The folly of youth
The regret of old age.
Our tale of Democratia comes full circle today. The government database proves to be very costly, which resulted in businesses being roped in, being allowed access to the information for the benefit of the consumer. Really.
The press started using the information to reveal the peccadillos of celebs and even the peccadillos of the idiot in the street. Reality TV never had it so good.
But one or two ministers recalling youthful follies began to wonder whether individuals might need privacy after all.
I notice that the politicians only talk about privacy when the issue affects them. I’d guess that Kant would take a fairly low view of their decision, which, though it benefits the public, is really being done on their own behalf. Of course, privacy seems to depend on the society itself. In China, a lot of life is conducted in public and may end up being everyone’s business. For the Chinese, a lot of life is street theatre which members of the public perform for the entertainment of the onlookers. In Chinese hospitals, everyone gets to hear what ailments everyone else has and they’re not above making recommendations to the doctor. In other words, privacy isn’t a universal concept. The Chinese words for “privacy” in my dictionary, 独处 (dúchǔ) and 隐居 (yǐnjū), appear only to approximate to the sense.
I’m sure that someone has study the rise of privacy and found that it may even be contrary to what is normal in most societies. After all, humans are social animals. Nonetheless, the scenario is really about the degree to which the government can intrude into people’s private lives and gather information about them. The matter came full circle when the politicians themselves realised the value of privacy.
The press started using the information to reveal the peccadillos of celebs and even the peccadillos of the idiot in the street. Reality TV never had it so good.
But one or two ministers recalling youthful follies began to wonder whether individuals might need privacy after all.
I notice that the politicians only talk about privacy when the issue affects them. I’d guess that Kant would take a fairly low view of their decision, which, though it benefits the public, is really being done on their own behalf. Of course, privacy seems to depend on the society itself. In China, a lot of life is conducted in public and may end up being everyone’s business. For the Chinese, a lot of life is street theatre which members of the public perform for the entertainment of the onlookers. In Chinese hospitals, everyone gets to hear what ailments everyone else has and they’re not above making recommendations to the doctor. In other words, privacy isn’t a universal concept. The Chinese words for “privacy” in my dictionary, 独处 (dúchǔ) and 隐居 (yǐnjū), appear only to approximate to the sense.
I’m sure that someone has study the rise of privacy and found that it may even be contrary to what is normal in most societies. After all, humans are social animals. Nonetheless, the scenario is really about the degree to which the government can intrude into people’s private lives and gather information about them. The matter came full circle when the politicians themselves realised the value of privacy.
Tomorrow, it’s time to turn our attentions to those who are inclined to an omnivorous diet. Time to pass the salad dressing.
Comments