http://techliberation.com/2009/01/28/publicacy-how-about-publicity/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://techliberation.com/2009/01/28/publicacy-how-about-publicity/comment-page-1/#comment-67867 The NewsHour on Neutrality Regulation Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:37:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16075#comment-67867 <p>[...] sometimes enjoy picking nits with or lampooning our friend Scott Cleland, but today write to point out what an excellent job he [...]</p> [...] sometimes enjoy picking nits with or lampooning our friend Scott Cleland, but today write to point out what an excellent job he [...]

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/01/28/publicacy-how-about-publicity/comment-page-1/#comment-66044 publicity - StartTags.com Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:01:00 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16075#comment-66044 <p>[...] ... http://events.linkedin.com/Harnessing-Power-Web-Publicity-Business/pub/50602 ...Publicacy? How About Publicity? Technology Liberation FrontThe first is semantic: I think the word he should use is publicity. ... Privacy and publicity are [...]</p> [...] … http://events.linkedin.com/Harnessing-Power-Web-Publicity-Business/pub/50602 …Publicacy? How About Publicity? Technology Liberation FrontThe first is semantic: I think the word he should use is publicity. … Privacy and publicity are [...]

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/01/28/publicacy-how-about-publicity/comment-page-1/#comment-65780 Scott Cleland Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:56:25 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16075#comment-65780 <p>Jim, <br>As you know I have been called worse -- than being interesting. And thanks for your thoughtful and interesting take as well. <br>My piece was thought-provoking by design. <br>There is no antonym for privacy ,and the antonym for publicity is "secret", not private/privacy. Secrecy is more active and can suggest people are hiding something -- privacy is more passive -- it is a sense that people would rather not have others invading what they would not like invaded like personal space or what is really no one else's business. <br>In proposing a new antonym for privacy -- i.e."publicacy" I wanted to capture those who for one reason or another are indeed hostile to the traditional concept of privacy. <br>My point is that there is a set of interests that are indeed hostile to traditional privacy because it interferes with how they believe the world/Internet should work. <br>My other point is that these publicacy interests will naturally encounter increasing pushback as technology puts more pressure on people's expecation and desire for some of there information to be private. <br>I must challenge your analogy that because someone walks down the street they can't expect privacy, or if someone has wants to have a web address they can't have privacy because the fact is that people who walk down the street and use the Internet -- still do expect privacy -- even if some don't think they should think that way. .<br>There will be increasing privacy/publicacy tension because people don't always want what technology can deliver... Just because its technology does not make it good ... or bad.<br>The ultimate irony of the new word "publicacy" may turn out to be that the people who oppose a traditional concept of privacy -- would rather not be called out on that fact -- they would like to remain -- private...<br>Best<br>Scott Cleland</p> Jim,
As you know I have been called worse — than being interesting. And thanks for your thoughtful and interesting take as well.
My piece was thought-provoking by design.
There is no antonym for privacy ,and the antonym for publicity is “secret”, not private/privacy. Secrecy is more active and can suggest people are hiding something — privacy is more passive — it is a sense that people would rather not have others invading what they would not like invaded like personal space or what is really no one else's business.
In proposing a new antonym for privacy — i.e.”publicacy” I wanted to capture those who for one reason or another are indeed hostile to the traditional concept of privacy.
My point is that there is a set of interests that are indeed hostile to traditional privacy because it interferes with how they believe the world/Internet should work.
My other point is that these publicacy interests will naturally encounter increasing pushback as technology puts more pressure on people's expecation and desire for some of there information to be private.
I must challenge your analogy that because someone walks down the street they can't expect privacy, or if someone has wants to have a web address they can't have privacy because the fact is that people who walk down the street and use the Internet — still do expect privacy — even if some don't think they should think that way. .
There will be increasing privacy/publicacy tension because people don't always want what technology can deliver… Just because its technology does not make it good … or bad.
The ultimate irony of the new word “publicacy” may turn out to be that the people who oppose a traditional concept of privacy — would rather not be called out on that fact — they would like to remain — private…
Best
Scott Cleland

