1. FrayVader - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:17 AM PDT
The invasion of privacy and the security of private information is a concern for many of us, especially as we move deeper into the electronic age. One fraygrant mentioned that she had heard that "protecting privacy in the information age is like changing the tires on a moving car." What do you think?
Another aspect is the current trend toward exposing all parts of a person's private life to the public. As another fraygrant put it:
"The current fashion of baring all ones inner thoughts, feelings, fantasies, and sorrows for public consumption is a source of unending offense to me. Whining, sniveling, begging, asking for forgiveness. Does no one have a sense of private self anymore?"
Is this what we want? Or should some parts of our lives be kept secret?
2. Msivorytower - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:35 AM PDT
"Or should some parts of our lives be kept secret?"
Well, since that's my quote, I suppose I should attempt an answer to your question.
I'm struck by the lack of private self by many in contemporary society. I don't think this means one should have secrets, but that there is value to keeping a private and public self, where the private is only revealed to a small circle of intimates. Secrets, regardless of what FV meant, seems an inappropriate word for what I was referring to in my earlier comment.
One of the things that most annoys me is the rampant move toward instant intimacy I observe in many venues, and particularly the internet. Its as if we don't have a sense that others may not want to hear the intimate details of our thoughts, angst, and mental meanderings. Yet everywhere you turn, it seems people are spilling their most intimate thoughts and putting them up for public purview and consumption.
I fear we have become a nation addicted to voyeurism, and that there is a positive rush to vomit up ones most intimate thoughts as an act of public acceptance.
3. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 6:50 AM PDT
I am not wearing underwear.
4. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:07 AM PDT
Not even a thong?
5. DocBrown - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:16 AM PDT
In my field (healthcare), the issue of privacy has quickly emerged as one of the most crucial concerns.
While I do not currently work in IS myself, I know of many great controversies surrounding information privacy. Some hospitals make patient information available electronically, which allows them to provide better care & service, but puts the information at greatest risk. On the opposite extreme, other hospitals won't even permit patients to look at their own charts. This extreme measure is more common than you might expect. While it helps ensure privacy, it detracts from care, service, and patient satisfaction.
What is the ultimate solution for this most intimate information? I cannot say. If people want to speculate I will add more information in later posts.
But I propose that no matter what happens, we must find a new paradigm of privacy. If we want to keep our lives to ourselves, then we must accept new sacrifices that accompany privacy.
6. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:17 AM PDT
cllrdr
Too uncomfortable.
MsIt
I agree with much of your sentiment in post 2. Unfrotunately, the entire culture bucks against your sense of decorum. Revelation of the most heinous secret is commpnplace on daily talk shows, all in the name of healing. Politicians sell their humanity by recounting painful, private moments for public consumption come election year. It is natural that the discourse would follow their lead.
7. bubbaette - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:24 AM PDT
When the human genome project is complete there will be no privacy about oneself, at least in a biological sense. With a person's toothbrush, a fingernail clipping, or strands of hair from a comb, every biological fact that is knowable about a person can be had. This had tremendous implications for health insurance, employment, education etc. In truth, it will be possible to a potential employer or insurer to know more about a prospect's future health problems than the prospect himself knows.
You can't stop science, nor do I particularly want to, but I'm not optimistic about the ability of the individual to control his own information now or in the future.
8. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:24 AM PDT
I'm not sure anyone is "revealing" anything. Talk shows are like wrestling. I no more believe the quasi-actors who parade across them then I do the characters on "Monday Night Nitro."
I think this figures into the public's non-reaction to Flytrap.
9. Super80 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:28 AM PDT
There is an excellent article this week in the New Yorker this week about privacy. It basically talks about being "affronted" by others' lack of discrection or decorum, similar to MsIT's statement.
10. CharlieL - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:29 AM PDT
I agree, cllrdr. When the "talk" shows are featuring topics like "My Wife is My Mom," and "My German Shepherd Actually *Likes* It, Thank You," who gets upset about a BJ in the WH?
11. CharlieL - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:33 AM PDT
Why does everyone in the supermarket have to wear a tag with their name on it in huge capital letters?
If I went to a restaurant where the "server" said, "You don't need to know my name, you already know I'm your server, and I'll make sure you get your food on time and your tea glass will not run empty," I'd frequent that place almost exclusively.
