Answer

@jayrosen_nyu

Jeff and I both think there should be a public zone and a private zone, but I favor a much greater separation of the public and private than Jeff does. He's writing a book called "Public Parts," which will show the various ways in which we gain by making our lives public. I believe he will also be arguing that so-called privacy advocates are often given too much weight in debates about the right mix of public and private. That may shed some light on why he thinks the criticisms of the TSA are overblown.

Jeff has also written about how his experiences on Sep. 11, 2001 changed him, and possibly this is a factor in his calm acceptance of what the government is doing to protect the traveling public against further attacks. I emphasize "possibly."

My own philosophy--and personal preference--is for a strict separation of public and private. I think this is necessary for human dignity and civil liberty, but also because the public realm cannot operate well if it commingled too easily with the private and intimate spheres. My guide here is not the ACLU but Hannah Arendt. So I'm very concerned with what is properly public, and what is properly private.

Witness my very carefully observed distinction between mindcasting and lifecasting on Twitter. As I've said before, my goal on Twitter is a feed that's 100 percent personal and zero percent private. Personal in the sense that it reflects my own sensibility and take on things in the public spaces--journalism, new media--that I monitor.

It would be unimaginable for me to talk about my surgery, for example. Whereas for Jeff this has become how he operates in public. These differences must have something to do with our divergent reactions to the TSA mess.

John Dewey once said something to the effect that an academic's goal is not to be intelligent about public affairs from on high but to try to realize a more intelligent state of affairs within the public sphere itself. Airport security is an extremely un-intelligent state of affairs, and this pisses me off. You could almost say the stupidity of it offends me.

Notice, for example, how the TSA was insisting on sending pilots through the body scanners before widespread ridicule forced them to back off. I cannot stand having an openly stupid government. This too helps explain my reaction.

Finally, when it comes to the press I am very wary of journalists who claim the position of adulthood in comparison to a childlike and immature public or deluded activists who don't know how things work in the real world.

I look forward to Jeff's response.

Update: Jeff's reply is here

2 revisions

Jeff and I both think there should be a public zone and a private zone, but I favor a much greater separation of the public and private than Jeff does. He's writing a book called "Public Parts," which will show the various ways in which we gain by making our lives public. I believe he will also be arguing that so-called privacy advocates are often given too much weight in debates about the right mix of public and private. That may shed some light on why he thinks the criticisms of the TSA are overblown.

Jeff has also written about how his experiences on Sep. 11, 2001 changed him, and possibly this is a factor in his calm acceptance of what the government is doing to protect the traveling public against further attacks. I emphasize "possibly."

My own philosophy--and personal preference--is for a strict separation of public and private. I think this is necessary for human dignity and civil liberty, but also because the public realm cannot operate well if it commingled too easily with the private and intimate spheres. My guide here is not the ACLU but Hannah Arendt. So I'm very concerned with what is properly public, and what is properly private.

Witness my very carefully observed distinction between mindcasting and lifecasting on Twitter. As I've said before, my goal on Twitter is a feed that's 100 percent personal and zero percent private. Personal in the sense that it reflects my own sensibility and take on things in the public spaces--journalism, new media--that I monitor.

It would be unimaginable for me to talk about my surgery, for example. Whereas for Jeff this has become how he operates in public. These differences must have something to do with our divergent reactions to the TSA mess.

John Dewey once said something to the effect that an academic's goal is not to be intelligent about public affairs from on high but to try to realize a more intelligent state of affairs within the public sphere itself. Airport security is an extremely un-intelligent state of affairs, and this pisses me off. You could almost say the stupidity of it offends me.

Notice, for example, how the TSA was insisting on sending pilots through the body scanners before widespread ridicule forced them to back off. I cannot stand having an openly stupid government. This too helps explain my reaction.

Finally, when it comes to the press I am very wary of journalists who claim the position of adulthood in comparison to a childlike and immature public or deluded activists who don't know how things work in the real world.

I look forward to Jeff's response.
2 days ago
Jeff and I both think there should be a public zone and a private zone, but I favor a much greater separation of the public and private than Jeff does. He's writing a book called "Public Parts," which will show the various ways in which we gain by making our lives public. I believe he will also be arguing that so-called privacy advocates are often given too much weight in debates about the right mix of public and private. That may shed some light on why he thinks the criticisms of the TSA are overblown.

Jeff has also written about how his experiences on Sep. 11, 2001 changed him, and possibly this is a factor in his calm acceptance of what the government is doing to protect the traveling public against further attacks. I emphasize "possibly."

My own philosophy--and personal preference--is for a strict separation of public and private. I think this is necessary for human dignity and civil liberty, but also because the public realm cannot operate well if it commingled too easily with the private and intimate spheres. My guide here is not the ACLU but Hannah Arendt. So I'm very concerned with what is properly public, and what is properly private.

Witness my very carefully observed distinction between mindcasting and lifecasting on Twitter. As I've said before, my goal on Twitter is a feed that's 100 percent personal and zero percent private. Personal in the sense that it reflects my own sensibility and take on things in the public spaces--journalism, new media--that I monitor.

It would be unimaginable for me to talk about my surgery, for example. Whereas for Jeff this has become how he operates in public. These differences much have something to do with our divergent reactions to the TSA mess.

John Dewey once said something to the effect that an academic's goal is not to be intelligent about public affairs to try to realize a more intelligent state of affairs within the public sphere itself. Airport security is an extremely unintelligent state of affairs, and this pisses me off. You could almost say the stupidity of it offends me.

Notice, for example, how the TSA was insisting on sending pilots through the body scanners before widespread ridicule forced them to back off. I cannot stand having an openly stupid government. This too helps explain my reaction.

Finally, when it comes to the press I am very wary of journalists who claim the position of adulthood in comparison to a childlike and immature public, or deluded activists who don't know how things work in the real world.

I look forward to Jeff's response.
2 days ago
revised this answer 2 days ago (history)