Though I fully realize that the McKennit vs. Ash case is finished, the issues on 'privacy' and 'non-privacy within our societal structure of every day living should not be discounted.
I've sought to provide an opportunity for individuals to openly express their opinions on such issues.
In regards to the latter, I'm surprised at the deplorable lack of interest that has been shown towards these two issues. At this point, I'm wondering if Loreena McKennitt's messages have fallen upon deaf ears. Surely, there must have been a stronger underlying meaning to her statements than just her stance towards her own right to privacy.
I believe that 'Privacy' should be a societal matter not to be taken lightly, as it effects us in every strata of life, whether in the present, or within relative upcoming future events.
To what parameter/margin or degree should 'privacy' be respected, before these thresholds are nonchalantly shuffled aside with 'non-privacy' being allowed to take over?
If privacy can't begin to be respected now, what will humanity's future come to be?
"Privacy" touches many domains in our societal structure. It is one of the most significant ingredients in upholding and maintaining equilibrium in the whole of humanity's rights to personal freedom.
Without 'Privacy' , chaos is inevitable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Are you a visionary? McKennitt would not care less about any other person's privacy except her own. Your cause may seem valid but wake up. She wouldn't give you the time of day. She has won her case and that is all what mattered to her.
Jeanne here, again. I wish my Google ID and password would 'work' so I'd be able to post comments under something other than 'anonymous'; unfortunately, it does not.
Randy, I guess I thought the reason for this blog being opened in the first place was to address issues of 'privacy vs non-privacy' in general, and was in no way to be restricted to McKennitt vs Ash any longer, seeing as how the case was already concluded October 4th.
I was under the impression that Shan-Lyn wished to leave the subject matter open not so people could continue voicing opinions concerning Loreena and Niema's long 'battle', but so they might continue any desired discussions of privacy/non-privacy as it relates to everyone in general.
Sometimes, there can be much more to what may at first appear obvious, than what might immediately greet the observing eye. Or so it seems to me.
Anonymous-Jeanne, first off you don't need a Google ID and password to include your name. The option of 'Other' serves just as well with your name. I take it the word 'Anonymous' would ring the proverbial bell of 'Private' for you.
Let's talk about privacy. I don't know how the McKennitt vs Ash case can signify any correlation to 'Privacy' or even 'Non-Privacy'. Do you really think that McKennitt could have set an example for 'Privacy' when all she really wanted was people waving banners for her? Do really believe that the censorship of McKennitt taking an aspirin would make any difference? How humiliating for McKennitt. Millions of people take aspirins with water in their public offices every day and this is private?
Maybe we should first understand what the word private really means.
Personally I don't think there is a lot of interest generated either here or on the QR forum because I think in some ways, people see the celebrity privacy issue as something that doesn't affect them. Hollywood is thousands of miles away, and while it may be salacious what Paris Hilton or Britney Spears is doing this week, it's not really going to impact our lives as say online hackers or even regular online stores who can track movements of where people go online and what sites they visit. Even some seemingly "helpful" scripts on websites that "remember" who you are and what you like and what you should prefer (a la Amazon's "if you liked this... lists that pop up when you click on a book or CD) mean that you are not anonymous. All your personal info is stored online, even if you don't know, and given enough anyone can search anything on you all you want.
I could go on, but to say that civilians are leading private lives is a sham.
Thank you, Randy, for suggesting I chose 'anonymous' because I thought it'd ring some proverbial 'Private' bell for me. That is actually quite funny, since I did include a first name in my 'anonymous' post; I just now did figure out how to make the 'Other' identity selection work, by the way. Sorry, for not yet being so computer-savvy as most others seem to be. Attempting to make a blog comment was a brand-new concept, for me.
What you have apparently suggested in your first comment under this topic doesn't appear to ring quite true. Loreena has rather taken on the whole 'privacy vs non-privacy' issue as a major 'cause', hasn't she? I can recall her posting some scathing personal comments awhile back, concerning an article which came out in a Canadian newspaper I think it was, about the doctor over in Iraq (or was it elsewhere--if not Iraq, then I apologize for my memory slip) who was tortured, then murdered, because the story was written up in all its gory detail and published for the public to read with no permission asked of the man's family beforehand. She felt this was very wrong of the journalist to have put such an obviously intrusive, even salacious, article out in print without prior family notification, and she sure did tell him off about it!
I read that article, and also the comments posted about it, including hers. I believe I can understand why that journalist may have felt it 'important' to put into print some non-sanitized facts of what is 'really going on' in the so-called 'war on terrorism' but, I can also easily understand why someone with Loreena's sensitivities concerning 'privacy' in general would jump in to defend that privacy position. She has the same right to her own opinion on that matter as all the rest of us do.
I am not trying to be controversial or snippy or 'start something' with you, I thought you might not be so aware of Loreena's apparent dedication to this entire privacy matter. It appears she does care a good deal about others' privacy issues after all, not merely her own; that was the point I hoped to make.
Other than that, I think Angie made some valid comments, regarding how 'non-anonymous' all of us really are. If we are basically 'unknowns' in the world, it's bad enough that Big Brother has so many means of intruding into our little lives, but for anyone with even a modicum of 'celebrity status', whether that status is desired or not, privacy even to the point of secrecy at times becomes necessary simply for the sake of security, and personal safety.
What we plant today affects tomorrow so I can see where the author of this blog is heading. Loreena McKennitt perhaps unknowingly opened up a whole new area affecting other branches on the tree if metaphors are permitted. We see examples of "privacy invasion" everywhere we turn in our so-called democracies. I could easily cite examples. It would be ignorant to believe that issues of privacy are limited only to celebrities. We do live on a circular ball. I'm glad these issues are being brought out to light.
