Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Privacy vs. piracy

British newspapers featuring stories of Kate Middleton

Coverage of Kate Middleton, the princess of Wales, is just the latest example of an insidious invasion of someone's privacy, writes Lockard.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."

“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” – Eleanor Roosevelt

Have we become a society of small minds?

In 1974, Time magazine rolled out a new publication, People, to capitalize on its wildly popular section. Fifty years later, we need not wait for a weekly publication.

Privacy, a concept once treasured, is being ceded to the pirates with a fight.


After Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, the widow of our 35th president, had been widowed a second time, the paparazzi hounded her. They argued that because she had married a former president and then a wealthy shipping magistrate, she was fair game. She had given up her right to privacy.

Privacy is not mentioned in our Bill of Rights, but perhaps it should be. It is implied in the Declaration of Independence’s promise of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” as depriving citizens of their privacy violates every aspect of life and limits their personal liberty. Plus, happiness is difficult to pursue when you are being pursued by paparazzi.

Should Jackie have had to spend her entire life pleasing all of the people all of the time? Did the public have a right to know her every move, even to vilify her for wanting privacy? Apparently, the answer was “yes” to both questions. Her only choice: to hire a firm to manage her public relations. She was considered American royalty.

The stakes have only gotten higher, the privacy invasion only more insidious.

Years later, a “real” royal, Princess Diana, discovered this. And paid dearly.

And since her hospitalization in January, Kate Middleton, now princess of Wales, has become the object of intense media speculation. Was her husband, Prince William, having an affair? Was she? Were they on the verge of divorce? And why was the princess not playing to her public, catering to the enquiring minds who want to know, as The National Enquirer used to say.

Turns out the answer to all the speculation was: none of the above. The princess is battling cancer.

For shame.

Yet, the blood-thirsty media can’t be entirely blamed for procuring fresh meat to feed our insatiable appetites. Besides, don’t we have a right to know?

Do we? Did we have the right to force a devoted mother suffering with a horrendous disease to disclose her struggle publicly?

Others’ “stories” may be interesting, but their personal lives are just that – personal. Why do we so want to infiltrate them? As fodder for our otherwise mundane lives? And why are we satisfied being preoccupied with other’s lives, while, in the words of T.S. Eliot, measuring out our own in “coffee spoons?”

Garnering adulation for being in the know, especially for the first to know, our hunger for salacious gossip is seemingly unquenchable and only grows more so in our increasingly connected world. In our obsession with celebrity status, so much time is consumed by others’ lives and curating our own. Influencers and those famous for being famous, with no other talent than the ability to draw attention to themselves, are admirable, emulated. And how willingly we disclose our own honed versions of ourselves, hoping our “followers” or resulting “likes” will capitulate us to our 15 minutes of fame, as promised by Andy Warhol.

But what is the difference between the outrage we feel at our phones being tapped, or cameras in private places, and the invasion of an individual’s privacy?

And where is “oneself,” when always playing to the public or pleasing others? Appeasing and pleasing are constraints which leave no possibility of remaining true to oneself.

Despite this, Oscar Wilde’s adage has seemingly been taken to heart: “The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.” Privacy has become an archaic idea in this tell-all age. The pirates have taken over the ship.

What if we concentrated on fully living our own lives, ignoring both critics and followers, and engaging in worthwhile, real pursuits? Instead of indulging our endless fascination with others’ lives and showcasing our own, would it not be a thousand-fold more enthralling for us to keep our treasures and sail bravely forth?

Then, think of Mary Oliver “and tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?”

Read More

Someone wrapping a gift.

As screens replace toys, childhood is being gamified. What this shift means for parents, play, development, and holiday gift-giving.

Getty Images, Oscar Wong

The Christmas When Toys Died: The Playtime Paradigm Shift Retailers Failed to See Coming

Something is changing this Christmas, and parents everywhere are feeling it. Bedrooms overflow with toys no one touches, while tablets steal the spotlight, pulling children as young as five into digital worlds that retailers are slow to recognize. The shift is quiet but unmistakable, and many parents are left wondering what toy purchases even make sense anymore.

Research shows that higher screen time correlates with significantly lower engagement in other play activities, mainly traditional, physical, unstructured play. It suggests screen-based play is displacing classic play with traditional toys. Families are experiencing in real time what experts increasingly describe as the rise of “gamified childhoods.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

Rising costs, AI disruption, and inequality revive interest in Louis Kelso’s “universal capitalism” as a market-based answer to the affordability crisis.

Getty Images, J Studios

Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

“Affordability” over the cost of living has been in the news a lot lately. It’s popping up in political campaigns, from the governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia to the mayor’s races in New York City and Seattle. President Donald Trump calls the term a “hoax” and a “con job” by Democrats, and it’s true that the inflation rate hasn’t increased much since Trump began his second term in January.

But a number of reports show Americans are struggling with high costs for essentials like food, housing, and utilities, leaving many families feeling financially pinched. Total consumer spending over the Black Friday-Thanksgiving weekend buying binge actually increased this year, but a Salesforce study found that’s because prices were about 7% higher than last year’s blitz. Consumers actually bought 2% fewer items at checkout.

Keep ReadingShow less
Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

US Capital with tech background

Greggory DiSalvo/Getty Images

Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

Techies, activists, and academics were in Paris this month to confront the doom scenario of internet shutdowns, developing creative technology and policy solutions to break out of heavily censored environments. The event– SplinterCon– has previously been held globally, from Brussels to Taiwan. I am on the programme committee and delivered a keynote at the inaugural SplinterCon in Montreal on how internet standards must be better designed for censorship circumvention.

Censorship and digital authoritarianism were exposed in dozens of countries in the recently published Freedom on the Net report. For exampl,e Russia has pledged to provide “sovereign AI,” a strategy that will surely extend its network blocks on “a wide array of social media platforms and messaging applications, urging users to adopt government-approved alternatives.” The UK joined Vietnam, China, and a growing number of states requiring “age verification,” the use of government-issued identification cards, to access internet services, which the report calls “a crisis for online anonymity.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Panic-driven legislation—from airline safety to AI bans—often backfires, and evidence must guide policy.

Getty Images, J Studios

Beware of Panic Policies

"As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality." This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that's exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things. Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I'll call "panic policies" that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let's turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid--so long as they were under two--on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: the risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they'd turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car. Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under two in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they're simply fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less