12. Msivorytower - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:37 AM PDT
Super80
I'm not affronted (a piss ass word if there ever was one), I'm annoyed, and turned off by it. I avoid it, and I avoid people who want to bond "instantly". I mistrust instant intimacy as much as I mistrust someone who never reveals anything about themselves. I see them as flip sides of the same coin.
I mean, after all, if someone bares their most intimate thoughts, who would ever think that person is cloaked? Instant intimacy is simply the latest fad in the gradual elimination of the private self. Somehow people think it leads to greater understanding, when the potential pitfalls are the same as they've always been.
13. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:37 AM PDT
Super80 -- it's interesting that the "New Yorker" sees this in "privacy" terms. "Decorum" is really what's at issue. Privacy issues involve other spheres of power. Consider, for example, how much information is made available to business interests about your income, job history, etc. Consider telemarketing, which targets you by means of established perceptions of your market potential gained through access to information -- much of which iss assumed by you to be "private."
14. bubbaette - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:37 AM PDT
Charlie
I've been wondering myself why there are so many people named "Tommy" these days.
15. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:41 AM PDT
cllrdr, Charlie
I disagree. First, even if most of the Springer nonsense is trumped up theatre, most people probably are unaware of that fact. Second, I'm talking about Roseanne ("I was molested") crap on the supposed top-line shows. I mean, why was Oprha trying to get Monica? To discuss non-personal details?
"I think this figures into the public's non-reaction to Flytrap."
But the reaction has been schizo - public disavowal of such tawdry stuff, yet the airwaves remained jammed to the gills, the books sell, the Intenret shuts down from use.
I'm reminded of a gifted author's analogy to the Ellen Degeneres coming out show: most said they had no interest in watching her come out when polled. In reality, 47 million tuned in.
16. Msivorytower - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:43 AM PDT
I told you, we've become a nation of voyeurs.
17. bubbaette - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:51 AM PDT
There's a difference between personal information that released willingly and information that is compiled by cross-matching data bases and to which the individual has not given consent. But that genie is out of the bottle and won't be stuffed back in.
18. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 7:55 AM PDT
True Ms. And you have a point, 109 (says cllrdr, resisting the temptation to turn into George Sanders in "All About Eve" and say "An idiotic one but a point nonetheless." ) But if Monica wants to flash her thong on Oprah, how does this figure into privacy issues? Clearly she doesn't want any privacy. Why else would she give Ken Starr the time of day? yeah, yeah, he'd throw the book at her -- but so what? But that's blood under the bridge (as Edward Albee would say.) The real issue is self-definition. Monica wants to be known as the woman who "loved" the Big Creep. Tom Cruise wants to be known as a real-life superhero. Both of them are delusional. Everyone in the Fray is working to establish an on-line identity -- some with more success than others. How do these identities relate to the "real person"? It varies. I know a great deal about your opinions, and several scattered facts about your life. But even after having met you there are all manner of things I don't know, and will probably never know. Now let's all play Office of Independent Counsel. Should I set my sites on 109, where would I begin? Where is he most vulnerable? That's where the rubber hits the road when it comes to privacy.
19. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:04 AM PDT
cllrdr
Start with my drug usage and move to my fascination with Blondie during my teen years.
As for where the rubber meets the road for others, it depends. I'm aware of the Clinton saga and its attendant privacy concerns. But dry those tears. He was a defendant in a sexual harassment suit. When sued, just FYI, you have no privacy. When sued for conduct of a sexual nature, man, do you not have privacy. When sued for sexual harassment and you have been boinking an intern in your office, oh boy, goodbye privacy. When you then deny all to the American people with a finger-wagging soliloquy in front of the cameras, rather than keeping mum, well, you know the mantra.
As for icing, see the Democratic conventions of 1992 and 1996 for the shy, guarded Clinton (and Gore).
I'm with Ellroy on this. I've got to wait in line for groceries like everyone else.
20. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:15 AM PDT
Actually when Clinton answered the "boxers of briefs" query on MTV, Monica's thong was an inevitability.
Still, what we're getting to here is a level of control. Tom Cruise (or rather Tom Cruise Inc. as he is in point of fact at least fifty people) will stop at nothing to gain control of his image. Michael Jackson was similarly fixated, but he lost it. The public sphere can only digest so much freakiness. And pedophilia is a non-starter in "positive" PR terms.
It's all a matter of money. Clinton's enemies have more than he does. Moreover they have methods of spreading it around to an extent we're only just beginning to discover.
21. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:20 AM PDT
"And pedophilia is a non-starter in "positive" PR terms."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Very funny.
Clinton thought he could control his environment, much as he did in Little Rock. More cash may have helped, but Lordy, he had two legal defense funds. I'm afraid he just was not destined to maintain his privacy by nature. A room key across the table? You have a shot. Dick out and "kiss it baby." A certain inevitability to tripping a land mine.
22. Msivorytower - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:26 AM PDT
cllrdr
I disagree that the blurring of lines between the public and private self isn't an issue of privacy. A decline in decorum is certainly part of it but does not explain the wholehearted embracing of the public as our pyschiatric couch.
There has been a shift if values, and in public desire for vicarious emotional boosts. I think it has more to do with the loss of connection to a larger community, the fact that we've become a nation mostly disconnected from our families, more mobile, more focused on consumption as a means of satisfying desires rather than development of the inner self.
I speak in broad sweeps, but, I think this has a great deal to do with the rise in the public's thirst for public displays of emotion and angst. We are the ultimate consumers, and have become consumers of emotions as well as goods.
For me, this is a question of the movement of private lives into the public sphere, not just a matter of decorum.
23. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:31 AM PDT
You're right, 109. But this opens the door to Washington as a whole. What "image" does Newt, or Dan Burton, or Tom Delay, or Orrin Hatch, etc. want to convey? And how good are they at conveying it? Territory has to be specifically marked.
Another factor in the public reaction to Clinton -- the perpetual refrain that it's a "private matter." This is another way of saying "I don't want to talk about it." And by that what's being underscored is "At least not OUT LOUD. Between-you-and-me-and-my-sister-in-Milwalkee, I LOVE to talk about it. "
But talk is cheap. Action, as the Fundies well know, is expensive.
24. 109109 - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:45 AM PDT
cllrdr
They want to convey purity and rectitude. Which means that if they have advertisements with the collie, they better not be fucking it.
As for talk and action, I'm willing to discuss the political enemies of the President and their tactics, as long as I don't have to suffer the pitiful sops to the poor Mr. Clinton. He was a doomed character, Scaife or no.
25. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 8:57 AM PDT
Ms. #22 is a very interesting post. But what you're talking about is the effect. I'm interested in the cause. There are systems at play to gain access to all manner of information about us all: gay or straight, Bill or Monica.
26. Msivorytower - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:01 AM PDT
cllr
We disagree about the cause. And I don't think my take is an effect, rather it hints at the causes itself.
Consumption, cllrdr, we've become commodities ourselves.
27. CharlieL - Oct. 14, 1998 - 9:02 AM PDT
The cause is the desire of businesses to sell us what we don't want more efficiently based upon some nebulous past purchasing history, and for employers to refuse to pay for insurance benefits based upon the probability of their employees catching some disease based upon their supposed "genetic predisposition," or worse, "lifestyle."
28. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:30 AM PDT
Exactly, Charlie. The history of consumers is fair game. The history of corproations is "a private matter."
29. Judithathome - Oct. 14, 1998 - 10:38 AM PDT
In Salon today Robert Rossney and Jennifer Vogel have articles about the "sinister" grocery store cards which track your buying history. One thing they fail to point out is that these cards are optional. No one is forcing you to fill out the application but "if you want to save money with instant store coupons" you do get a card. (Rossney seems pretty paranoid to be a shopper...sees the Safeway policy of smiling at the customers as oppressive policy by the owners and if he smiles back, he's complicit in enforcing that policy.)
These days, so many people blurt out their life histories at the take-out counter in the deli...and yet they feel violated by a card which lets the store know you like rye bread.
30. Msivorytower - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:25 AM PDT
Judithathome
"These days, so many people blurt out their life histories at the take-out counter in the deli...and yet they feel violated by a card which lets the store know you like rye bread"
I laughed at this, it so precisely captures the irony I was speaking to earlier. Yes, yes, let us protest the "invasion" of privacy on credit reports, buying cards etc., but by all means don't forget to ask me about my latest love affair and I'll gladly go on national television to explain the story.
31. cllrdr - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:31 AM PDT
The card are invasive, in that they mark you as an "easy target" consumer -- leaving the door open for even more telemarketing.
I always ask the callers what underwear they have on. Extra points for thongs, of course.
