Dilbert - drug testing


Big Brother is watching.

In the inexorably encroaching Orwellian world of digital invasion into our lives, concerns over protection of privacy become proportionally more intense. Data protection, security constraints. These are all important questions to be assessed and advocated in to authorities. Apropos to Seth-urday, Seth Godin’s post today raises exactly these questions in his post ‘Freedom in a Digital World’. But at an individual level, there are a number of powerful arguments to embrace the failure of privacy

  • Accountability – Like the old saying, ‘Live your life under the assumption that everything you do will be on the front page of the New York Times.’  It is a great acid test of accountability.  The good news is that the new transparency might just provide an incentive and impetus for people to actually behave better.  That’s the overwhelming evidence from average-speed cameras that essentially monitor every minute of your driving.
  • Desirability – The appeal of relinquishing privacy might not just be for social good, but for personal gain as well.  Scott Adams posits a creative perspective in his post ‘No Privacyville’.  Whereas Klososky argues the impossibility of opting out of such privacy invasion, Adams talks about the irresistible appeal of an opt-in privacy abandon.
  • Inevitability – Scott Klosky shares an intriguing perspective on control one has over one’s online brand…essentially none.  All this stuff about the right to have stuff erased, etc. is all a fool’s errand because there will be virtually no constraints on what people say about you.  You might be able delete the picture of you wasted at the party, but you can’t delete your friend’s account of it. Adams also argues this point as well in last week’s post ‘The Privacy Illusion’).

The Onion pokes fun at this increasingly embraced transparent lifestyle of the 21st century in its piece ‘CIA Receives More Funding for Facebook Program’.


Dilbert - surveillance