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/01/28/publicacy-how-about-publicity/comment-page-1/#comment-61847 Scott Cleland Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:56:25 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16075#comment-61847 <p>Jim, <br>As you know I have been called worse -- than being interesting. And thanks for your thoughtful and interesting take as well. <br>My piece was thought-provoking by design. <br>There is no antonym for privacy ,and the antonym for publicity is "secret", not private/privacy. Secrecy is more active and can suggest people are hiding something -- privacy is more passive -- it is a sense that people would rather not have others invading what they would not like invaded like personal space or what is really no one else's business. <br>In proposing a new antonym for privacy -- i.e."publicacy" I wanted to capture those who for one reason or another are indeed hostile to the traditional concept of privacy. <br>My point is that there is a set of interests that are indeed hostile to traditional privacy because it interferes with how they believe the world/Internet should work. <br>My other point is that these publicacy interests will naturally encounter increasing pushback as technology puts more pressure on people's expecation and desire for some of there information to be private. <br>I must challenge your analogy that because someone walks down the street they can't expect privacy, or if someone has wants to have a web address they can't have privacy because the fact is that people who walk down the street and use the Internet -- still do expect privacy -- even if some don't think they should think that way. .<br>There will be increasing privacy/publicacy tension because people don't always want what technology can deliver... Just because its technology does not make it good ... or bad.<br>The ultimate irony of the new word "publicacy" may turn out to be that the people who oppose a traditional concept of privacy -- would rather not be called out on that fact -- they would like to remain -- private...<br>Best<br>Scott Cleland</p> Jim,
As you know I have been called worse — than being interesting. And thanks for your thoughtful and interesting take as well.
My piece was thought-provoking by design.
There is no antonym for privacy ,and the antonym for publicity is “secret”, not private/privacy. Secrecy is more active and can suggest people are hiding something — privacy is more passive — it is a sense that people would rather not have others invading what they would not like invaded like personal space or what is really no one else's business.
In proposing a new antonym for privacy — i.e.”publicacy” I wanted to capture those who for one reason or another are indeed hostile to the traditional concept of privacy.
My point is that there is a set of interests that are indeed hostile to traditional privacy because it interferes with how they believe the world/Internet should work.
My other point is that these publicacy interests will naturally encounter increasing pushback as technology puts more pressure on people's expecation and desire for some of there information to be private.
I must challenge your analogy that because someone walks down the street they can't expect privacy, or if someone has wants to have a web address they can't have privacy because the fact is that people who walk down the street and use the Internet — still do expect privacy — even if some don't think they should think that way. .
There will be increasing privacy/publicacy tension because people don't always want what technology can deliver… Just because its technology does not make it good … or bad.
The ultimate irony of the new word “publicacy” may turn out to be that the people who oppose a traditional concept of privacy — would rather not be called out on that fact — they would like to remain — private…
Best
Scott Cleland

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/01/28/publicacy-how-about-publicity/comment-page-1/#comment-57745 Scott Cleland Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:56:25 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16075#comment-57745 <p>Jim, <br>As you know I have been called worse -- than being interesting. And thanks for your thoughtful and interesting take as well. <br>My piece was thought-provoking by design. <br>There is no antonym for privacy ,and the antonym for publicity is "secret", not private/privacy. Secrecy is more active and can suggest people are hiding something -- privacy is more passive -- it is a sense that people would rather not have others invading what they would not like invaded like personal space or what is really no one else's business. <br>In proposing a new antonym for privacy -- i.e."publicacy" I wanted to capture those who for one reason or another are indeed hostile to the traditional concept of privacy. <br>My point is that there is a set of interests that are indeed hostile to traditional privacy because it interferes with how they believe the world/Internet should work. <br>My other point is that these publicacy interests will naturally encounter increasing pushback as technology puts more pressure on people's expecation and desire for some of there information to be private. <br>I must challenge your analogy that because someone walks down the street they can't expect privacy, or if someone has wants to have a web address they can't have privacy because the fact is that people who walk down the street and use the Internet -- still do expect privacy -- even if some don't think they should think that way. .<br>There will be increasing privacy/publicacy tension because people don't always want what technology can deliver... Just because its technology does not make it good ... or bad.<br>The ultimate irony of the new word "publicacy" may turn out to be that the people who oppose a traditional concept of privacy -- would rather not be called out on that fact -- they would like to remain -- private...<br>Best<br>Scott Cleland</p> Jim,
As you know I have been called worse — than being interesting. And thanks for your thoughtful and interesting take as well.
My piece was thought-provoking by design.
There is no antonym for privacy ,and the antonym for publicity is “secret”, not private/privacy. Secrecy is more active and can suggest people are hiding something — privacy is more passive — it is a sense that people would rather not have others invading what they would not like invaded like personal space or what is really no one else's business.
In proposing a new antonym for privacy — i.e.”publicacy” I wanted to capture those who for one reason or another are indeed hostile to the traditional concept of privacy.
My point is that there is a set of interests that are indeed hostile to traditional privacy because it interferes with how they believe the world/Internet should work.
My other point is that these publicacy interests will naturally encounter increasing pushback as technology puts more pressure on people's expecation and desire for some of there information to be private.
I must challenge your analogy that because someone walks down the street they can't expect privacy, or if someone has wants to have a web address they can't have privacy because the fact is that people who walk down the street and use the Internet — still do expect privacy — even if some don't think they should think that way. .
There will be increasing privacy/publicacy tension because people don't always want what technology can deliver… Just because its technology does not make it good … or bad.
The ultimate irony of the new word “publicacy” may turn out to be that the people who oppose a traditional concept of privacy — would rather not be called out on that fact — they would like to remain — private…
Best
Scott Cleland

]]>