It's clear that the 'privacy vs non-privacy' is a spin-off from the McKennitt vs Ash case but I'm glad that the author is seeing the "big picture" in this.
Jeanne: You hit a large percentage with 'Big Brother'. Big Brother has definitely dipped its finger in the pie for way too long.
Jason McDougall: I couldn't agree more.
So much for privacy. My hat goes off to Angie Johnson who said it quite well. Our personal info can be found by anyone if they truly want it so this leads me to my first post. McKennitt only cares for McKennitt.
Randy -
With a bit of common sense, you should naturally realize that 'our personal info' (to quote you) cannot be found by just anyone if we take the measures to keep our lives private. And if it is as such - according to what you've stipulated - that our personal lives can be trailed, stalked and abused at anyone's convenience, then there are legalities that do uphold a system of justice which will render equilibrium as needed. Point blank: Individuals are allowed their privacy.
If I may conjecture, perhaps your own privacy has become violated and you have become disillusioned by a system that served you no justice? I will never say that a system of justice is perfect, and I do not say these words lightly but with much experience as I did work for the authorities at one time, and if there's anything I do understand is that privacy is not only an 'ethical right' but a 'legal right, as well.
On a personal note, I detect that you have some personal grievance with Loreena McKennitt, as you've stipulated that she only thinks for herself. This is a very prejudicial comment on your part with no justifiable validity.
You may perhaps think your end comment has brought this discussion 'round circle' and think it to be 'closed', in attempting to justify your very first preliminary comment, but we both know the issue of privacy runs much deeper, now don't we.
Legal? Define legal. That's right. Our personal lives can be trailed, stalked and abused at anyone's convenience [to quote you] because legality permits it. I guess you never heard of the FOIA. You're a guppy trying to swim up a waterfall. Loreena McKennitt wouldn't care less with case having been won. Poor example. Today is a whole different ball game. Anything can be known to anyone. I do admire your crusade but get up to speed to the present.
Dear Carl,
The FOIA doesn't give as much information as one previously use to believe. People have complained so much that new by-laws have been instituted. I do not think that the McKennitt Vs Ash situation is a poor example. I think the blog owner was very astute in using this case as an example. Ms. McKennitt punched a crack in the wall and the blog owner took courage to continue the work. In another post which I answered to on this site I think this person has walked forward with much courage. We need to be reminded that privacy is our right and not to lose faith.
Privacy is our right but we must not be naive. The majority of the population have become disillusioned and given in that privacy can easily be done away with. Everywhere we go we see people invading another person's privacy and this has become such a common trend that anyone that complains about any privacy right is automatically considered unrealistic. Nobody really cares to fight for this. Loreena McKennitt is one of the lucky few who got away in the millions of cases that don't get away in winning for their privacy rights. Her lawyers knew the timing. Don't get me wrong because I have nothing against this woman. She had three factors going for her: 1. Money 2. Good lawyers 3. The right country.
I don't think she would have won her case in the U.S. or even her home country, Canada. I think she knew this. It was a landmark victory for her and maybe it was meant to happen so the issues on privacy could be surfaced. Face it, privacy is not an issue in the U.S. or Canada because people have adapted to the very simple complaints that Ms. McKennitt made such a fuss about. Morally, we all know that we're entitled privacy but it's just not today's reality.
Dear Jeff McKnight - Your statement, 'The majority of the population have become disillusioned and given in that privacy can easily be done away with', is very strong. It is like a wail that people do want their privacy but just don't know how to attain it anymore. Indeed, has it come to this?
It is not unrealistic in demanding that our needs for privacy be adhered to. Actually, it's a necessity!
I'm certainly an advocate of privacy, and in a way, as far back as I can remember I have always been this way. In my ongoing struggles, I have come across many people in our world that agree that privacy is essential for the overall well-being of a person's healthy existence. It is right, and it is a necessity.
I would not be too quick to judge Loreena McKennitt as 'one of the lucky few'. Many individuals in our society are finally waking up to the realization that 'privacy' has to be re-instilled if we're not to lose complete sight of our God-given rights.
Granted, Loreena McKennitt did have the money to fight this case, as destiny would have it, and Carter-Ruck have certainly made a name for themselves in the winning of this case, but the country was not really Ms. McKennitt's choice as the violations began in England, therefore had to be settled in England, so how you came up with 'the right country' is beyond me.
Given the circumstances, I think Ms. McKennitt would have won this case in any part of the world.
Another point to establish is that more and more, the U.S. and Canada are becoming more conscientious of the fact as to how significant the need for privacy really is becoming, as you yourself have even stipulated how 'disillioned' people are becoming due to the lack of privacy.
Fighting for privacy has become today's reality. Because it's been pushed to the point of necessity.
I liked the say you said "Without 'Privacy' , chaos is inevitable."
Is it any wonder why our world is in such a state? When I really think of it, it's all because everyone wants to know about what everyone else is doing. That's alright to do when there is consent. The problem is that people don't always wait for the consent. I think our world is in a "privacy crisis"! Glad someone started a blog on this that I happened upon. 5 stars.
Patricia I agree with you. It is true that everyone wants to know about everyone else, from corporate businesses, to snoopy neighbors, to our information being harvested...where is the line drawn? How can we protect ourselves? Everything is so out of control. We ARE in a privacy crisis! Thank you for letting me vent.
This is the reason why people build fences around their homes.
With guard dogs.
Post a Comment