Our privacy is history. God help us.
The truth is we have created a police state in which we are both the persecutors and the victims. The most modern of technologies has ushered in the end of the modern era by destroying privacy and returning us to a primitive age of odium. Urban mobility and immigrant aspirations depended on a high degree of anonymity that allowed people to restart and self-invent, to leave behind the burdens of class, sect, and inherited identity. Now, even family sins are back in vogue. The media routinely hounds relatives of scandal subjects. This is what police states do. With the Internet, future generations will curse their family luck.
Open societies are slowly committing suicide by digitally amplified rumor and innuendo. You do not see totalitarian leaders destroyed by prurience. But it won’t be long before they meddle in our politics with threats of scandal. Twitter users don’t, on the whole, care about checking sources. With our survival at stake, it’s time to impose some road rules for modern privacy if only by countering shame with decency. We should all begin by purging ourselves of the “guilty pleasure” of gossip as entertainment that, in truth, is neither victimless nor private. Anyone publicly exposing or trading in confidential emails—or rumor through social media—should be identified and openly vilified, and that includes law enforcement agencies. Once a scandal erupts, its origins quickly get forgotten. No one seems bothered by how or why the FBI probe into Petraeus’s emails became public—who leaked their content and by what authority. He was in charge of defending our freedoms against enemies. When Taliban leaders heard of his downfall they laughed out loud.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Actually, God isn’t into privacy.
platypus on November 26, 2012 at 5:50 PM
Anyone who is “outed” by social media – including emails, deserves all they get for being so vain!
OldEnglish on November 26, 2012 at 5:56 PM
cuz, ya know, there was no such thing as “rumor” or “gossip” before the internet came along. c’mon, really? There was plenty of unfounded rumors flying around before people communicated by internet. “Thomas Jefferson’s going to burn your Bibles!”, anyone? As for the freaking out over the privacy of personal communications – nothing new there either. I guarantee you spies have been snooping in people’s mail for as long as there’s been mail. Nothing new under the sun, here.
AndStatistics on November 26, 2012 at 6:09 PM
I dunno what to say. People deserve privacy. Then again, public servants are public servants. When you gain access to the nation’s secrets, the nation gains an interest in your private life, as it impacts the security of those secrets. When you engage in affairs outside of marriage, it gives people leverage to force you into doing things that are not in the best interest of the nation.
astonerii on November 26, 2012 at 6:10 PM
So much melodrama. Actions have consequences.
John_Locke on November 26, 2012 at 6:10 PM
Solution: Don’t share compromising material.
And in case of rumors and hearsay, their digital manifestations are generally much less trusted than the old word of mouth ones.
lester on November 26, 2012 at 6:12 PM
Bingo– Adulterous affairs are a big security no no..
melle1228 on November 26, 2012 at 6:13 PM
To think you ever had privacy is ridiculous.
portlandon on November 26, 2012 at 6:22 PM
Has He ever shared your confessions with another?
TexasDan on November 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM
I wish that were true, but I suspect it’s really not. Have you not read the list of Fb posts of people who watched JFK and didn’t realize it was
factualloosely based on actual events? It’s these hordes who use social media to coordinate mass shoplifting that set the baseline, and the term “fact check” does not enter their lexicon.TexasDan on November 26, 2012 at 6:27 PM
No, he specifically asks you to share them with another. Confession.
astonerii on November 26, 2012 at 6:33 PM
Well, just wait until your health records are all electronic, pored over by the Federal government, and include questions like “do you wear seatbelts?” so you can be precisely targeted by government propaganda (or actions).
cthulhu on November 26, 2012 at 6:35 PM
Oh well, whaddya gonna do?
Akzed on November 26, 2012 at 6:49 PM
IMO if you are determined to make privacy a priority, you can have it. You won’t be able to do everything you want online, but you can be hidden.
No one on my favorite sites will EVER find out who I really am (yes, that includes the moderators). I like my privacy and intend to keep it.
inviolet on November 26, 2012 at 7:03 PM
When the crew of TMZ and similar scum are jobless and begging on a streetcorner for stale crusts of bread I will pop a bottle of champagne.
The pimparazzi and all such privacy destroyers need to be hit with rotten eggs and tomatoes daily.
Not given shows and linked to and quoted by meta-weasels.
Petraeus, however, is a piss poor example of “losing privacy”.
If the head of the CIA can’t hide a mere mistress he deserves to be fired.
In such a position, he should be under the highest scrutiny.
But the droning of America into a TST (Total Surveillance State) shows that our political class are brainless geldings.
And we need to put poeple in power who will defend the 4th Amendment, not bend over and say: “How wide?”
profitsbeard on November 26, 2012 at 7:50 PM