[maxerickson]

Sure.

I suppose part of the problem is that we talk about privacy, when really it's publicity that has changed. The situation where basically every individual can create recordings and publish them to the entire world is actually somewhat novel. We reach for analogies about privacy, but really we need to think about what sort of rights people have to their own publicity.

[greggman]

What about the idea that maybe our ideas of privacy / publicity are shaped by what we're used to rather than any universal laws. In other words, if we were to grow up in a society that didn't experience much privacy maybe we'd just accept it as the norm.

I'm not making a judgement which is better. The old way or some other way. Only trying to point out the fact that we had more privacy in the past isn't in and of itself better. It just is.

[maxerickson]

I only expressed it implicitly above, but I am making a judgement about what is better. I would absolutely prefer it if people did not casually direct the internet ray-beam at people that are not interested in its attention. At the same time, I would like those other people to be able to use the internet without paying intense attention to the consequences of each action they take.

If that makes me some sort of stodgy conservative that has been shaped by the past, so be it.

[cinquemb]

I think people like yourself who acknowledge the situation we find ourselves today in context to what has come before is probably the best thing an individual can do to rid themselves of their cognitive dissonance.

I think that is preferable than to join the choir of whining isn't taking steps to protect themselves and their communications with others when they feel is necessary, insisting that others to protect it for them, and not change their behaviors. All of which enable others to capitalize.

Then again, some people may not want to rid themselves as such. Maybe they enjoy being tortured by the way reality presents itself to them.