3 ms·
Journalism has always been hard – most of the things worth reporting on don't welcome the reporters in with open arms, all the time. That having been said, it
by incongruity 9y ago
Journalism has always been hard – most of the things worth reporting on don't welcome the reporters in with open arms, all the time.
That having been said, it seems that as more local community interaction becomes digital and starts to fall within walled-gardens, many things, including reporting get a bit trickier.
Thus far, we have no legal concept around the notion of a public digital space, if there is such a thing, and what privacy rights do, or explicitly do not exist.
I'd argue that things like NextDoor might push us into having to think about the concept of just what is/could be viewed as having a reasonable expectation for privacy.
I can't expect that my speech or even image is private if I go outside on the public street, for example... so for sites like NextDoor, is there a threshold where they become so dominant or so a part of our daily lives/community interaction where we should start to see them as public spaces with certain expectations around rights (or lack thereof)? When it's small, the private club idea fits well – but if it becomes dominant and essential to community life – do we need to rethink that idea?
- jimktrains2 9y agoWhy isn't it as simple as "if it's not on a computer you own, don't expect privacy."
- matt4077 9y agoBecause that would preclude the internet from being useful for a rather large portion of people's lives. (Not that I believe you have a right to privacy when you organise as a neighbourhood group and basically act like a tiny, kleptocratic, unelected apartheid regime.)
- jimktrains2 9y agoHow so? The current state is that nothing is private if it's on someone else's server. What I described is the current state. Just because you trust Google not to publish all your email doesn't mean they're private.