Obviously, camera phones are facilitating the posting of photos and videos by these "publizens" (public citizens), as the article calls them.
Bob Reno, the 46-year-old founder of BadJocks.com, that publishes information about athletes doing stupid things, has an interesting quote. He says, "People would rather be embarrassed publicly than ignored privately."
People today post photos of themselves they previously never would have wanted strangers to see.
Encouraging publicity
Reno notes, "You've got a generation that is growing up with digital cameras and camera phones, and they are encouraging each other and being encouraged by popular media and by the technology companies to document everything they do."
Ain't that the truth!
The article discusses how kids like being able to publicize their lives and don't care about their lack of privacy. But the article also notes how these publizens might not understand all the ramifications of their public information.
Ramifications
Sherry Turkle, a well known researcher of the psychology/sociology of technology who works at the MIT Media Lab, says the younger generation understands much of technology isn't private, such as e-mail and cellular conversations, and they are "not politically mobilizable around the issue of government intrusions on privacy."
[A Web bio says she's the director of the MIT Initiative on Technology and Self.]
She sees how people don't care about being wiretapped, for example, because they believe they aren't doing anything wrong. However, Turkle says people don't understand "the importance of the principle of privacy as a protection against authoritarianism."
She notes that people don't have any historical perspective on privacy.
Not all bad
Not everyone is concerned about the lack of privacy and some people feel it has advantages. Lack of privacy makes it easier to post and store information on the Web and if everyone can see your picture then it's easier to identify you when you want to be recognized -- such as being able to cash a check.
Kevin Kelly, founding editor of Wired magazine and a well known technology writer, says in the article, "We've always been very public as a species. The very notion of privacy is recent, and probably temporary.
"Big Brother is a type of paranoia and egoism, because in fact most lives are not worth watching. With technology we are only returning to the global village where everyone knows what everyone else is doing."
Legal implications
The article notes that libel lawyers might have a more difficult time determining who is considered a public person. That has implications for libel cases.
An interesting point. If your photos, videos and opinions are posted all over the Web and hundreds of thousands or millions of people know who you are, what are your legal rights and your "expectation of privacy" when you think your privacy has been illegally violated?
[Sent via TypePad wireless e-mail with RIM BlackBerry 8700g]
Comments