NewsWhore
05-18-2006, 04:10 PM
[/URL]
If you were sneaky, [URL=http://www.beautifultoxin.net]you caught me on cam (http://www.flickr.com/photos/24694837@N00/148862583/) this morning, performing for not just my trusty, shaky shaktiCam (much love for cast-off DV) but also for the San Francisco Chronicle's sake. The story is on surveillance, the NSA wiretapping, and auto-revelation of one's own "privacy" online.
You see how much respect I have for this notion of privacy? It's banished, banished to scare-quotes.
I love privacy. I do. She's a good friend of mine. But you, Internet, you know no "privacy." Just a collectively, though asymmetrically, produced network by which individuals and groups negotiate the release of secrets and lies.
Say it with me, kids: privacy is not a constant. You can't touch it. You can't grab it and call it yours. You have to build it.
Also: you can't build it alone.
May as well lay out your own rules yourself, before someone else entirely beats you to it. Get in the habit of showing something so you'll get to differentiate the "bad touch" from the good.
Actually, this really eerily dovetails with the 1980's conventional wisdom on how to "keep kids safe" -- don't actually do education around what is good about sex or -- for our purposes -- using the Net as a social and expressive tool -- just propagandize around the worst case scenario. Once you play with these tools (I nearly said engage, but, well...), that's when you get a sense of what works, and what feels like a real violation of safety or privacy, where things fall apart.
If you don't get to feel the pleasure potential, you risk passively taking on someone else's idea of what being made prey is.
That is, my exploitation is not your exploitation.
Link To Original Article (http://www.melissagira.com/mobwhorelog/surveillance_x3.html)
If you were sneaky, [URL=http://www.beautifultoxin.net]you caught me on cam (http://www.flickr.com/photos/24694837@N00/148862583/) this morning, performing for not just my trusty, shaky shaktiCam (much love for cast-off DV) but also for the San Francisco Chronicle's sake. The story is on surveillance, the NSA wiretapping, and auto-revelation of one's own "privacy" online.
You see how much respect I have for this notion of privacy? It's banished, banished to scare-quotes.
I love privacy. I do. She's a good friend of mine. But you, Internet, you know no "privacy." Just a collectively, though asymmetrically, produced network by which individuals and groups negotiate the release of secrets and lies.
Say it with me, kids: privacy is not a constant. You can't touch it. You can't grab it and call it yours. You have to build it.
Also: you can't build it alone.
May as well lay out your own rules yourself, before someone else entirely beats you to it. Get in the habit of showing something so you'll get to differentiate the "bad touch" from the good.
Actually, this really eerily dovetails with the 1980's conventional wisdom on how to "keep kids safe" -- don't actually do education around what is good about sex or -- for our purposes -- using the Net as a social and expressive tool -- just propagandize around the worst case scenario. Once you play with these tools (I nearly said engage, but, well...), that's when you get a sense of what works, and what feels like a real violation of safety or privacy, where things fall apart.
If you don't get to feel the pleasure potential, you risk passively taking on someone else's idea of what being made prey is.
That is, my exploitation is not your exploitation.
Link To Original Article (http://www.melissagira.com/mobwhorelog/surveillance_x3.html)