Limits of Privacy in the Web 2.0 World

How concerned should we really be about posting our personal details on Facebook or on other social networking sites? Are we justified in feeling violated if any of these details are used against us, by others or governmental surveillance organizations?



What are the reasonable limits of self-expression in the Web 2.0 World?



Of course, one may say that – in voluntarily positing sensitive or personal information on a public forum – one has de facto abdicated one's claims to privacy, and that is is mad and naïve to think otherwise; but many of us – in reality – would be shocked to discover that our thoughts or opinions warrant criticism or censure.


Although there are many implications, it is my intention to consider one important question:
Is it legitimate to believe that our computer-mediated social networks as extensions of our own private spaces exist beyond the scope of external regulation?



It must be noted that our notion of "personal space" is a relatively recent notion in human history. Gaining momentum during the Age of Enlightenment in the 19th century (although articulated since Antiquity), philosophers advocated a notion of individual liberty that challenged traditional modes of social, economic and political organization and control. Initial proponents first supported guarantees of private property; but soon philosophers – like John Stuart Mill – articulated the ideology of cultural liberalism. For the first time, individual privacy, conscience and lifestyle choices (including sexual, religious and intellectual freedom) were beyond the scope of governmental intrusion and regulation, and, importantly, became legal rights protected by national constitutions.



What then if we choose to present ourselves publicly? Are our opinions and idiosyncracies entitled to the same degree of protection? Although the great 18th century British philosopher J.S. Mill underlined the importance of individual self-preservation in his seminal treatise On Liberty (1859) – that is: "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection" – he importantly noted that,

the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

He adds: "His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."



And, in the Age of Web 2.o, who – or what – defines what is harmful to others?