A definition of digital identity?
5 A digital identity is made up of
the sum total of digital traces relating to an individual or a community:
“profile” traces corresponding to what I say about myself (who I am);
“browsing” traces showing which sites I visit, comment on or buy from (how I
behave); and finally, written or declarative traces – what I publish on my
blog, for example – which directly reflect my ideas and opinions (what I
think).
6 More precisely, digital identity
can be defined as both the collection of traces (writings, audio/video content,
forum messages, sign-in details, etc.) that we leave behind us, consciously or
unconsciously, as we browse the network, and the reflection of this mass of
traces as it appears after being “remixed” by search engines.
My digital identity includes the following: IP address;
cookies; emails; first name; surname; usernames; personal, administrative,
bank, professional and social details; photos; avatars and logos; tags; links;
videos; articles; forum comments; geo localised data, etc.
For litigation, or even tax purposes, I can see how all aspects of digital interaction and transaction would be included as part of one's digital identity. But claiming that an IP address or a marketer's perspective of you (cookies) somehow contributes to an individual's digital identity is mere acquiescence to systematic processes and contrives a self-imposed solipsism rather than an actual awareness.
ReplyDeleteOperating with that understanding of identity creates the notion that existence depends solely on the ability to interact within a construct. Instead digital identity should center on the progression of thought (what I search, publish, visit next) rather than the existence of thought (that I search, publish, visit).
The other aspects of digital identity listed in this post seldom change, causing an ontological stagnation. True digital identity therefore isn't created until what happens next happens next.
Andres, there seem to be a couple of differences between the definition from "What is Digital Identity?" and your more nuanced ideas. Notice that "What is Digital Identity?" defines digital identity as the "traces," that is the marks, both intentional and unintentional, we leave in the digital realm.
DeleteI find several problems there:
First, those traces can be completely disconnected from whoever leaves them. We might see those traces as similar to the physical items someone leaves after they die--those things their relatives get rid of in a garage sale. Can identity be connected to such objects? While one is alive, yes. After?
Second, many of those traces are left without the intent or even awareness of the individual leaving them. Awareness, as such, is critical to your definition of identity, Andres. That, of course, leaves us with another question: how many of us are aware of every aspect of our own identity, how our identity is affected in our own minds and in the minds of others by our physical appearance, our health, our friends, our culture our . . . a long list, right? (Ex: I am sixty-five, but in my own mind I see myself as about thirty-five--at least until I look in the mirror in the morning.)
In your "seldom change" comment you have identified one aspect of digital identity that is very different from other environmental identities: The digital traces we leave will remain almost indefinitely on the internet. Many politicians have discovered that something they wrote ten years prior can ruin their career in the present. They often argue that they have changed. But notice how their digital identity remains tethered to the past?
I have to admit, your comment about "self-imposed solipsism" flew over my head. I wouldn't mind it if you dug into that a little deeper.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with this concept of digital identity. Some believe that an online identify is not a real representation of who you are but its actually a deeper version of who you are. A true self, if you will. As a physical person, we limit ourselves to the opinion of others which in turn, develops some habits or behaviors that differ within different culture groups. Online, however, we have a more private setting, where our search habits go unchecked and un-judged. Furthermore, in the gaming world, we tend to create character that we believe represent ourselves or a self which we aspire to be. We are limitless to the different versions of our self that we wish to be. Lastly, your search history, Youtube library, and music list say a lot about who you are as a person.
ReplyDeleteI see a lot of masked identities on social media. Often these are creative. They may be wishful identities, but they may be something else. An extreme example of this is internet dating, where over 50% of men post fake or old photos of themselves. The question is, which is easier to face, face to face or online?
DeleteAh, yes. The new term is "cat fished." When someone pretends to be something they are not. To be honest, like our gaming avatars, we publish ourselves as we wish we were but, most of the time, unlike dating site, we are aware that we will not be seen. Therefore, I believe, it is easier to portray yourself one way online because no one can call you out on if they don't know who you are. It's very difficult to explain yourself on a dating site (without the proper picture), and then have someone accept you fully on the first encounter. The other person has their own concept of what they deem attractive or "perfect." It's hard to put yourself out there in general. So too, the people on the other end of the keyboard, paint a picture of what they believe they are. The concepts they have for themselves is different than what another person sees.
