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

The U.S. Pentagon.

Buried in the 2027 NDAA, Section 224 could fundamentally reshape U.S.-Israel defense ties. Is Congress creating an irreversible military partnership?

Getty Images, Westend61

America Should Stay Single

As we wait to see what comes of ceasefire negotiations between the United States and Iran, the House just released its 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Buried within it lies Section 224, titled the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” a provision representing what would be a radical departure from how we work with even our strongest allies, turning America’s relationship with a close collaborator into a permanent military-industrial integration. The U.S. has worked with NATO partners on co-production and shared supply chains in the past, but never like this. Many are calling it a merger. We should all be calling it off.

Section 224 could inextricably link the fate of our country’s defense to another’s. The Secretary of Defense would be directed to designate an executive agent to fuse ventures with Israel so significantly that it would touch almost every area of defense tech: AI, autonomous systems, energy, cyber, biotech, and beyond. It also proposes “network” and “data fusion,” which means, as the director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute warned, “the U.S. military’s data could soon be the Israeli military’s data.America First may soon sound more like a sarcastic punchline than a platform.

Keep ReadingShow less
AI Could Save Thousands—So Why Is Healthcare Still Hitting the Brakes?

Discover how generative AI in healthcare could reduce misdiagnoses, improve chronic disease management, and save hundreds of thousands of lives—if policymakers accelerate adoption instead of waiting for risk-free perfection.

Getty Images / Pakorn Supajitsoontorn

AI Could Save Thousands—So Why Is Healthcare Still Hitting the Brakes?

Imagine that the only way Americans traveled was on foot or on horseback. And assume that 100,000 people died each year because they couldn’t reach a hospital in time or firefighters arrived too late.

Suddenly, they learned that thanks to a technological breakthrough, cars and trucks will become widely available within three years.

Keep ReadingShow less
This 3D rendered image shows a central AI processing chip sitting atop a glowing blue printed circuit board.

Can AI profit-sharing help workers? Examining public wealth funds, AI taxes, economic transition policies, and the future of work.

Jason marz / Getty Images

There’s No Easy Path Through the AI Transition

“Trending” policy ideas tend to garner attention for all the wrong reasons: they seem like silver bullet solutions that will save us from taking on much harder reforms. Proposals to share profits from leading AI companies with the public are the latest example. It’s the rare policy scheme that seems to have united President Donald Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders, and CEOs at the leading AI labs. While the proposals for AI profit sharing vary in their precise details, a quick review of their likely outcomes should quickly deflate the popular excitement that has formed in response to calls for new taxes, public wealth funds, and the like. It’s important to reveal such limitations so that the AI policy discourse can move on to mechanisms more likely to address the real concerns of the American people.

In our first hypothetical world, the two leading AI labs—Anthropic and OpenAI—give away 3% of their equity. That’s not nothing! Based on current figures, such a contribution could kickstart a public wealth fund of about $55 billion. Let’s then imagine that fund earns 10% a year (a big “if” but let’s run with it). Per The Economist, this AI would reach a staggering $140 billion within ten years. How much would that benefit Americans? If annual payouts were 4% — what the publication reports is a proper amount to keep the fund going and growing — Americans would have an extra $20 in their pocket.

Keep ReadingShow less
For Imre Huss, Fixing Democracy Starts With Talking to a Stranger
a couple of people sitting at a table with cups of coffee

For Imre Huss, Fixing Democracy Starts With Talking to a Stranger

The Democracy Architects Council, presented by The Bridge Alliance Education Fund and Civics Unplugged, offers a paid, one-year fellowship for eight fellows ages 18 to 28, each selected for their work across a distinct sector of democratic life.

The youngest member of the Democracy Architects Council is building AI-powered civic tech, but he says the real work of democracy still happens face to face.

Keep ReadingShow less