-
necessary article about why privacy matters. struck by how privacy is so often associated with the 'vulnerable' people who have a good case to 'hide' something. That can't be right. It is integral to identity. just like without freedom there is no morality, without privacy there is no identity. Annotated link http://www.diigo.com/bookmark/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.readwriteweb.com%2Farchives%2Fwhy_facebook_is_wrong_about_privacy.php
-
a bit vague but certainly the right direction. now only to come up with a viable alternative.
-
simply amazing
-
Go google! that's the kind of thing i'd like to hear from any company doing business with China.
- Author: Adriana
- Published: Jan 13th, 2010
- Category: Reading & Bookmarks
- Comments: 4
第三天：google将从“中国四大发明”学“道”？ | 文通博客
on Jan 14th, 2010
@ 5:49 am:
[...] Posted by kaise at 12:04 links for 2010-01-13 « Media Influencer [...]
Chris Mowles
on Jan 14th, 2010
@ 11:22 am:
So what was vague about it, and why does a critique also need to come up with a viable alternative?
Chris
Adriana
on Jan 14th, 2010
@ 20:09 pm:
Oh, _I_ am interested in coming up with an alternative – not the critique! It’s a review of a book, which sounds interesting, not a solution to the world’s problems!
I have been thinking about disruption and organisational systems for some time and am frustrated with the existing corporate structures and practices.
If you want to know more about my position and why I said it was vague because it doesn’t say which direction to look at – I think it needs to the individual and his autonomy vis-a-vis system.
For more see here: http://www.mediainfluencer.net/writings/
Chris Mowles
on Jan 15th, 2010
@ 21:07 pm:
You talk about ‘the system’ as though it were separate from the people who participate in it, like some kind of metaphysical force. Without the people, there is no ’system’. The individual contributes to the ’system’ and is formed by it both at the same time. We are constrained by others and dependent on them at the same time.
It is difficult to understand what your philosophical position is, but it appears as though you think individuals can act and exist independent of other people. This form of thinking is only possible in the late 20th/early 21st C because we are convinced that somehow we are separate individuals.
The question remains how we can participate with others to create better ’systems’ which affect us all. there is no stepping outside, and little point in complaining without acting.
Chris