DeleteRachel, I agree with you that the browsing history, search history, Youtube library, etc. say a lot about us. I think to a certain extent it even helps ourselves reveal things that we may not have considered openly in person. For example, the suggested ads, suggested music, suggested articles, and suggested things to buy all help us see what kind of person we are and helps us realize and visualize a pattern that the internet has created. This patterns reveals a bit more about one of the many characteristics we have.
DeleteI agree, digital identity is basically who you are, what you like, your personal views as you comment or blog on social media. I honestly believe the soul of your identity, but by the same token, it can be split by different personalities because we respond to various aspects or views according to whom we like or dislike. What you search for in the web browser etc. It’s your Identity just digital.
ReplyDeleteThe definition presented in this text about digital identity is broken into three branches; the profile, the browsing and the publishing. The profile is what we say about ourselves online. The browsing are what we visit online and how we interact online. Finally, the publishing is what we declare and opinions we state online.
ReplyDeleteAlthough a good starting point to defining digital identity, the intro of the textbook presents an “aware version” of digital identity and not an organic one. It appears to be a manual on how to enhance ones digital identity and be in control vs. being authentic in the cyber world.
“an overview of the fundamental issues that individuals need to MASTER in order to retain CONTROL over their or their organization’s online presence.” [emphasis added]
If we were to break up this definition in the context of Freudianism, I believe this would serve as a definition of the ego-digital identity.
Interesting. I suppose this is a general definition. I like what Andres said and discussed further. I feel as if the 'definition' can be a little bit more ambiguous depending on what is being focused on when considering more nuanced aspects of digital identity.
ReplyDeleteDr. Noe, you did put it in perspective with your example of what we post 10 years back can have he potential to ruin a political career as it has recently. (thinking nervously about my FB posts from 2009 here) This is something that is a part of our world now and exactly why those seeking employment are usually subject to social media scoping by the employer.
I do feel the provided definition hits on the general aspects of digital identity without having to dig very deep because each word mentioned can be discussed at length. I also like Irvings's break down of the 'branches."
I think the definition could also mention those that steal identities. For instance those that take what we have published and create fake profiles or pretend to be someone else a'la CatFish the TV show.
I agree with Rachel to an extent. I do believe there are 'online' versions of ourselves but I do not agree that it is our 'true self' especially in the word of reddit, tumblr, and online gaming. Many use these spaces to be someone they cannot be in 'the real world' and are able to use their laptops and phones as a vehicle to be a different version of themselves use other names, be experimental, be daring. I think there can be many different versions of our self's in online spaces but there can never be a 'true' version online.
For instance, on FB I am more politically active, because I know I have many conservative family members on there and I want them to see I disagree with them on certain stances, therefore my digital identity on FB is one who voices their opinion a lot...and shares lots of cat videos.
On twitter I talk more about books, shows, and music. On tumblr I share memes & pictures and never type out anything. These are all different versions of myself that go out there but not my 'true self' I can post a perfectly timed image on my IG but real life is not perfectly timed, so I therefore I don't think everyone can see m 'true self' just through shared posts and images I choose to share of myself.
The definition of digital identity provided here is, at the very least, an attempt at covering the general aspects of digital identity without going to deep (that's our job after all, right?)
While I am not a technologically fluent person, meaning I am not very familiar with websites like reddit, twitter, tumblr, and online gaming like Nikki and Rachel discuss, I do love learning, analyzing, and reflecting on topics that relate to identity.
DeleteIn this case, I really agree with NIkki in the sense that there is no 'true self' online. I believe this because it is the same way in person and online. Just like everyone has different personalities and characteristics in person and actually change and use different ones depending on their environment, it is the same thing online. I definitely do not act the same way at work than I do on the weekends or with my friends and family. Similarly as Nikki nailed it, I, for one, may not speak, behave, and feel the same way I do on this blog than I would on Facebook.
Identity is a very flexible word, and I think there is so much significant beauty and thought behind this word. If we add the word 'digital' to it, there is so much more to be discovered, which I am eager to learn more about.
I agree with this definition and even further, I think that our digital identity shows who we really are rather than the masked self we tend to be when in person.
