NY Times.

The bigger question looms: how much of your data-mined private (non-celebrity) information should be made available to companies that have an economic interest in as much of that information as they can generate? How much data-scraping (trolling the Web aggregating as much personal information as can be generated) and information-sharing is justified, and if there is a line somewhere, exactly how is it determined and drawn? Who gets to decide? While surface issue might draw a few guffaws, the underlying issues go to the very core of living in an electronically-networked fishbowl world. Medical records, anyone? Tax returns? Exactly what you bought with your credit card? Your address?

I’m Peter Dekom, and exactly how much detailed private information would you like open to anyone with a “sort-of” justification for wanting to know?