Privacy 2.0

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8446649.stm

If you look at privacy in law, one important concept is a reasonable expectation of privacy,"
(...)
"When our reasonable expectations diminish, as they have, by necessity our legal protection diminishes."

Even more, a social anonymous pressure or expectation arises that demands people to be not protective about their privacy and expects them to give it up easily. People even can lose a sense for why they should want to protect their privacy.

Long time ago, when I was in my training to become a psychotherapist, I made repeated experiences with group settings in training groups, and the group pressure being applied - of course only with the best of intentions, always! - to make the individual confessing something of a most intimiate nature, because "all others have done it, too". You were expected to tell a bunch of strangers, whom you met every three weeks, something of your intimate, private sphere, and you were put under pressure to believe that this is for the social good of all. You can imagine that it was a fight me against everybody else. I can be stubborn on these things, and then really enjoy multi-front wars. It ended with me routinely being considered a socially malfunction being that needed therapy and is in danger to develope a truly antisocial personality. to the criticism I fired back, I almost never got qualified replies. Psychotherapists can be VERY dogmatic people.

Short time before I decided to give up psychology and psychotherapy completely (this psychobabbling being on of three major reasons), I started to have fun by mimicing Worf's behavior in these training groups and confronting individuals very much in his way: a mixture of not taking them seriously, and directness. My fun was great, their confusion and lacking understanding not less. They must have been happy when they had gotten rid of me.

I see group pressure forming subcultures and having tremendous influence also amongst teenagers and juveniles, and at school. I think the BBC article has a very valid point therefore, also regarding the drive in security laws we have seen since 1.) the digitalisation of life in the modern world, and 2.) 9/11.

While I see the potential of modern electronics and digital data processing making things better for man, I see no rule-making party, no lobby and no faction indicating that they would handle this tool responsibly and sensitve and carefully. I assume all these parties to abuse these tools to their best personal powerpolitical interest. That's why I question these tools, and the immense cultural change they bring to the social reality in our societies. It are tools our society does not seem to have the ripeness to handle.

Yea, good points. I started to think about this with Facebook. For a long time I resisted it but finally succumbed to peer pressure. I don't wish to give private info to some private company that's only interested in maximizing profits, fine print all over the place and a really unintuitive layout etc.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I started to have fun by mimicing Worf's behavior in these training groups and confronting individual's very much in his way: a mixture of not taking them seriously, and directness.

Thank you for the mental image I now have of Commander Worf as ship's counselor. It's going to make me giggle for days.

Aside from that I think the article is spot on. And so many people who put what they may still consider "personal" info up on the 'net "just for my family and friends" really have no idea that, except in very rare exceptions, it just doesn't work that way. And the exceptions probably require more 'net savvy to find and use properly than they have until it's too late. They learn the hard way.

And I've actually heard tell of employers who are now including requests for "online identity" info in their job applications, because they want to check out a potential hire's Facebook/MySpace/etc. page or otherwise look into their online activity in the same way they might conduct a background check to look for potentially illegal or embarrassing/questionable (to them) behavior, past or present.

And you just know that if that's the case, somebody who doesn't know any better is probably shrugging and thinking "what's the harm" and filling in the information.

Many governments, and the people who control them. want a COMPLETE digital file on everyone, from cradle to grave. More Information = More Control.

These things don't happen instantly.
The more incremental the process,
the greater the chance of succes, without resistance.

[Onkel Neal]

Meh, what's worse is so many will argue their deepest beliefs passionately...behind an alias

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Meh, what's worse is so many will argue their deepest beliefs passionately...behind an alias

There's no hiding from Onkel Neal though!
Got ya, guys. (Large Smiley).

[XabbaRus]

Thus why I have no face book, or myspace, or bebo or livejournal...

Subsim and a couple of other forums are all I am registered at.

Some of them under a fake name and details only because I need to download something.