Contextual integrity explains why my aunt’s clinic group chat felt wrong
My aunt is a nurse at a small clinic outside Kuala Lumpur. Last month she showed me the staff group chat, where a colleague had posted a photo of a patient's rash to ask the doctor whether it looked like shingles. No name, no face. The doctor answered within minutes and the patient was treated well.
Nothing in the photo was secret in the usual sense, and the purpose was good. But it bothered me, and I could not say why using the public/private distinction I work with every day. The rash was "private", but it was shared with people already treating the patient, so that cannot be the whole story.
Helen Nissenbaum's idea of contextual integrity (worked out in Privacy in Context, 2010) gave me words for it. Information flows are governed by norms that belong to particular contexts: who is sending, who is receiving, whose information it is, what kind of information, and on what terms it moves. Medicine has strong norms about all of these. A consult between clinicians fits them. A photo that now sits on a dozen personal phones, backed up to who knows where, does not, even if no one ever misuses it.
I also find the idea echoed in my own tradition. The Qur'an forbids spying on one another (49:12), and the ethics I grew up with treats what you learn about someone in a trusted role as an amanah, something held in trust, not a fact you now own.
What I am unsure about is whether contextual integrity is too conservative. If every norm is tied to existing practice, how does it criticise a bad practice that everyone already follows?