At the end of an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer, pop star Britney Spears became tearful when discussing how she was hounded by the paparazzi. “…[Y]ou have to realize that we're people and that we need — we just need privacy and we need our respect,” said Britney. “And — and those are things that you have to have as a human being.” Critics of the pop diva were a bit skeptical of her impassioned plea when it was announced, just two weeks later, that the six-month pregnant Britney has posed nude for the cover of the August issue of Harper's Bazaar magazine and an accompanying photo spread inside.
Before we mock the hypocrisy of a singer who asks people to respect her privacy as she sheds her clothes for the public, we might stop to consider how representative the young mother from Louisiana is of America’s online culture. While we might be hesitant to admit it, we have become a nation of Britneys, a country of privacy-obsessed exhibitionists.
On the surface this appears to be a contradiction. How can we both be secluded from the view of others while deliberately behaving so as to attract attention? The answer is that we want to have complete control over what information people have about us. We want not only to be the writers of our own play but the narrator of the drama as well. Or as Britney says, “I need to create my own magazine. These people like they, I mean they want stories to sell and they're very good, you know. I need to come up with my own magazine and say the real deal.”
Certain forms of information, of course, should be controlled. Protecting ourselves against identity theft is a legitimate, though slightly overstated, concern. (Many Americans would be less horrified to find nude photos of themselves on the internet than they would to find their financial records were open to the public.) But we tend to go far beyond what is necessary, often obsessively protecting not only our financial data but the information contained in health records, library cards, and phone bills. Google even refused to comply with a subpoena to turn over a weeks worth of search-engine data, even though it could not even be traced to the individual user.
Such behavior might appear more consistent if we strived to live “off the grid” (or at least “off the net”). Instead, the exact opposite tends to occur. The more we reveal about ourselves on the internet and in the blogosphere, the more we try to “control the message.” Privacy has become a primary fetish of online exhibitionists.
For example, last month I signed my name to the Online Integrity Statement, a document designed to protect the privacy of bloggers. This “basic plea for basic decency” was initiated by men for whom I have much admiration and the Statement of Principles initially resonated with me as a way” to set an example of reasoned restraint and considered civility.” Because of this, I added my endorsement.
Now I’m having second thoughts. I’m not sure if the document really fulfills its intended purpose. For instance, the first principle is that “Private persons are entitled to respect for their privacy regardless of their activities online.” Do “activities online” not have a bearing on how much privacy a person should be afforded? What if I discover that a filth-spewing pseudonymous blogger is a local pastor whose congregation would be shocked by his online activities? Must I respect his privacy and not notify his church? Why must respect for the privacy rights of the blogger trump my civic responsibilities to the community?
Or consider the third principle, “Persons seeking anonymity or pseudonymity online should have their wishes in this regard respected as much as is reasonable.” Unless the pseudonymity protects personal safety (e.g., a missionary whose life could be endangered), I tend to disapprove of anonymous blogging. I will agree to respect a person’s wishes as much as possible, though, and would not “out” any blogger except under extraordinary circumstances.
The question, though, is how much respect is “reasonable?” Personally, I believe that those who seek anonymity, particularly pseudonymous Christian bloggers, should follow one primary principle: If you wish to remain anonymous then you should refrain from criticizing other bloggers by name. If you do not have the courage to let people know who is chastising them, then you should refrain from doing so publicly.
The tensions between our desire for open expression and our need for privacy will continue to create dilemmas for bloggers and other Americans who live their lives on the internet. Perhaps all of us could learn a lesson from the life of Britney. If you take your clothes off in front of the camera, don’t be surprised when someone snaps your picture.
1
i would like to hear from other evangelicals.
albert_yng@myway.com
posted on 07.06.2006 1:34 AM2
Joe:
A telling point!
I find it interesting that people who VOLUNTARILY disclose all sorts of information in public [including titillating dress and behaviour, as well as statements and financial matters] then wish to control the use of that information.
To a certain extent there is a legitimate claim to confidentiality and to civility and basic decency and respect.
But when the same culture is busily imposing the view that anything goes and right/wrong and truth/falsehood are mere convention or perception backed by social power, what is happening is a fundamental inconsistency in relativism is being exposed.
Grace to all
Gordon
posted on 07.06.2006 6:09 AM3
I think the problem is that explicit liabilities may well be accepted, whereas implicit ones, precisely because we can't anticipate them, arouse fear and indignation.
