Privacing (original) (raw)
Related papers
Private/Public in 18th-Century Scandinavia, 2022
This chapter explores the private in the public. Focusing on the two states of 18th century Scandinavia – Denmark-Norway and Sweden, incorporating Finland – it argues for including the periphery on its own terms in the grand narrative of the rise of the private. Moreover, it argues for the spatialization but also temporalization of the term. The private is something that people did; the potentiality for privacy was always there. But when and why did it surface? Private actions and private lives took place within public actions and public lives, not in isolation from them. By looking at the interaction between private and public, rather than treating the two notions as distinct and antagonistic, this introduction highlights how early modern people navigated the private aspects of life, along with all the potential dangers and benefits that accompanied them.
In Ralph Wieß and Jo Groebel, (Eds.), Privatheit im öffentlichen Raum. Medienhandeln zwischen Individualisierung und Entgrenzung, Leske und Budrich, 2002, 153-204., 2002
the changes in public and private spheres in the United States are not attributable solely to those who run the media, to reporters, to politicians, or to the public. The U.S. is experiencing a collaborative construction of a post-privacy era, a construction that is responding to the new possibilities and difficulties of electronic media. Nevertheless, the future we are heading toward is not pre-ordained. It is not too late for Americans to educate themselves better about the dramatic shifts that are occurring and to debate their implications for the quality and texture of public and private life. (C) 2002 Joshua Meyrowitz. All rights reserved (as noted in the final footnote, #42, on p. 204). Ignore Springer's illegal attempt to claim rights to this chapter.
Privileging Information is Inevitable Currall et al Privileging Information is Inevitable
2005
Libraries, archives and museums have long collected physical materials and other artefacts. In so doing they have established formal or informal policies defining what they will (and will not) collect. We argue that these activities by their very nature privilege some information over others and that the appraisal that underlies this privileging is itself socially constructed. We do not cast this in a post-modernist or negative light, but regard a clear understanding of it as fact and its consequences as crucial to understanding what collections are and what the implications are for the digital world. We will argue that in the digital world it is much easier for users to construct their own collections from a combination of resources, some privileged and curated by information professionals and some privileged by criteria that include the frequency with which other people link to and access them. We conclude that developing these ideas is an important part of placing the concept of ...
Privileging information is inevitable
Libraries, archives and museums have long collected physical materials and other artefacts. In so doing they have established formal or informal policies defining what they will (and will not) collect. We argue that these activities by their very nature privilege some information over others and that the appraisal that underlies this privileging is itself socially constructed. We do not cast this in a post-modernist or negative light, but regard a clear understanding of it as fact and its consequences as crucial to understanding what collections are and what the implications are for the digital world. We will argue that in the digital world it is much easier for users to construct their own collections from a combination of resources, some privileged and curated by information professionals and some privileged by criteria that include the frequency with which other people link to and access them. We conclude that developing these ideas is an important part of placing the concept of ...
The Contemporary Definition of Privacy
The public-private distinction appeared in the Greek polis in order to separate the society in two parts: the implemented and the former. The old regime only remained in the household as the absolute power of the household master upon his household (oïkos) – which was economical (from oïkos-nomos) or private. On the contrary, the new regime – which was political or public – was constituted by free and equal citizens. In other words, kingship, which previously belonged to one or to a minority, was equally divided among all citizens. They were collectively the king of the polis and were individually the kings of their own households. “Public” and “private” are now perceived as characterizing the institutionally recognized types of relationships. Civic friendship was the relationship between citizens: a free mutual agreement between equals, described by laws. The relationship between a household master and the components of the household – wife, children and slaves – was based on domination. Furthermore, the Greeks conceived a higher level of friendship, which Aristotle first described as a relationship between equals who have the same values in common, making explicit rules pointless. At some extent, Aristotle’s ideal was to replace civic friendship by friendship. The three available generic types of relationship are therefore domination, friendship – whose core is our conception of trust – and civic friendship – whose core is what I call reasoned trust. They have a common purpose: allowing peaceful interactions between individuals. But the public-private distinction only accepts two of these relationships out of the three. Antique societies failed to institutionally recognize friendship until the era of Christianity, which negated the public-private distinction to make trust through faith in God the only recognized relationship. During the Modern era, the public-private distinction was raised again, firstly in accordance with the Roman ideal, but on the basis that all human beings were considered to be free and equal, something changed. Workers emancipated themselves and women also. Our societies began to exclude domination. We kept reasoned trust through the rule of law, in order to organize the public part of society, where people do not personally know each other. In our private lives, trust began to replace domination. Trust then became the safeguard of personal information. Because of our desires to interact peacefully with others, we fear that such interactions would fail. We usually are protected of failures by law when they concern actions but the judgments of others and sometimes their consequences are not guaranteed. Therefore, we try to prevent our fear of a malicious judgment and its potential consequences by securing information. This was formerly possible through domination: those dominated would not be listened to. The same is now possible through trust: those that I trust will judge me, or speak about me, in accordance with my values. I then define privacy in the contemporary sense, as a network of trustworthy relationships that implicate the use of personal information. My task will be to clearly explain this definition.
Brazilian Journalism Research, 2017
The social nature of journalism forces this activity to take place only in the face of alterity and from it. To narrate the facts, the journalist resorts to the Other-as a source of information-and the product of this work is destined to another Other, the audience. Information publicity and privacy regimes are related to alterity in journalism. Privacy is an individual right that can constrain a collective right, for example. To deepen the debate, this article identifies how privacy presents itself in the academic bibliography and ten area dictionaries over five decades. The results point to rarity, outdatedness and insufficiency in the treatment of the subject in journalism. RESUMO-A natureza social do jornalismo obriga esta atividade a se efetivar apenas diante da alteridade e a partir dela. Para narrar os fatos, o jornalista recorre ao Outro-como fonte de informação-e o produto desse trabalho se destina a um outro Outro, a audiência. Regimes de privacidade e publicidade das informações relacionam-se à alteridade no jornalismo. A privacidade é um direito individual que pode constranger um direito coletivo, por exemplo. Para aprofundar o debate, este artigo identifica como a privacidade se apresenta na bibliografia acadêmica e em dez dicionários da área ao longo de cinco décadas. Os resultados apontam para raridade, desatualização e insuficiência no tratamento do tema no jornalismo. Palavras-chave: Privacidade. Jornalismo. Dicionários. Jargão Profissional. Léxico Jornalístico. PRIVACIDAD COMO UNA DIMENSIÓN PROBLEMÁTICA DE LA ALTERIDAD: un análisis de diez diccionários del periodismo RESUMEN-El periodismo sólo se realiza en la otredad y a partir de ella. Para narrar los hechos, los periodistas buscan el otro-como fuentes de información-y el resultado de este trabajo es un otro Otro, la audiencia. Las políticas de privacidad e publicidad de las informaciones refuerzan la otredad en el periodismo. La privacidad es un derecho PRIVACY AS AN ALTERITY PROBLEM DIMENSION: analysis of ten journalism dictionaries 1