32. Judithathome - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:17 PM PDT
Msivory: I like this thread and what you've been saying on it. In the 70s when suburbia was being legally drugged by valium, triavil, elavil and such, I would often run into instant friends at the grocery store, women so hopped up and hyped they would start a conversation over the produce and go on to blurt out amazing things about themselves. So this isn't new...except for the fact most "sharers" these days aren't medicated. They have few boundries and seem shameless in what they are willing to force on you.
cllrdr: my point about the cards is that they are optional. The store I use makes a percentage of my spending available to charities of my choice, my main reason for participating. Thus far, I've yet to be targeted at the door of the store by an announcement over the P A system, "Here comes the wine guzzling, peanut gobbling chick who donates to the Humane Society!"
33. Raskolnikov - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:38 PM PDT
I have never been particularly concerned about privacy. I used one of those discount cards, and didn't give a damn about whether the food store could now market better toward me. At least they were offering me discounts in exchange. However, I am all in favor of laws giving the person individual ownership rights over marketing information, and making it illegal for companies to buy and sell the info without your express consent.
I don't much care for people telling me intimate details of their life, either and thus I dont watch Oprah or Jerry Springer, and say the words "more information than I needed to know" quite often.
34. AzureNW - Oct. 14, 1998 - 12:50 PM PDT
I have also found the internet views of what is actually going on in the heads of people just like those around me very disturbing in that there really isn't much going on after all. It's disappionting how shallow and weak spirited most people really are 'deep down' when you begin to talk to them about their basic motivations and the most meaningful experiences of their lives. There just isn't anything there. There isn't any real motivation behind what they do. There are no particuarly meaningful experiences in thier lives. I suppose that explains the way they drive and what they watch on televion, but I do kind of wish I didn't know.
35. cigarlaw - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:40 PM PDT
it is difficult not to expose your private thoughts when discussing topics of importance to you. the fact that one posts in a public medium a priori destroys much of your privacy.
As for everything discussed so far, the horse has already left the barn. if data is available, it will be used.
36. WinstonSmith - Oct. 15, 1998 - 12:43 AM PDT
"As for everything discussed so far, the horse has already
left the barn. if data is available, it will be used."
I agree. In addition to this, more and more, data will be saved so that it can be mined in the future.
I don't know that it is the case that every word that has ever been typed into the fray has been saved (I would guess that it's at least on tape) but more and more data like this will linger longer and longer and be replicated in more and more places such that the persistence of Internet generated data will become greater and greater. One of the big reasons for this is that storage is becoming ever cheaper such that there is decreasing pressure to remove dated and obsolete material. Also, it is the nature of the web that anything you can browse, you can copy. When you put a web page out on the Internet you generally don't know how many copies were made from that data and by whom.
Where am I going with this? Vast amounts of disparate data will accumulate on the Internet in the form of chat room data, motor vehicle data, freedom of information act derived data, browser cookie data, property tax data, marriage licenses, medical records, human genome project, and on and on.
There will be big money in mining it and lots of folks will utilize high-powered computers and software to see what they can pull from the mix. This will mean that a great deal of information about an individual will not only be able to be collected but also correlated.
We can make laws to try and control it but as Cigar said "if data is available, it will be used." IMHO, this will just be a fact of life that we will have to get used to.
37. joezan - Oct. 15, 1998 - 4:36 AM PDT
Judith:
Excellent point in #29 - with so many willing to blurt out the sad, morbid, scandalous details of their pasts, whether it's on Sally Jesse, Oprah, or Montel, or just sitting around the breakroom at work, those of us who couldn't give a rip are made fair game by default. *Everyone* is included as a constituent of the blab - we are "the public", who have a "right to know".
A couple of years ago a very smart, educated woman (MSW) started working in my office. The first day there she informed me that; as a child, she had been molested by 2 of her uncles; she and her husband were separated; she found out he'd had at least 3 affairs; she was totally ignorant of his running around until she got chlamydia; when she confronted him with the doctor's report, he beat her.
She was fired not long after for sharing these details with some of her clients (juveniles). Her rationale? Her experiences enabled her to "relate" much better with her clients, most of whom had had similarly crappy lives. How could she make them realize this, unless she told them?
38. Judithathome - Oct. 15, 1998 - 10:00 AM PDT
joezan: The story you related is one that I've heard in many guises...people who "feel your pain" because they've had so much themselves. I'm always uncomfortable listening to details of someones private life, details I'd rather not know but which they feel compelled to tell. I think it IS the Oprahization of the country...we're reaping the crop of "let it all hang out".