So, if you *ask* me where I live, I'm likely to tell you. I'm even fairly likely to give you (if I know you casually) my phone number and address.
But if you use my IP (from your counter) plus an old-school 411.com search plus an address list some student left sitting in a web directory to find me, and send me a letter, I'm likely to be pretty freaked-out, even if I have to acknowledge you did nothing illegal.
And if you publish it on the 'Net for all the world to see, I'm very likely to sternly criticize you (in the "verbal sledgehammers of wrath and doom" sense).
And if your action led directly to my being murdered, I would likely hope my estate would sue. (actually, no. You're a believer, so I'd hope they'd go to you, then your fellow believers and you, then your church, hoping to see you restored and the church protected from your grievous wrong.)
Cheers,
PGE
4
I can speak for, if not thousands, then dozens of men whose lives have been blighted by women just like this Jezebel.
The way they dress and undress, it's obvious that they want to be looked at. Just not by me. They have made that very clear.
posted on 07.06.2006 8:31 AM5
What is confusing about any of this?
We have fallen into the habit of using the word "privacy" to mean "freedom from interference" - as in the way abortion rights are often construed as rights of privacy. Arguably, that's a strained definition of the word, but it has become a widely-understood one. From that perspective, then, nothing you cite above seems in the least contradictory or surprising.
There is nothing about Spears's choosing to allow some photos of herself - over which she had control at the time they were made - to be used in ways she approves of that suggests she is required or expected to allow anyone to take any photos of her under circumstances she cannot control and use them in ways she does not approve of - still less to follow her around and intrude into other areas of her life to do so. And there's nothing about her appearing nude in one context that suggests she cannot object to non-nude photos of her appearing in others. Her expectation of control of her public appearance, or at least of control of the degree to which people can invade her life to get pictures of her, has nothing to do with the content of those pictures. And her decision to expose what some people would consider a "private" (meaning secret) image does not conflict with her desire for "privacy" (meaning control) for other images.
Contrary to Gordon's point, she did not seek to control information she had already publicly disclosed. She sought to control other information acquired during her private (meaning under her control, and not made public) moments which she did not agree to release. And why shouldn't she?
As for which information ought to be considered protectable, or private, and which not, that's largely up to the decision of the person involved. To some degree we usually agree that behavior freely displayed is open to public view, but we also agree that unreasonable attempts to invade privacy are a breach of this standard. (Taking a photo of Britney Spears on the street is one thing. Following her around, peaking through her windows, or - as in the case of Jackie Onassis - hiring a boat to sneak up on a private island and photograph her with a telephoto lens as she sunbathes nude, are gross invasions of privacy, whether or not they occur on public territory. It doesn't matter whether she's ever been nude before.)
As for your blogging examples, they illustrate the basic problem with your approach. It seems that what is bothering you is not so much potential ironies in the application of privacy doctrine, but that it might cramp you in your efforts to interfere with behavior you disapprove of. Why would you even imagine you have to inform on a church pastor who uses bad language? What business is that of yours? It has nothing to do with "responsibilities to the community" - you don't have a responsibility to be the self-appointed potty-mouth-pastor tattletale for your city. You just want to be. And that's not a reason for invading someone's privacy. The reason for pledging to respect privacy online, however, is on much firmer ground. (Obviously: it respects people's efforts to protect their own privacy and to control their public persona as they see fit; it allows freer discourse; it protects those who might be jeopardized by blogging publicly; etc.) The only contradiction between your pledge of privacy and the fact that you know the name of someone who used words you don't like and you're just itching to tell about it is the conflict you have created within yourself. The same goes for the issue of anonymous bloggers; whether you think they should give their names is of no moment to the question whether they are required to do so; your feelings about appropriate blogging practice do not outweigh the general right of privacy everyone enjoys, which surely extends to the issue of whether to publicly give your own name or not.
The rest of your examples - library records, health history - are also just statements of your personal preferences. You may not regard your library records or health history as worthy of privacy, but many, many people feel strongly that they are. Again, the solution is to give people personal control over what they themselves are willing to reveal, not to declare that some privacy rights aren't worth protecting. And if we do give people that degree of autonomy, any apparent contradiction vanishes - you cannot tell anyone it's wrong to protect this record and not that one, any more than you can tell them they have to allow all pictures of themselves to be published because they already allowed one. That's for them to decide. It's their right of privacy (meaning control) to retain or relinquish privacy (meaning secrecy).
posted on 07.06.2006 9:10 AM6
J. Budziszewski wrote a book called the Revenge of Conscience. I think he offers a valid explanation of this phenomena.
"the knowledge of guilt always produces certain objective needs, which make their own demand for satisfaction irrespective of the state of the feelings. These needs include confession, atonement, reconciliation, and justification.
