Posted by
glen ep ropella on
Jan 15, 2013; 8:02pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Privacy-vs-Open-Public-Data-tp7581246p7581247.html
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