Nicholas Thompson wrote at 01/15/2013 11:45 AM: > We then wondered what justified any kind of privacy law. If everybody were > honest, the cameras would reveal nothing that everybody would not be happy > to have known? Were not privacy concerns proof of guilt? No, we concluded: > they might be proof of SHAME, but shame and guilt are not the same, and the > law, per se, is not in the business of punishing SHAME.
In addition to guilt or shame, there's also what I call the "lurker use case". In my experiments with social media, I've found that some of my friends (in real life, not on twitter et al) are inherent lurkers. They enjoy monitoring my (or anyone's) exploits, but don't publicly participate ... don't chastise when the subject does something stupid ... don't accolade when the subject does something good ... etc. In stead, they'll wait until a private interaction to comment, usually offhandedly. Although I don't really care, I've tried to coerce the settings on various social media tools (and my phone's GPS/wifi tracker) so as to prevent (some) lurkers from monitoring me. Lurkers that I don't meet often face to face don't concern me because I can't control the experiment. I'd consider this a valid use case to consider with the government, too. For example, I don't really care what DISA.mil knows about me. But I do want to know whatever it is they know about me. 8^) ... without having to file a FOIA. To me, this is less about privacy and more about _control_ of information. But it seems quite distinct from guilt or shame. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
