Jude 2

Why no one cares about privacy anymore
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20000336-38.html

Norms are changing, with confidentiality giving way to openness. Participating in YouTube, Loopt, FriendFeed, Flickr, and other elements of modern digital society means giving up some privacy, yet millions of people are willing to make that trade-off every day. Of people with an online profile, nearly 40 percent have disabled privacy settings so anyone may view it, according to a Pew Internet survey released a year ago. The percentage is probably higher today.

"As a social good, I think privacy is greatly overrated because privacy basically means concealment. People conceal things in order to fool other people about them. They want to appear healthier than they are, smarter, more honest and so forth." -- Richard Posner, federal judge

A 2008 Harris Interactive/CTIA survey of more than 2,000 American teens confirms that youth are least worried about privacy. Only 41 percent were concerned; 59 percent were happy to provide personal information to marketers. Compare this to a Harris poll conducted in 1998, the same year Google was founded, that found a remarkable 80 percent of people were hesitant to shop online because of privacy worries. Fast forward 12 years and we're bragging on Blippy about what we bought with our Mastercard.

Perhaps this disinterest in traditional concepts of privacy is one reason why Twitter (originally public) is growing so much faster than Facebook (originally private). While Facebook's remarkable share of global Internet eyeballs doubled last year, according to Alexa.com, Twitter's grew tenfold.


"People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people--and that social norm is just something that has evolved over time."
--Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, Facebook

••••••••••

Does anyone care about Privacy anymore?

MacUser wrote:Does anyone care about Privacy anymore?

I would anwer that........in private.

A large portions of my life is an open book, very public and transparent. The "What you see is what you get." state. Then there is another portion that is private, and in this private sector there are different levels of privacy. In addition to personal identification for banking, taxes, medical information which is shared on a "need to know" basis. There is a level that is shared with friends and people with similar experiences such as veterans, recovering addicts, etc. Then there is a level that is shared only with family. Finally there is a level that is shared with no one. God and I are the only ones that know this part, and this is where I must do my most intense praying. I think that most people, if they are honest with themselves would find that they are quite similar.


TW

TW wrote:A large portions of my life is an open book, very public and transparent. The "What you see is what you get." state. Then there is another portion that is private, and in this private sector there are different levels of privacy. In addition to personal identification for banking, taxes, medical information which is shared on a "need to know" basis. There is a level that is shared with friends and people with similar experiences such as veterans, recovering addicts, etc. Then there is a level that is shared only with family. Finally there is a level that is shared with no one. God and I are the only ones that know this part, and this is where I must do my most intense praying. I think that most people, if they are honest with themselves would find that they are quite similar.


TW

I love it when we're all lumped into one mass of "no ones" as the headline states, "Why No One Cares About Privacy Anymore."

What am I - chopped liver?

And, by the way, great post there, TW. Pretty much my sentiments, too.

Some privacy is good.. I don't want to know everything about everyone!

It is nice to be "known" by friends and family and it feels good to share.. especially because I appreciate the accountability and I enjoy being able to be honest. But, it is also nice to have some things kept private especially since many people are not "safe" to share some things with! I think that is a healthy way to look at it.

MacUser wrote:Why no one cares about privacy anymore
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20000336-38.html

Norms are changing, with confidentiality giving way to openness. Participating in YouTube, Loopt, FriendFeed, Flickr, and other elements of modern digital society means giving up some privacy, yet millions of people are willing to make that trade-off every day. Of people with an online profile, nearly 40 percent have disabled privacy settings so anyone may view it, according to a Pew Internet survey released a year ago. The percentage is probably higher today.

[8< snip]

I am among the other 60%. I still like my privacy and do utilise the various privacy settings in the on-line social networking world.

And I do agree with your thoughts, TW.

Before I forget it TW basicly my thoughts too.

Does anyone care about Privacy anymore?

I think that depends on wheither it your are mines. People pay a lot of monies just to know about the privacy of people all the time.

Then at prayer request time I've seem some spend more time in going over the details then they did praying over the the request. Makes you wonder sometimes.

