The mysterious case of Ms. Carrie Prejean

[ShadowHM]

Busybodies and gossip have been around forever, and no amount of privacy laws would ever make much of a dent in it. And, while it may not be as innocuous as I make it sound, neither is it as intrusive as some would have you believe. I've been used as a reference by many over the years and can remember only one time actually being contacted. And that was for a top secret security clearance.

Busybodies and gossip have been around forever. But times have changed and and the intrusiveness has changed by an order of magnitude.

So, right or wrong, I believe that most people are sufficiently preoccupied with living their own life to take much effort or interest in the lives of others.
I think that we have different definitions of 'public' and 'private'. 'Private', to me, means alone or in the company of people I trust. If my "private stupidity will also end up on youtube", then that means I've been betrayed by someone I trusted -- not impossible, but so far it's happened only once.

I cited the example of Michael Phelps, who surely thought he was indulging in private madness when he took a toke of marijuana at a private party. Someone he trusted? Perhaps not. But a betrayal nevertheless.

I am aware of few young people who have lost jobs because of pictures on FaceBook. For example, a young lady, daughter of old friends, was a camp councillor at a day camp on weekdays. She was fired because of a photo posted of her with a beer in her hand, taken at a private party on a weekend. This photo, by the way, was not at her own FaceBook page: she was merely tagged. That means that not only were her employers snoopy enough to go looking, but also that one of her 'friends' allowed them to look.

I know that the plural of anecdote is not evidence. But I also think that the potential for betrayal that you cite stems from a time when technology did not allow for so much intrusiveness.

The changes in widely spread technology have happened so fast that our culture has not evolved any ettiquette to deal with this.

You have the right to protect your privacy as much as you can. I keep my curtains closed, I shred any paper that has personal information before recycling it, I don't discuss my medical or financial details in public. But I don't feel that the freedom of the media has to be curtailed to protect my privacy, which is, I think, the essence of this discussion; how much freedom is each of us willing to sacrifice for the illusion of protection.

--Pete

It isn't the media that worries me. It is the widespread intrusiveness with no societal customs to manage it.