Google Tries Defining Sharing as Privacy (Updated)

Recently, Google standardized its privacy policies across all of its platforms, as well as sharing and correlating user information obtained on its various services.  In a move to quiet the howls from privacy advocates, Google researcher Jessica Staddon is releasing a research paper arguing that social media sharing of personal information helps you build a public image, which in turn helps build trust and enhances privacy.,

"[W]e present survey evidence that 'vanity' searches are associated with an important privacy need," Staddon writes. "We also present evidence compatible with the conjecture that social annotations in search support privacy by enabling better self-representation and thus more privacy-aware sharing." 

 They key to the seeming contradiction that becoming more public promotes privacy lies in defining privacy.  Staddon, while not giving a precise definition seems to equate privacy with being able to build one's own representation of their public self through social media, and that input from the social media community can help reinforce and validate that representation.  Staddon asserts that there are "huge privacy advantages" in facilitating perception, both of one's self-image as well as how they represent themselves in the community.  I'm not clear how this directly helps maintain privacy, or resolve privacy issues or problems.  Perhaps looking at how Staddon supports the argument can help.
  Staddon reports on two research studies.  The first is a small scale study which suggested a relationship between "vanity searching" one's name, and concern about one's reputation.  It's a very weak link though, based largely on the result that most of those who didn't vanity surf said they weren't concerned about their online reputation at all.  The second study was an experiment to test whether adding social annotations (likes or popularity) to an article's search result (title, snippet of text and url) had an impact on an user's interest in further engagement with the article.  Staddon reports that there were small, but statistically significant differences in a user's interest in reading the article, further looking into the topic, or bookmarking it - but no meaningful difference in whether or not a user would "share" the article with others through social media.  So where does privacy come in? 
  In the first study, Staddon seems to suggest that a concern about reputation can motivate reputation monitoring through vanity surfing, and jumps to the argument that social media can be a mechanism for reputation monitoring (not a direct finding of the study).  Even following that line of argument, the implication is that concern for privacy might drive one type of social media use, not that social media use improves privacy.
  In the second study, one social media use (aggregated social annotations) had a small impact in terms of improving further engagement, except for through social media.  This might be argued to suggest that, for some, trust in social annotations might impact engagement - but not that engagement improves trust.  Trust is tied to perception of social media annotations, and not a result of minimally heightened engagement.
  As such, neither of the studies directly indicates that social media use has positive implications for privacy, much less that "social media both facilitates reputation monitoring and trust building, both of which are compelling for privacy."  The evidence and argument provided in support of the claim that social media use promotes privacy are incomplete, indirect, and insufficient. The only real argument for improved privacy through social media lies in Staddon's example of an indirect benefit - that having more and better personal information about others could impact on an individual's likelihood of self-disclosing personal information to another.  In other words, it's basically an argument that less privacy for you might help me maintain my level of privacy. And that's not much of an argument for social media supporting privacy, either.

UPDATE: 
It turns out that privacy regulators in the EU don't like Google's plan to consolidate privacy statements and user information across its many platforms, in order to begin compiling more detailed user profiles.
Privacy policy in Europe is different from US concerns, and is focused more on sharing or revealing personal information to others. 
  Google argues that it only plans on using the aggregated personal information internally, to improve its personalization and recommendations, and to better target advertising. However, there seems to be no way for users to opt out of the new privacy policy, or prevent aggregation, short of signing out and using multiple accounts.
  In the meantime, some members of Congress are asking the Federal Trade Commission if the new policy violates an early anti-trust settlement in which Google promised to obtain the express consent of users before sharing their information.
  I think Google wants to make the case that all of the separate services are still part of Google, and thus there is no outside sharing.  I'm not so sure that the Courts will agree, but they might.


Sources -  Google Study: Social Media Enhances Privacy,  Information Week Security
Vanity or Privacy? Social Media as a Facilitator of Privacy and Trust, Jessica Staddon, Google
Google, EU Spar Over Privacy Changes,  Online Media Daily

edit log -  Updated with EU/US privacy concerns, 6 Feb 2012