ReplyDeleteThis is simply because when someone is online, they feel like they don't have to hide or be ashamed of who they are. I am referring to our actual browsing history, cookies, etc. because what we post on social media isn't always the real thing. It is always happy pictures/videos/posts that are put down and never the sad moments. On the other hand, there are people who only post about problems they are facing or about nervous and anxious thoughts they may be having.
Either way, the person who we are in the digital world, I believe, is the person that we identify with the most.
I definitely agree with the definition of digital identity. Our digital identity and our physical identity are, for many people, much different.
ReplyDeleteThese "traces" of what we have searched, written, viewed, read, etc. are the only things that people who don't know us in the physical sense have to identity us with. Thus, if I am looking at the traces of an individual and see the name Enzo Dupont whose search history primarily consists of literature forums, How-To videos, posts about the Paradosi Ballet Company, and the cookies that contain images of noses, I would conclude that his physical identity (based on his digital identity) is that of a French man who is well-read, enjoys hands-on projects, works for or is a strong supporter of ballet, and probably has some weird fetish with noses.
Now, based on the definition, what I described above is Enzo's digital identity. However, identity is something much deeper and more complex than searches, posts, etc. can describe. Motive is extremely important. Maybe Enzo is dating a girl who is well-read and he has never read a book in his life that was not required. Thus, he goes on literature forums to be able to discuss the novels she loves so much on their dates. Much of identity is perception and interpretation. The person I think I am is probably not the person other people think I am. The person I think I am is probably not even the person I really am. So from reading other's posts, I can see why they would disagree with the definition of digital identity but I feel like it is pretty accurate. All those traces are what is found digitally, separate from the actual, physical person. The person's true identity would, of course, consist of their digital, physical, work, school, family, friend, and all other identities combined. But as for digital, it is only what is found digitally and the way that individuals make themselves seem to others, what they have searched, viewed, etc. We can attempt to dissect and understand a person's digital identity in order to understand their physical identity, but we would be very limited to the content we are able to analyze.
Smartest thing I've read this week: The person I think I am is probably not the person other people think I am. The person I think I am is probably not even the person I really am.
DeleteI agree with this blog to a certain extent, and not because I disagree with some of it, but because I think this can be expanded so much further and deeper, which is great for us!
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of you who mention that social media and the internet allow us to be our true selves because we say and post things that we otherwise would not do in person. However, I think that what we search for, what websites we visit, and what our browsing history looks like is an even more pure and true version of ourselves than what we post because in my opinion, I think the searches we make, the websites we visit are a more raw and honest version of what our interest are, what our doubts are, what our weaknesses and strengths are, what we know or don't know, what we truly find interest and intrigue in, etc. After we visit all of these websites and search and learn information we then formulate our opinion and post whatever we have learned or thought up at the moment. The post itself is an effect of our pure search, our pure intrigue and curiosity.
As far as a digital identity and sub-area of interest, I would like to focus on something that deals with the digital identity of a scholar or learner. I'm not sure if there is such a thing, but I really like the idea of studying and analyzing how, when, where, and why a scholar/learner uses their digital identity to learn and think.
Yes, I agree with the definition of digital identity. Our identity is shaped by how we describe ourselves, our actions, and what we declare, both in the “real world” and digitally.
ReplyDeleteHowever, digital identity cannot be the only consideration to define an individual’s entire identity because many characteristics may be absent, or purposely left out. It is a mere extension or interdependent branch of other self-identifying aspects such as language preference, culture, political affiliation, religious beliefs, socioenconomic status, sexual orientation, family life, etc. And those complex aspects of identity are shaped or influences by society and life experiences, which may not be apparent online. These “traces” are analyzed out of context, which may lead to an inaccurate perception.
Individuals should not take advantage of the fact that their digital identies can be manipulated to fit their perceptions of what their identity is or what they would like it to be. It is much more feasible to manipulate posts, photos, videos, etc. or to control what is left online than it is to manipulate real aspects of their life such as appearance, personality, socioeconomic status, etc. Although, there are individuals who still attempt to alter their real world identies by living beyond their means or exhibiting a different persona.
An analysis of someone’s digitial and real world identity must be done to arrive at a much more informed or conclusive perception.
Even so, individuals may not be who they seem at all.
Written by: Kimberly Ortega
DeleteI concur!
