The first session at DIDW this morning concerns the ownership of information about our identities; who does own information, who should own it, what can be done, what should be done. Some of the discussion surrounds privacy differences between North America and Europe (and between the US and Canada); to what extent is a US model dominate the discussion (Nikolaj observes that the US legislation and debate tends to be very binary). Esther observes that American marketers are impervious to scandal; she’s alluding to Safeway re-selling information about individuals’ buying habits.
Michael notes that there’s a deep problem with the outlook that says, “If it’s not illegal, it’s okay.” He laments the lack of a sense of responsibility.
Esther keeps hammering away on the necessity of transparency; she’s right, she’s right. The way to short-circuit fears about privacy involves living in ways that don’t suffer from public exposure. That’s a message that many of my seminary students resist—I expect it’s even more unwelcome in secular circles. Still, it’s not just a matter of morality or constitutional law—it’s a pragmatic necessity.
Posted by AKMA at October 10, 2002 10:39 AM | TrackBack"Living in ways that don't suffer from public exposure" sounds good on its face, but it's not in my opinion a right way to live, being too subject to the tyranny of the majority.
I would prefer a formulation such as "living such that public exposure does not create personal hypocrisy." Or something like that; I haven't worked it out entirely, and I have a cold in the head that is fuzzing my thinking.
That's what's kind of bugged me about your entire take on the pseudonymity thing; you've been a little too strict in constructing it as an individual issue. Context matters.
... and my head is starting to hurt again.
Posted by: Dorothea Salo at October 10, 2002 04:20 PM