39. elliot803 - Oct. 15, 1998 - 10:08 AM PDT
Why do people keep lumping Oprah in with trash TV like Jerry Springer and Sally Jessie Raphael? Her show is nothing like theirs.
40. Judithathome - Oct. 15, 1998 - 11:22 AM PDT
eliot: I "lumped" Oprah with no one. I used that phrase Oprahization because she is the one talk show host about whom we know the most...she has been very confessional about her past and has been quite open about how she lives, where she lives, about almost everything in her life. I think her show is good, she is a generous soul and helps many people. As for the others, I consider them to be low brow entertainment, pandering to the lowest point in our natures.
41. Raskolnikov - Oct. 15, 1998 - 11:25 AM PDT
elliot: while Oprah and Springer are very different, they both do have guests on to share intimate details of their lives. Springer is just more salacious.
I never watch either show. My categorization of Oprah as such has to do with knowledge that she wanted Monica Lewinsky to be on the show.
42. elliot803 - Oct. 15, 1998 - 1:48 PM PDT
Rask:
What's wrong with Oprah having Monica Lewinsky on her show?
I don't believe that sharing intimate details of one's life on TV is necessarily a bad thing.
43. Super80 - Oct. 15, 1998 - 2:01 PM PDT
What about Kathy Lee Gifford? She's always sharing anecdotes about her children, in an intimate fshion, but no talk of the troubles with Frank.
Rosie O'Donnell is similar, only hip.
44. Ronski - Oct. 15, 1998 - 2:07 PM PDT
Rosie is very, very discreet.
45. BobaFett - Oct. 15, 1998 - 2:07 PM PDT
Rosie O'Donnell is "hip"?
This must be I usage of the word "hip" I was previously unaware of.
46. Ronski - Oct. 15, 1998 - 2:11 PM PDT
Maybe it was "hips?"
47. elliot803 - Oct. 15, 1998 - 2:13 PM PDT 48. cllrdr - Oct. 15, 1998 - 2:15 PM PDT 49. cllrdr - Oct. 15, 1998 - 2:16 PM PDT 50. joezan - Oct. 15, 1998 - 5:29 PM PDT 51. Raskolnikov - Oct. 15, 1998 - 5:52 PM PDT 52. elliot803 - Oct. 15, 1998 - 5:57 PM PDT 53. Philistine - Oct. 15, 1998 - 6:19 PM PDT 54. KurtMondaugen - Oct. 15, 1998 - 7:06 PM PDT 55. alistairconnor - Oct. 15, 1998 - 7:33 PM PDT 56. WinstonSmith - Oct. 15, 1998 - 8:18 PM PDT 57. joezan - Oct. 15, 1998 - 10:29 PM PDT 58. elliot803 - Oct. 15, 1998 - 10:35 PM PDT 59. joezan - Oct. 15, 1998 - 10:45 PM PDT 60. elliot803 - Oct. 15, 1998 - 10:51 PM PDT 61. marshame - Oct. 16, 1998 - 10:42 AM PDT 62. Random - Oct. 16, 1998 - 11:01 AM PDT 63. marshame - Oct. 16, 1998 - 11:38 AM PDT 64. Blaise - Oct. 16, 1998 - 2:01 PM PDT 65. joezan - Oct. 16, 1998 - 6:35 PM PDT 66. CalGal - Oct. 16, 1998 - 6:42 PM PDT 67. Blaise - Oct. 16, 1998 - 8:11 PM PDT 68. BobaFett - Oct. 16, 1998 - 9:41 PM PDT 69. hocndoc - Oct. 16, 1998 - 10:50 PM PDT 70. glcarls - Oct. 18, 1998 - 6:52 PM PDT
Ah yes, Kathy Lee Gifford. There was a great cartoon showing her cracking a whip in a roomful of immigrants furiously sewing garments together for her clothing line. "
"Discreet"? Silent is more like it.
Make that "selectively silent." She *has* talked about herself, but not "on the record."
Since having earned about a zillion bucks with the old Oprah show, Winfrey has, they tell me, repented, and now has a quality show. However, back in the bad ole' days she and Donahue were the queen and king of confessional tv. And they were WORSE than Springer, because they presented their crap in all seriousness, and with a self-righteousness which was sickening.
