Men and women understand different things about personal boundaries. What men call privacy, women know as secrecy.
For men, privacy means not being told stuff that would hurt. For women, secrecy is having stuff go on behind your back.
The public has a right to know what kind of monitoring the government is doing, and there should be a public discussion of the appropriate trade-offs between law enforcement and privacy rights.
A little-appreciated downside of the technology revolution is that, mainly without thinking about it, we have given up 'locational privacy.'
Serving up ads based on behavioral targeting can itself be an invasion of privacy, especially when the information used is personal.
We should craft our laws to allow images of criminal suspects to be captured in public - but also to make sure that the government does not unduly infringe on the privacy rights of innocent citizens.
DMs are a lot like email - and should have the same privacy protections as a mailed letter.
The government must give proper weight to both keeping America safe from terrorists and protecting Americans' privacy. But when Americans lack the most basic information about our domestic surveillance programs, they have no way of knowing whether we're getting that balance right. This lack of transparency is a big problem.
Google's screen for privacy settings does give you more options for what you share than Apple's does. But it's not a complete list, and people aren't aware of whether or not that information will go to a third party.
The institutions that we've built up over the years to protect our individual privacy rights from the government don't apply to the private sector. The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to corporations. The Freedom of Information Act doesn't apply to Silicon Valley. And you can't impeach Google if it breaks its 'Don't be evil' campaign pledge.
