Skip to main content Link Menu Expand (external link) Left Arrow Right Arrow Document Search Copy Copied

Overview

Our exploration of data sonification originates from a multi-year SSHRC-funded project that investigated the rise of data breaches as a security crisis from 2005 to 2021. We examined 16 data breach cases, analyzing around 10-15 primary sources per year using critical discourse analysis.1 2 This approach helped us understand how knowledge about data breaches is created through discussions and representations of these events. Detailed information about our process is available in the methods section.

My interest in this topic began after receiving several breach notifications within a few months in 2018. Following multiple high-profile incidents, I started to explore the subject with a basic question: What is a data breach?

A data breach involves unauthorized access to and loss of control over private, confidential, and sensitive information. Over the past fifteen years, data breaches have skyrocketed due to the massive generation and circulation of consumer data across various platforms and devices. This, combined with consumers’ readiness to share personal information, has led to what Michael Parent3 refers to as the “era of big data breaches”.4

Data breaches can have significant geopolitical impacts, affecting individuals, organizations, and nation-states in interconnected ways. However, the rhetoric of cybersecurity and mainstream media shapes the understanding and usage of the term “data breach.” This project investigates data breaches as social, political, and cultural processes, not just technological events. While the link between data breaches and security is real, the perception of data breaches as security crises is influenced by the historical contexts in which they arise.4

The larger project is rooted in the social histories of computer networks and cybersecurity scholarship, which views cyberthreat representations as discursive and explores how these representations can shape cybersecurity practices.5 6 7 8 9 10 11 For instance, discussions about computer viruses in the 1990s often drew parallels to biological viruses like AIDS, incorporating ideas and anxieties about protecting self-contained bodies from external threats.12 13 14 15 16 The shift in terminology from “virus” to “breach” further illustrates how both experts and the public use cultural anxieties to explain the complex vulnerabilities of ubiquitous networked computing.4

Cybersecurity incidents, such as data breaches, are often depicted as a crisis for the normal functioning of networks.17 This narrative promotes the misconception that the 2.5 quintillion bytes of data generated daily through various devices and the internet are inherently manageable, governable, and controllable.4 Suggesting that ubiquitous data collection is risky would challenge dominant data-driven business models in areas like healthcare (e.g., 23andMe), subscription services (e.g., Netflix, Spotify), IoT and smart devices (e.g., Nest, FitBit), and advertising-based models (e.g., Meta, Google).

Breaches have become so common that the cybersecurity industry has coined the term “breach fatigue” to describe the indifference resulting from an overwhelming and seemingly unresolvable series of events.4 This term captures how some people might understand and respond to this complex technological phenomenon. However, it oversimplifies the emotional response and overlooks the varied feelings people have when faced with data breaches. How do people feel when confronted by data breaches?

Additionally, since the research team spent about a year conducting critical discourse analysis on primary sources from extensive press coverage of data breaches, I wanted to revisit the perceptions of data breaches that emerged from this analysis. In short, I aimed to explore the emotional dimensions of data breaches to reengage with our findings.

  1. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. Trans. A. Sheridan Smith. New York: Pantheon Books. ↩

  2. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: Volume I. New York: Random House. ↩

  3. Parent, M. (2019 December 4). Growth in data breaches shows need for government regulations. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/growth-in-data-breaches-shows-need-for-government-regulations-127600 ↩

  4. Zeffiro, Andrea., Niessen, Gil, Oberst, Clementine, McEwan, Sam, Cochrane, Alexis, Carlota, Durand, Joshua. (2023). “Discourses on cybersecurity: The politics of the data breach as a security crisis.” Rivista di Digital Politics. pp. 369-398. https://www.rivisteweb.it/doi/10.53227/106451 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  5. Ashenden, D. (2021). The future human and behavioural challenges of cybersecurity. In P. Cornish (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cybersecurity. (pp.723-734). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ↩

  6. Cap, P. (2017). Threats in cyberspace. The language of fear: Communicating threat in public discourse. (pp. 53-66). London: Palgrave Macmillan ↩

  7. Dunn Cavelty, M. (2018). Cybersecurity research meets science and technology studies. Politics and Governance, 6(2), 22-20. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i2.1385 ↩

  8. Gjesvik, L., and Szulecki, K, (2022) Interpreting cyber-energy-security events: experts, social imaginaries, and policy discourses around the 2016 Ukraine blackout, European Security, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2022.2082838 ↩

  9. Hansen, L., & Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Digital disaster, cyber security, and the Copenhagen School. International Studies Quarterly, 53, 1155–1175. ↩

  10. Nissembaum, H. (2005). When computer security meets national security. Ethics in Information Technology (7), 61-73. ↩

  11. Rothschild, E. (1995). What is security? Daedalus, 124(3), 52-98. ↩

  12. Helmreich, S. (2000). Flexible infections: Computer viruses, human bodies, nation-states, evolutionary capitalism. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25(4), 472–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500404 ↩

  13. McKinney, C. and Mulvin, D. (2019). Bugs: Rethinking the history of computing. Communication, Culture and Critique, 12(4), 476–49. ↩

  14. Parrika, J. (2005). Digital Monsters, binary aliens—computer viruses, capitalism and the flow of information. Fibreculture Journal 4. https://four.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-019-digital-monsters-binary-aliens-%E2%80%93-computer-viruses-capitalism-and-the-flow-of-information/ ↩

  15. Ross, A. (1991). Hacking away at the counterculture. In C. Penley & A. Ross (Eds.), Technoculture, (pp. 107–34). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. ↩

  16. Rushkoff, D. (1994). Media virus! Hidden agendas in popular culture. New York: Ballantine. ↩

  17. Zeffiro, Andrea. (2022). “Breach.” Heliotrope. https://www.heliotropejournal.net/helio/breach ↩