Back then, they both claimed their junk was "cathartic". IMO, all it did was lead alot of the weirdos who watched their shows regularly to believe that they weren't so weird, after all. "Hey - having sex with your relatives aint bad! People on tv say they do it all the time."
elliot: nothing is wrong with it. I just don't wanna watch.
joezan:
Oprah has always had a quality show. Donahue was also, for the most part, responsible and informative. You really can't compare them with Jerry Springer or Sally Jessie.
Rask:
Fair enough, but I'm surprised. I would very much like to see what Monica has to say.
Regarding tracking cards, polls, etc.
I have worked as a telephone surveyor for a several years, and I have always encouraged people who ask about it to either NOT respond to calls like those I was making, or lie their ass off in their responses. My loathing of consumer culture is fairly well known in these parts, and I want to pour grit in the gears of the evil contraption. If you are bored enough to fill out those cards - fill em up with hornswoggle. Make these ways of gathering information as useless and counterproductive as possible.
For me.
Phil:
I once made a quick and painless $25 by answering some questions posed by a firm I'll assume is similar to the one/s you've worked for about jeans. Which put my number on the "mailing list", resulting in periodic (once every 2 months or so) questionaire calls (for which I was compensated as well) regarding cigarettes, cider (!!!), home entertainment equipment, etc., all ostensibly based on the answers I gave to the initial jeans survey. Funny thing is, though, while I never lied outright or deliberatly hornswoggled the process, I can't see how my answers were in any way beneficial for the demographic marketers. "Do you wear jeans?"
"Yeah, on occasion."
"What kind"
"well...um...denim, I think."
"Do you know what brand they are?"
"well, they're *jeans*. They're all the same aren't they?"
"(giggle) I guess so. Now, have you worn any different brand in the past six months?"
"Meaning jeans other than jeans? I don't think so."
"Have you seen any billboard, print or television advertising for jeans in the past six months?"
"I saw an ad that had a guy in jeans, yeah."
"Did that influence your jeans purchase in any way?"
"I already had them."
"Thanks, expect a check in the next 2-3 weeks, and let me ask if you'd be interested in responding to further surveys with similar compensation."
"Um...I guess so."
Insipid process, really. Can't see what purpose it serves.
hmmm... If any computer system can make any sense at all out of my buying patterns as a consumer, then let 'er rip. I might learn something from the result.
Message #36 Winnie, I'm having second thoughts about using my real name on the fray... On the other hand, I'm too attached to my painstakingly constructed fray persona to change it. I suppose I'll just have to change my real name.
AC,
LOL.
Be sure to fill out plenty of credit card applications before you change your name so you can keep your Slate subscription going.
Elliot:
How long ago did you come to this country?
Oprah and Donahue invented and perfected the genre. Oprah even apologized to the whole country for helping to foster the victim mentality phenomenon, before becoming the New, Improved Oprah (the latest version of the New, Improved Oprah, anyway).
Phil, though, will carry his guilt to his grave.
Joezan:
11 years. I've seen Oprah's show periodically almost from the start. I gather from your posts that you don't watch it at all. Both her and Donahue have been invaluable in raising the public consciousness about racism, homphobia, domestic violence, sexual harassment and many other important social problems. I don't know what "apology" you think Oprah made, but I seriously doubt that she regrets her contribution to public discussion of these issues.
Maybe you should read Slate's assessment of Winfrey--it's a rave.
Elliot:
Much was made (perhaps 2 or 3 years ago) of Oprah's apology. She specifically stated that she had helped contribute to a very unhealthy situation. I do think, though, that back when her format was blab, whine, blame and cry, she had very little control over the guests or the content. She is to be commended for changing the format as soon as she had the power to do so.
Joezan:
Her format is often still what you would call "blab, whine" but what she and I and millions of others know to be the airing of important issues that have long been suppressed. I find that almost all people who criticize her rarely or never watch her show and are fundamentally misinformed about its content.
I was recently interviewed (from NYC!) to survey my opinions about the yellow pages. Can you imagine having to listen to and answer 20 minutes worth of questions on the yellow pages?? Sample question: on a scale of 1 to 10, respond: "Yellow pages make shopping fun!" Toward the end of the survey, when I had been asked the 20th or 30th preposterous question on my musings about the role of the yellow pages in my life, I complained to the surveyor: This isn't what I wanted to be surveyed on! How come you don't ask me to rate Clinton's job performance?!" Okay, sez the young female surveyor, so do you think he should be impeached? We then proceeded to discuss this topic (I figured she must be getting paid by the hour rather than by the completed survey!). I gave my opinions, which she said sounded just like her mother (!) and she gave me hers (having sex in the white house is his own private business and Hillary should jez tell everyone to butt out!). After 10 minutes or so, and a few good laughs on boths ends of the line, we finished up on the yellow pages. She thanked me for my time, and I told her she should listen to her mother.
