Brilliant stuff. Especially the first sentence: “If you can tear yourself away from Ryan Giggs' penis for just one moment, I have a different censorship story.” Since my research is about privacy, I should probably care, I suppose, about this Giggs business, but I’m afraid I don’t. I should probably explain why on my other blog, but I probably won’t.
Privacy in recent weeks has become a matter of what powerful people want to happen with their tawdry information. I will never be able to give the slightest fuck about that. Privacy is more complicated – and far more interesting – than that.
We spend privacy as a sort of agency of social capital on data and services we want to be integrated. The trick is knowing whether what we’ve spent is worth what we gained.
But back to the tediously silly Brain Gym. Ben writes:
This week I got an email from a science teacher about a 13-year-old pupil. Both have to remain anonymous. This pupil wrote an article about Brain Gym for her school paper, explaining why it's nonsense: the essay is respectful, straightforward, and factual. But the school decided they couldn't print it, because it would offend teachers in the junior school who use Brain Gym.
The child saw the bullshit and was discouraged from talking about it. This is a privacy issue, albeit in quite a complicated way.
For example:the child’s point was perfectly valid and wouldn’t have been dismissed so readily if from an adult. The association of age and statement with what was said and the actual outcome might well have been a violation of privacy. What did the person intend to happen? Did it work out as expected or spiral out of control?