The question no longer is whether privacy is dead or not. The answer to that is; Yes, privacy is dead. No big surprise there anyone and if you think there is still privacy, sorry to give you the shock of your life, but there is no privacy.
Here are three examples that prove the point.
1.) Duchess Middleton photographed topless from over a kilometer away while at a private residence, on vacation with her husband.
2.) Presidential candidate Romney was video taped speaking at a private dinner by a camera that was concealed in a state where the law requires the recorded party to know they are being recorded.
3.) Any number of private, intimate tapes between two consulting adults that end up very public.
The law, while incredibly important, is actually irrelevant when it comes to embarrassing, private or illegal things done in the view of a video camera, a still camera or a smart phone. Even when the law has been broken, no amount of legal punishment or remedy will heal the wounds or the reputation damage that may result.
The reality is once the picture, video or audio recording go public, the law, the context or the reality of the situation may not matter. The picture is worth a thousand words, the video is an epic novel.
The result of any illegal or legal recordings of history will speak for themselves, even when context or explanations can soften the blow or justify the actions. If people don’t take the time investigate a situation for themselves, the images may be all that is remembered.
The fix… don’t believe that you may be recorded at anytime, KNOW that you ARE being recorded at ALL times. For some, that might be tough. For others, no problem at all.
Keep in mind, I haven’t even mentioned the privacy issues associated to social networking. There we have to consider how you personally impact your own privacy plus the external impacts and influences on your privacy.
Sounds like a great topic for #CopChat It’s a very emotional issue and many seem to preach the need for a balance (I am one of them). But it is not cut and dry. I, like others, don’t agree with what happened with Kate Middleton. To me, that is a gross infringement. But when it comes to privacy and social media, I have a hard time. If you are putting information out there, it is truly for all to see, even if you may not think so.
I find, from a law enforcement perspective, that privacy can be used as barrier to allowing law enforcement to do their job. For example, you may have social services not sharing info with police because of ‘privacy concerns’. Yet this information could be invaluable in early intervention.
Should public safety concerns trump over privacy? It’s an interesting issue!
Tim, you are right on. This would make an interesting topic for #CopChat.
Yes, the Kate Middleton photos were an indecency that goes well beyond anything acceptable. We have seen that so many times from tabloid journalism, but it has set the bar so low that everyone has the opportunity and the precedence to follow suit.
The protection of privacy is so important but like you said, there are many times that it has interfered with great work being done when there is no real concern for details but for more for assistance in many situations.
Privacy was long dead before the internet. The internet/social media just magnifies the problem.
Very good take on that.
There was an illusion of more privacy maybe before the Internet perhaps?