I'd be much more concerned about Health Card ID's, Social Security ID
and Credit Reporting because I think the violations of people's rights
is more apt to happen that route. For one thing, companies buy lists
and information, once it is accumulated, and all the promises made
to get the information go by the wayside. Social Security numbers
were to be used strictly for Social Security purposes, but they are
now required for driver's license and just about every other document.
With the advent of computers, numbers can be cross-referenced very
easily for insurance companies, credit reporting agencies, and so on.
There really isn't much about anyone that's private these days.
Oh, another interesting tidbit about the yellow pages: the demographic question on my household income was: over or under $20k!
This is a site worth checking out:
Electronic Privacy Information Center
I was buying some coax cable and a splitter at Radio Shack a few months ago. Small purchase - just a few bucks. After ringing the sale, the clerk started asking me questions - name, address, etc.
I was in a hurry, and I didn't think it was any of his business, anyway. So I told him, "Just skip that, ok. I'm paying cash." He then informed me that this info had to be entered in order to complete the sale. So I asked, "Then how come you didn't ask me beforehand if I was going to pay cash?" He said, "It doesn't matter how you're paying - we have to have this info to complete the sale."
I asked to see the manager, but was told he wasn't in. Then the guy pivots the register toward me, and points to a memo taped to the front, which said, "NO SALES WITHOUT PERSONAL INFO"
So I left without buying the stuff, and I've never gone back. Anyone know if this is really R.S.'s policy?
Joe,
I've had the same thing happen to me. I was very surprised.
joe: one of my students complained about the same policy. We've been discussing the Rights to Privacy in my philosophy class and I asked them to think about how their rights to privacy are being violated in society. One student told me that Albertson markets have hidden cameras and audio recording systems that monitor both employees and customers.
Radio Shack probably is doing that to send their junkmail to your address. But to make personal info a "requirement" upon purchase is terrible. Glad you walked out, and hope more people do, too.
Blaise, Joe, Cal:
RS's bizzare policy made it to a Seinfeld episode. Jerry and Kramer were sitting in a diner. Jerry was complaining about women (or something). So, anyway, perplexed, he asks Kramer, why are women like that?
Kramer answers the question with a question: "Why do they ask you for your name and address when you buy batteries at Radio Shack? I don't know."
We have completely lost control of our right to privacy on health matters.
Your insurance company can come in and read your chart at any time, you gave them permission when you signed up (paid) for the insurance. I have a policy that I have to have current info and records release, but technically the company can have any records they want. And because I let the insurance company pay me in your stead (rather than send you away or demand cash in full), the company can send a nurse in and inspect my office, and read charts from their "covered lives". Two companies send me reports on medications that I write for their patients, (who buy the meds with their insurance co-pay), trying to cause me to change to the company they have a deal with (this month, subject to change at any time).
Medicare has the right to the soul and life of any person over 65, and to anything in my office if I see anyone over 65 or on Medicare. All insurance companies, and some say all self-pay patients, have to be treated in exactly the same way Medicare and Medicare patients are treated, thanks to the Balance Budget Act of 1996. I can't waive the co-pay on patients - it is felony insurance fraud.
My only option is to completely stop taking Medicare and never see anyone over 65 or on Medicare. (I don't have the option of "opting out" because I only do urgent care, and the law specifically will not allow me to do this)
Your only option is to find a doctor who does the above, always pay cash for health care, never file for insurance reimbursement and never end up in a hospital or ER. (I think that will work, I'm not sure.)
This causes trouble when patients have psychosocial problems that they would rather not have haunting them the rest of their lives. I have not found a legal way around charting and reporting.
Privacy? I'm in the Air Force and to write a check at the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) or BX/PX, you must have your SSN, Name, Rank, Address, Phone Numbers, and I'm beginning to wonder if they want my kids birth dates or deaths on the checks too! Without the above, you no buy in BX... or in the Commissary system. I've had the same thing happen to me in a RS where they begin asking for personal info and I refused, but they sold to me anyway as I was paying cash, and they obviously wanted or needed the sale.
home