Now when guilt is acknowledged, the guilty deed can be repented so that these four needs can be genuinely satisfied. But when the guilty knowledge is suppressed, they can only be displaced. That is what generates the impulse to further wrong. Taking the four needs one by one, let’s see how this happens.
The need to confess arises from transgression against what we know, at some level, to be truth. I have already commented on the tendency of accessories to suicide to write about their acts. Besides George Delury, who killed his wife, we may mention Timothy E. Quill, who prescribed lethal pills for his patient, and Andrew Solomon, who participated in the death of his mother. Solomon, for instance, writes in the New Yorker that "the act of speaking or writing about your involvement is, inevitably, a plea for absolution." Many readers will remember the full-page signature advertisements feminists took out in the early days of the abortion movement, telling the world that they had killed their own unborn children. At first it seems baffling that the sacrament of confession can be inverted to serve the ends of advocacy. Only by recognizing the power of suppressed conscience can this paradox be understood."
Copied from: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9806/articles/budziszewski.html
posted on 07.06.2006 10:35 AM7
Hi Joe,
Great post! Many people confuse privacy and freedom. The Soviet Union had privacy but not freedom. Soviet citizens became obsessed with protecting their privacy while the government became obsessed with invading privacy. This dynamic created a miserable state of affairs. Privacy must be sacrificed in order for freedom to flourish. Freedom is diminished the more privacy is protected.
We are not free to choose the best pastor for our families unless we are able to know most of the intimate details about our pastor. We are not free to choose the best investment unless the financial dealings of every business are completely transparent and honest. We are not free to elect the best representative unless we know the character of all of the candidates. We are not free to make any choice unless the factors affecting our options are knowable and available.
If we are not willing to open our own lives to others and if we are not vigilant in shining the light on hypocrites, liars, and cheaters, we don’t deserve freedom. Brittany Spears deserves her space and deserves to be treated with common decency, but she does not deserve to be deceptive in the image she portrays to the public. Neither does anyone else, especially Pastors, public figures, and elected officials.
8
I blog anonymously for two reasons.
First, my job would probably be lost if my boss knew I blogged. And that would impact my ability to get full-time work later. So I blog anonymously.
Second, I'm a woman. I don't want everyone and their dog to know who I am and where I am. That can be, and has been, dangerous for some people and it is more likely to be dangerous for a woman than for a man.
If I have a problem with a blogger, and I decide I want to tell everyone about it, then I would use their blog name. And if I use their blog name, anonymous or actual, then they should use my blog name, anonymous or actual. I wouldn't publish problems which weren't online problems. (In fact, I haven't published ONLINE problems either.) But just because I don't want my real name known doesn't mean I should not be free to use their real name if they have revealed it.
I believe we should give people control over what they choose to reveal. My health history has cost me the ability to get insurance numerous times, so I don't want that information out there. I rarely use my library card, so I don't care if you have that information. But maybe there is a time and place where someone would be hurt by their boss or their family knowing what books they read.
I can understand your perplexity over Britney saying she wanted privacy and then publishing nude photos, but I agree that she was probably talking about having control over her life. Of course, I have learned the hard way, and she ought to have even if she hasn't, that we don't really have control over our lives. But folks still want as much control as they can get.
posted on 07.06.2006 3:18 PM9
”I believe we should give people control over what they choose to reveal. My health history has cost me the ability to get insurance numerous times, so I don't want that information out there.”
Hi Suzi,
Your privacy should not trump the freedom of others.
By being deceptive about your health history, you are preventing insurance companies from making a free and informed decision regarding your health risk. Other insured members will end up paying for your deception.
posted on 07.06.2006 5:08 PM10
H'mm:
Interesting onward comments. I am especially interested to hear more from David Smith!
PGE:
I think as well that familiarity/strangeness is an issue, not just explicitness/implicitness. In particular, if a stranger shows that he can reach out and touch you out of the blue, that is a serious issue -- you have no basis for calibrating the threat.
For further instance, I am sitting comfortably here about 8 mi from an active, explosive volcano that has a recent history of nasty and lethal behaviour.
