 My name is Dana Boyd and I'm a senior researcher at Microsoft Research and also a visiting scholar over at the Harvard Law School, I'm a Berkman Fellow. The delight is actually to watch people from different disciplines come together and really grapple with really hard questions. So the nice thing about this community is you bring together the folks who are really thinking about design and architecture as a historical sense, people who are thinking about technology, people thinking about law and the sort of social scientists and so it's this, it's an amazing moment where you can see sort of common threads and total disconnects. In some ways I'm just fundamentally an ethnographer which means that what really helps me think through private and public is talking to teenagers. So it's about really sort of stepping away from the high theoretical space and saying what are people doing, how are they trying to live their lives, what kind of sense are they making of it? And I really do live in the descriptive and only then once I get a coherent sense of what it is that other people think about, then I can come to the theoretical. There aren't so much about boundaries and sort of divisions where the two can be separated. For me, they're more that you have this notion of public and public spaces, the ideas of being public, which is the ideas of publicity. And then you have this other sort of value system around privacy and what it means to sort of create a sense of intimacy or private and the two sit together. And so it's not about sort of these divisions where they can be separable but so much as like how do you think about privacy of different kinds of public spaces? And is it about carving out a space which is the metaphor that we think of in physical worlds? Is it about a place of carving out the sort of social network or a group of people? Is it about a way of communicating or having these layers? And that's why I think for me the key to understanding privacy is to think about privacy as a social process and that one that is really dependent on two key things. One is the ability to control a social situation, not just control information flow but control the social situation. And the second is having enough agency to assert control. This is the challenge of dealing with a mediated life is that you're dealing with these interactions, dealing with ways of sharing where you don't know what's at the other end. And I think that's really a very tricky thing to come to terms with for all people. One of the ways I really see young people making clear that they care about privacy are the strategies they try to take to achieve it. And there's different kinds of strategies to take. One or what we would think about is a set of social norm strategies, which is trying to assert these are the norms and trying to communicate and signal those norms to other people. The second is sort of a set of structural strategies, right? These are sort of really tactical measures to try to use the technology to achieve some sort of bounded condition or really manage things. And the third are sort of ways of sort of having sort of social strategies. So the social strategies to me are some of the most interesting. One of the examples there is about the notion of hiding in plain sight, right? Making things available, but you have to be in the know to actually understand what the meaning is. And that plays out at different levels. We've understood this as in-jokes. We've understood this through all sorts of linguistic patterns and communication strategies. But to see this play out with imagined audiences, not just with the sort of in-jokes of every day, are sort of delightful. And to see young people learn these strategies without necessarily being told how to do it, makes it very clear the learning that goes on. So all three of these different strategies are ways that young people are coping with trying to achieve privacy, even in these network public spaces.