Comments on: Privacy isn’t dead. It’s hiding. http://therestlessmind.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/privacy-isnt-dead-its-hiding/ Disambiguating the ambiguous Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:30:51 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: links for 2008-03-18 « Home is Where You Hang Your @ http://therestlessmind.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/privacy-isnt-dead-its-hiding/#comment-10 links for 2008-03-18 « Home is Where You Hang Your @ Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:21:51 +0000 http://therestlessmind.wordpress.com/?p=5#comment-10 [...] Privacy isn’t dead. It’s hiding. « The Restless Mind (tags: dunbar culture design conversations content community family identity interaction kids kinzin socialnetwork socialnetworks SocialSoftware society sociology web2.0) Posted in Uncategorized. [...] [...] Privacy isn’t dead. It’s hiding. « The Restless Mind (tags: dunbar culture design conversations content community family identity interaction kids kinzin socialnetwork socialnetworks SocialSoftware society sociology web2.0) Posted in Uncategorized. [...]

]]> By: mark2one http://therestlessmind.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/privacy-isnt-dead-its-hiding/#comment-6 mark2one Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:30:02 +0000 http://therestlessmind.wordpress.com/?p=5#comment-6 Michael: You're on track, though. You understand the crevices of the landscape. That makes the dialogue with your kids far more fluent, which in turn a) increases their trust in you, since you know what they know, and b) aware of your awareness, which (in a good way) is slightly intimidating. The real trouble arises when parents become overwhelmed by the grid. Once they back away it creates the moral equivalent of non-parenting which, at the wrong time or place, can be devastating. Services that, implicitly or explicitly, teach parents about the system as they use the system are a major opportunity for service designers. In fact, the whole family 2.0 space is underserved given its importance (which you know better than most ;-) Michael: You’re on track, though. You understand the crevices of the landscape. That makes the dialogue with your kids far more fluent, which in turn a) increases their trust in you, since you know what they know, and b) aware of your awareness, which (in a good way) is slightly intimidating.

The real trouble arises when parents become overwhelmed by the grid. Once they back away it creates the moral equivalent of non-parenting which, at the wrong time or place, can be devastating.

Services that, implicitly or explicitly, teach parents about the system as they use the system are a major opportunity for service designers. In fact, the whole family 2.0 space is underserved given its importance (which you know better than most ;-)

]]> By: fergusson http://therestlessmind.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/privacy-isnt-dead-its-hiding/#comment-5 fergusson Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:33:09 +0000 http://therestlessmind.wordpress.com/?p=5#comment-5 Great post, Mark. If you'll indulge a longer comment, I'd like to make an observation about why this is even harder than it seems. Real social networks have actual humans as the end points in the graph. Complicated, technology independent humans. I have dozens, perhaps even hundreds of social networks I participate in, and each one has its own complex rules of etiquette and privacy, even when the membership of the network is mostly or even completely the same. In fact, it's those rules that really define the network itself: the people I trust with my kids, the people I gossip with at work, or the group of cousins in my family that happen to be around the same age. Each of these is defined as much or more by what we do together (the "social grooming" as Robin Dunbar calls it), as by the membership, which may be mostly or even entirely the same. One reason for why these rules especially difficult to express in software is that these networks (especially the ones most established in my life) are typically multi-modal by nature. Take the network of "the people who love and care for my kids", as an example: some are in FB, some are email-only, and some (like my Gramma) offline entirely. We humans are very typically very good at picking up on and managing these social "rules", but often have difficulty migrating those rules to a new or unfamiliar modality of communication. Great post, Mark. If you’ll indulge a longer comment, I’d like to make an observation about why this is even harder than it seems. Real social networks have actual humans as the end points in the graph. Complicated, technology independent humans. I have dozens, perhaps even hundreds of social networks I participate in, and each one has its own complex rules of etiquette and privacy, even when the membership of the network is mostly or even completely the same. In fact, it’s those rules that really define the network itself: the people I trust with my kids, the people I gossip with at work, or the group of cousins in my family that happen to be around the same age. Each of these is defined as much or more by what we do together (the “social grooming” as Robin Dunbar calls it), as by the membership, which may be mostly or even entirely the same. One reason for why these rules especially difficult to express in software is that these networks (especially the ones most established in my life) are typically multi-modal by nature. Take the network of “the people who love and care for my kids”, as an example: some are in FB, some are email-only, and some (like my Gramma) offline entirely. We humans are very typically very good at picking up on and managing these social “rules”, but often have difficulty migrating those rules to a new or unfamiliar modality of communication.

]]>