ReplyDeleteSince I am a graduate student who specializes in digital literacy in the public education this resonates to me in many levels. We live in a digital era in which most students, professionals, and even daily activities are depended upon technology, and when technology is depended upon our daily activities it is no surprise that we build a community or a form of identity inadvertently.
Now that I read this and I trace my activities that I browse I have came with a conclusion that I have an identity different from my family, co-workers, and even fellow classmates. I am a teacher, a video gamer, and a watch collector, and many more. But when I connect the dots it makes sense that there will probably be no other person who is identically at me this is my own personalized digital identity that I abide by.
As far as I am reading this my sub genre will be specialized with ESL student integrating digital literacy and technology in order to acquire the English language through the use of technology and digital identity in which today's adolescents were brought up with technology ( I am a high school teacher).
Although I agree with this definition of digital identity, I find it a little troublesome because it can be such a limited view of a individual. I am certain that many individuals only reveal what they believe reflects the best part of themselves (their luxurious vacation, their healthy lifestyles, their prestigious literary interests, etc.) and completely leave out what they think makes them look bad. They build of a fictional persona that has little to do with who they are in the real world. Perhaps the unconscious traces might be more revealing than those that are purposefully built.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, people have more control of their digital identity than they usually would of their identity in the “real world”. I’ve always believed that identity is constructed by many uncontrollable factors. Society, for instance, plays a huge role in how we perceive ourselves and others.
Digital identity is useful not as a single tool, but as a part of many that can help define an individual.
As I am reading everyone's comments, rereading mine, and reconsidering the definition of digital identity, I notice a pattern of the appearance of the world society. We all know the typical society we face in person, and we know it varies within cultures, traditions, areas, etc. However, I am wondering what kind of societies live in the internet? For example, Youtube itself has many societies, right? Or does it just have one society? Same thing with Twitter or Facebook or Instagram: they all have many different societies and groups, right? I guess a better question would be, what are the types of society the internet has? What makes a society in the internet? How can we identify them, and how can we identify ourselves with them?
ReplyDeleteI do agree with definition. When I was in high school from 2000 to 2004. I had the desktop in my bedroom. My parents would ask about the news stories of what not to share but they didn’t really watch me. I did use chat rooms and honestly with the stranger talks given to me by my parents I should known being sent a random picture was not good. But I didn’t share anything. Most of my internet use was for school research and apply to college. It wasn’t till my freshman year in 2004 that I joined social media. Our professors and campus activities advisors would warn us to be careful about what we posted on social media. We represented the school and even if we erased that drunk picture nothing on the internet is ever really erased. So I think all of these things do make up our digital idenity.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Maria. I graduated from high school in 2001, and I had to share a computer with my younger sister. We only had one desktop computer in our house, so we had to share the time we spent on the computer, which was primarily for completing schoolwork. I obsessed about using MSN chat and meeting people from all over the world, and my mom became wary about my reasons for using the computer, other than completing schoolwork. Obviously, I was much younger then, and my parents and the media would warn me about the fact that every conversation I had on MSN Messenger was never really "private" and that every document I "deleted", could be traced back to me, and it was circulating out there in cyberspace. I'll admit that privacy was never a concern to me back in 2001, because I had no private information, such as bank account or credit card passwords to update or protect.
DeleteI somewhat agree with this definition of digital identity, I think it's a little hard to judge a person by what they share or by what they search, however I do believe that you can get a sense of what the person is like through these things; if not how they are, then maybe their frame of mind at a given time.
ReplyDeleteI hardly share on social media, but when I do, it's like funny videos or things that I agree with or can relate to. This is where I agree with how certain digital traces can be used to in a sense, get to know me. Take a police investigation for example, if a person is thought to commit a certain crime, one of the things they confiscate is any kind of technology. Then digital forensic detectives look into your background based on what kind of things you search for which can lead to a very convincing testimony as to whom may have committed the crime.
On the other hand, I don't think you can tell EXACTLY who a person is by what their digital history says. For example, way before I had my own daughter, I would take care of my nephew and always search up things that I thought were interesting in regards to babies. Just because I was searching things up would allow another person to think that maybe I had a child when that was never the case. Moreover, sometimes I search up about weird things I learn from other people such as "bot flies". I live no where near where these insects originate and I hope I never visit a place where they are located, but as people say, information is at our fingertips so why not make use of it.