• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Nowhere to hide

"Privacy ain't what it use to be" department. First I read this story on our Web site about how to find the old folks who wander off:

The state doesn't need to require adults with dementia to wear tracking devices because voluntary programs already offer electronic monitors for those likely to wander away, advocates told state officials looking into the matter.

[. . .]

Paul Chase of the AARP told lawmakers they shouldn't require people to wear monitoring bracelets or anklets.

“It's an intrusion on their liberty,” he said.

Others said voluntary programs help people with Alzheimer's and other conditions.

Notice that the state says it "doesn't need to" monitor people, which is a practical observation; the tracking is already being taken care of through voluntary programs. The state isn't saying it shouldn't monitor people because that would be wrong, however noble the intentions. If the program isn't voluntary, then somebody has to decide who qualifies as being demented enough to warrant tracking. Scary thought that some bureaucrat in a back room will be fussing over that between coffee breaks.

Then I see this about a coming tweetquake:

Twitterers will soon be able to deluge their friends with even more pointless information, following the news that the company is launching a new API allowing developers to add latitude and longitude to tweets.

[. . .]

In an attempt to allay privacy fears, Stone says the feature will need to be activated by choice, and that exact location data won't be stored for any period of time.

I suppose it's comforting that they still feel the need to "allay privacy fears," but that won't last long. The scariest thing of all is that young people -- all those below the age of 20, I'd venture -- are looking at all this and wondering what the big deal about "privacy" is. They've grown up accustomed to living their entire lives in full view of everybody else. "Sexting" may be a crime in our old-fashioned way of looking at things, but, really, it's just


Bob G.
Fri, 08/21/2009 - 9:53am

Seems to be some duplicity afoot here...
Or would that be a "double standard"?
(or a touch of BOTH?)