10 - 11 years ago, I probably would be VERY concerned to see the state the mountain is in now; but over a decade, we have had time to calibrate and assimilate some experiences so we know it is not likely to pull a Krakatau on us. (Of course, I will only go closer than a certain point for good cause, and monitor the state of the mountain based on the observatory's reports week by week . . .)
KTK [And David]:
An interesting point or two. Your We have fallen into the habit of using the word "privacy" to mean "freedom from interference" is a key insight. David picker it up with his: Many people confuse privacy and freedom . . . Privacy must be sacrificed in order for freedom to flourish.
As I argued in the thread in which the SWIFT programme came up, we need to distinguish what is properly private from what is CONFIDENTIAL or at a higher level, CLASSIFIED.
The former is immediately sacrificed once we voluntarily disclose information to a third party, e.g. to set up a checquing account or make a major bank transfer or take up a big loan, or seek advice and help from pastor, psychologist or doctor. But these in turn have a duty of not disclosing sensitive information to those who do not have a legitimate right to it, especially if they may use it for harm.
As David points out to Suzi, too,if one deceives by holding back legitimately required disclosure, it imposes a cost on others that is undue.
BTW, KTK: My remark on the control issue was simply an allusion to Joe's statement in the post above, in the broad context of the issue of confidentiality just discussed.
On the part of Ms Spears, Ms Hilton, Ms Jackson [of wardrobe malfunction infamy] and the like, it seems to me that they are indeed publicly exposing what is properly private and are contributing materially to a climate of prurience, now further inflamed by a massive porn industry.
They either know, or should know what they are doing -- and Scott's heart's cry is telling. they are benefiting materially from exploiting human weakness, which is wrong.
Now, of course they are in turn plagued by paparrazi, who are just as wrong. Two wrongs have never yet added up to one right, nor does subtracting one eliminate the other.
Similarly, on your: Why would you even imagine you have to inform on a church pastor who uses bad language? this shows that you miss the basic point here: the pastorate is above all a post of moral authority, and a habit of such misbehaviour is material to the inability to function. [Cf the lists of qualifications for the presbytery in the Pastorals to see what I mean.]
NC:
A serious thought. Let us hear more.
Suzi:
A quiet note: If your blogging raises a legitimate concern on the part of your employer, you should stop it. But, your blog shows nothing that is reasonably construed as a threat to anyone or anything, so if your workplace is in such a climate of fear maybe you should be moving on.
Grace to all
Gordon
posted on 07.07.2006 5:31 AM11
I know someone had said this already, but let's be serious for a moment. It seems to me that the reason we have a society in which the private lives of anybody is front-page news is for two reasons:
[1] We have a class of people who have made a very nice living from pressing their private lives into the public arena. For example, Britney Spears has shown us all kinds of parts of herself that most people would have enoigh modesty to say, "not at any price."
[2] We have the customers of that class of people, who are not all non-Christian people.
I know, I know: Brit was just a girl when she did all those stupid things, and her moral reasoning was not really extant. Suddenly, she has a baby (or two) and she realizes that there's more to life than pretending you deserve to be rich. While I agree with the criticism she makes, I would say without any ill will that she is part of her own problem and unless she's willing to reform her contribution to the state of affairs, she's really punishing herself first and the rest of us as a result.
posted on 07.07.2006 11:33 AM12
It's ironic that so many "Christian" people feel the need to judge and criticize. I don't know Britney Spears, or for that matter, any of the other celebs mentioned here. But I do know the story of how Jesus admonished the people, about to punish the woman taken in adultery, that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. Was that woman an innocent? No. Didn't she contribute to her own situation? Of course she did. Yet, Jesus still showed her compassion. It amazes me that, so many years later, there is still so little compassion in the world.
posted on 07.08.2006 1:42 PM13
She's apparently being sued as well:
http://www.crystalair.com/content.php?id=22200607005
posted on 07.09.2006 7:56 AM14
The current obsession with some over library records strikes me as epecially laughable. It wasn't too many years ago that there were cards in the back of the books, which did not get replaced until they were filled on both sides. Any subsequent checker-outers could see for themselves the list of all those who came before them. I never heard a peep about it. It seems privacy is only an issue when one can do something as useful as catching criminals with the information. There is no shortage of those willing to stand in the gap for evildoers.
posted on 07.13.2006 11:48 AM