[miguelrochefort]

1. When information is scarce, people are more prone to misguidance. In a world where there's no privacy, misguidance is much easier to spot and invalidate. This is when you don't know much about something that truth gets fuzzy and can take any turn.

2. What if you're loud and I can hear you when you're inside your "private space"? What if my camera captures you in your "bubble"? Can I get into trouble for capturing any information? Will I be able to use my Google Glasses in public (public hopefully being everywhere)?

3. No such space should exist. Your thoughts and actions should always have social implications. Why shouldn't natural rules apply everywhere equally?

4. I don't wish to manually control all this information myself. I don't want to worry about what's private, what's public, avatars, pseudonyms, etc.

Actually, I wish others would track my every thoughts and moves so that I could stop wasting my time manually inputting all this information in systems and such. But this is only possible through complete transparency.

[tambourmajor]

1. That is not true because even if every bit of information is made inherently public it does not mean that the information is not prone to manipulation.

2. Well, there should be laws that enforce that the privacy stuff is included in every product. Windows and walls will work with noise cancelling and act as a Faraday cage. Windows will also need to have mirrors on the outside.

3. That's why I wrote 'wider' in parens. Of course one would be able to widen the privacy sphere, i.e. you'll still be able to join gatherings in a completely natural way.

4. Again, I didn't say that you shouldn't be able to reveal yourself. If you want to share all your relevant thoughts and actions with your coworkers you are free to do so. I think with a slick user interface (e.g. a brain implant) and various automatic/self-adapting filters that could work quite unobtrusively, so I don't think your usability objections are particulary strong arguments.