I think you have addressed the matter of privacy before in this blog. Maybe yes;maybe no. In either case, I have said privacy is dead. Even wrote an essay about that. Rights? What are those, in a world where natural selection rules. Your previous, regarding democracy is just another tile in the mosaic. Bill of Rights; Ten Commandments---these tenets and many others are merely contrivances, designed to coerce humans into behaving correctly---equitably---ethically---morally, and most of all: persuading us, somehow, that it is not in our best interests to willy-nilly, kill each other. We ain't listening. Or, we could be listening, yet refusing to hear. Give a listen to the pop tune by Mike and The Mechanics: The Living Years---it says a lot in fewer than four minutes. To me, anyway.

Not said, how Facebook's sea change was not social networking per se - that was old - it was that its users began using their REAL NAMES. Consider Facebook's predecessor, MySpace, where users would create catchy handles, for example, 'CorgiFan'. That's way more under the radar, than say, Joan Smith on Facebook, where anyone can find her just by entering her name in the search. Interesting, no?

Where does the concept of personal privacy intersect with the idea of larger issues of social benefit, especially when there is a conflict between the two? One example of this is the use of surveillance cameras for public safety conflicting with the individual's anonymity.
However, this show brought up another interesting case. In the discussion of smart meters as an invasion of personal privacy, another side of this issue is the intent to optimize and reduce utility usage. And there is certainly a valid argument to be made that this is an issue of larger social need in terms of climate issues and energy independence. Individuals' energy usage habits impact everyone, so where does someone's right to privacy collide with another's right to live in a healthy environment?
In an example like this, is the real issue an insistence that an individual's right to privacy outweighs all of our rights to a decent environment? Or does this come back to fear of what might be done with the collected data outside of the context in which it is collected? And does that imply that the issue is not really an issue of privacy but rather of responsible use of private data?

有一件事被你们的一位演讲者忽视了(虽然我希望是无意的)，他提出需要同意或同意(不记得用了哪个词)才能允许非政府实体以其他方式收集或存储私人信息或与他人共享，这让我感到震惊，因为没有人对此提出质疑，&这位演讲者似乎认为要求“同意”或同意披露或无限期存储是一种解决方案。
Hasn't anyone noticed that virtually all corporations use "agreements" that the consumer MUST sign, to get any services or products. Thus, for example, proposing that google can't share its private information collected about you, without your agreement or consent, is a useless right these days! Have you read through the often-tedious, lengthy, & totally self-serving "agreements" corporations from banks to on-line services REQUIRE you to sign before you'll have access to ANYTHING. Have you ever tried to amend the contract or strike the term allowing them to do anything they want with the information they collect on you? Not likely!
这就是我在法学院学到的“黏附合同”(或者更正式的，黏附合同)——完全由“交易”一方起草的合同，出于他们的目的，不允许另一方做出任何改变，因此一方被迫同意，对合同条款没有讨价还价的权力。不幸的是，对于任何与消费者权利、隐私权或任何其他个人权利有关的人来说，法院已经削弱了粘附合同的原则(最初被认为是不可执行的，因为它们根本不是真正的交易，并且为每一方想要的条款讨价还价的能力&在法律上传统上被称为“思想的会议”是一个骗局)。现在，几乎没有合同被法院认定为粘附合同，无论多么霸道，无论消费者绝对没有能力就条款讨价还价，无论消费者绝对没有能力拒绝同意一个令人反感的特定条款，比如放弃个人隐私权。
我之所以提到这一点，是因为粘附合同不可强制执行的教条的阉阉性意味着，我们被要求同意的合同，几乎每一个软件、服务、互联网接入，以及我们在互联网上保存东西或张贴任何期待隐私的能力，要求我们放弃任何这样的权利。在你的发言人明显进步的提议下，我们可以同意放弃对我们发布到facebook或存储在互联网上的信息的隐私权;然而，现实是，我们必须放弃这种权利，才能使用任何这些服务。因此，尽管我相信这是一个善意的建议，他提供了一个我们可能永远不会在现实世界中使用的权利!
如果提案允许我们需要强制执行的公司可以要求我们“同意”放弃我们所有的权利，那么为什么还要费心提出这样的权利呢?

I think that searching in the constitution for a "right to privacy" is an example of the type of trap feared by some who opposed the Bill of Rights. The philosophical underpinning of the Constitution is the Social Contract: Rights are "endowed by the creator", not granted by the Constitution. The question should not be "where in the Constitution is there granted a Right of Privacy" but rather "where in the Constitution is there evidence that I gave up my Right of Privacy".
Deriving a power to "have a camera on every corner" from a power to "have a policeman on every corner" misses a key point. A human policeman will be forced by his/her own limitations to concentrate on being on the lookout for suspicious activities. The camera "captures all" and the record can be subsequently edited to take incidents out of context creating the appearance of suspicion where none existed. When governments or corporations have unlimited access to easily edited unlimited information we are no longer "secure". If this were not the case the phrase "witch hunt" would not have entered the vernacular.

Privacy on a tiny planet with 7 billion people,
Hmmm?
Hey, I got it, technology!
是时候给我们建另一个房间了。
有隐私的空间，还有更多的成长空间。
=

Dear Fred:
我无意冒犯，但是——除非有人(以某种方式)看着你，或者你在炫耀，否则谁会知道你在做一个手提箱核弹呢?隐私，如果它曾经存在过的话，是最基本的。不是相对的。不是偶然的。在任何基本意义上，猴子都不关心隐私。他们是否在意人类的干涉，如果是真的，似乎是我们的错而不是他们的错。使用工具需要时间——很多时间。我们现在知道，某些灵长类动物和鸟类已经尝试过，并且成功了。范佩尔、诺伊曼和其他人已经发现，隐私现在已经无关紧要了。但是，如果你还没有注意到，我们已经，不管你愿不愿意，同意我们的隐私被删除了。 There are several combinatory influences, which are inextricable. Popular culture, which we worship. Information Technology, which we cannot live without (Intel; Microsoft; Apple and others have ensured this...), and our insatiable desire for "quick and easy"---re-inforced by the first two categories mentioned.
There is a lot of real money being stolen by our twenty-first century economy. And most of those losing the cash don't even get the fact that they are being fleeced. Keeping up appearances, and all...

I just listened to this show and one point that was not brought up is the fact of personal choice to divulge privacy. As an avid user of the internet, and prior to its rise, electronic bulletin board systems, i have a long standing experience with online personal information sharing. Currently, i am a user of several nline services but am choosing to pull myself away from many of these services.
In my opinion, people need to take responsibility for their own choice to allow personal infomation to be shared online. Suring this show, there was a comment about how we can protect our privacy with online diaries. The fact is that you cannot. Period. If you want a private diary, you can choose to use a pencil and paper. They both still exist. Typewriters are another option as is a computer not attached to any network.
Further, if i dont want my 537 friends on facebook to know anything about me, i should delete my account. There is no law that forces us to use online services such as facebook, or web-vased email services. If you want good email privacy, use a pop-based email client with a PGP interface,
我的意思是，我们仍然可以在法律允许的范围内选择自己的隐私水平。我选择住在没有电网的房子里，用柴火取暖。我没有固定电话，使用谷歌电话号码作为各种预付费手机的接口。我自己没有网络连接。我不带带gps的手机。I drive an 84 VW withh nop lojack system, etc.
Managing our privacy can be our own responsibility to a large degree.