The thing to know about Judge Posner is that he views everything through an economic lens. Harold See, an Alabama Supreme Court Justice and one of my former law professors, is a devout disciple of Judge Posner. Posner was famous as a legal scholar and philosopher before he was ever on the federal bench. He is generally considered, rightly so, very conservative. His comments here are telling, and strike the familiar chord I find most troubling about conservatism ---- individuals don't matter, nor do their rights, in the great balance of things. The interests of the public and of the federal government will always --- ALWAYS --- outweigh the interests of the citizen.

These are the days when America as it was founded is most in danger of falling into the abyss. Posner is wrong, and so is conservatism, which is completely about big government.

Dolfan
When did you start smokin crack?

Not sure what you mean. What part was cracky? (Or, maybe I AM nuts .... what part wasn't? )

Posner is a leading scholar in the "law and economics" approach to legal matters. His question is always what is the most economical outcome. That, according to him, is pretty much the essence of law. It has lead him to make some very pro-business decisions over the years. He has consistently been a conservative darling as jurists go.

I bring up Harold See -- and I can see pretty haphazardly in that last post -- because he is two things: (1) considered very conservative and a darling among those who also consider themselves conservative and (2) a Posner-ite if ever there was one, by his own explicit admission. He has tried on several occasions to bring Posner-type analysis to his opinions on the Alabama Supreme Court, although more so early in his tenure on the court than now. (Turns out that in re-election, the most economical thing to do in Alabama is to stick with what works, and even judges here aren't interested in any high-falutin' Posnerian law and economic theories.) My point in mentioning him was to demonstrate Posner's conservative creds.
He is loved, deeply.

And, that is a problem. Because when conservatism speaks in terms of "social good" and begins weighing that good against other interests, individual liberty/autonomy/sovereignty will lose every time. That is the work of big government, this weighing of interests. Liberal SCOTUS justices began that technique of resolving cases long ago, and before them even those in favor of larger centralized government always asserted the "public interest" as reasons for acting in bigger-government ways.

This is the biggest reason I am so critical of conservatism. What it conserves is big government. Posner is no different.

I'm not going to ( or neither should you ) project the opinion of one quack as it relates to privacy onto an entire group.

To try to connect conservatives as supporting releasing privacy information as it relates to big business or anything else is not balanced.

Especially when you have other groups that I don't need to mention that laud the adoption of these policies and fight to strip you of every private moment in your life ( Cough, Cough OBAMA HEALTH CARE enforced via IRS ) And caught with hands in the cookie jar on several occasions ready to use the centralized information against you ( Joe the Plumber anyone?)


Conservatives conserving big govt. would be akin to all Libertarians supporting the Mustang Ranch.

Sure there are exceptions. But, that's the problem --- they're exceptions about conservatism and not the rule. And, when I aim my criticism, it is at the conservatives in office or lobbyists, etc., not the average voter who, if he knew what sinister things happen by those in power under the same label of conservative as the voter, would change his voting habits and demand something new.

By the way, just for the record, I don't support the Mustang Ranch. I do support there being no law against the Mustang Ranch's activities, however. The inner law of doing right is far more important and effective. Prostitution abounds unabated. Punishing it with public dollars confiscated from each of us only adds insult to injury. If I could personally direct how tax money from me be spent, I can assure you not one red cent of it would be devoted to stopping prostitution through law enforcement. (I would, though, support an effort to reach prostitutes with the gospel and with real life material aid to help them break free from that lifestyle. That's a worthy expenditure of money placed in trust by believers for the church to use, IMO.)

dolfan wrote: I do support there being no law against the Mustang Ranch's activities, however. The inner law of doing right is far more important and effective.

Bingo. You throw stones from a glass house. See this is where I can't support this and have major issues and why it will never become anything more than outside idealistic view. The point isn't the free will of a person to be able to do such... as much to me is against his/her free will. How would we know the difference that an individual was being manipulated?

To not stand unilaterally against this type of activity is a slipperly slope that causes a little leaven *ahem* rising the entire loaf.