So I was not sure I disagreed, but now I think I do. I don't think we can dodge the terminology bullet. To use the language we used in class, we may differentiate between secrecy (people knowing the substance of what you are doing; what Dana is calling privacy) and anonymity (people connecting you with your actions). To use class terminology, these are both components of what we call privacy.

I think my problem is with the fundamental assertion that city life fosters more indifference or acceptance of loss of privacy and identity. As Justin implied, in a small town, you lose your anonymity, and so secrecy becomes more important. In the city (accepting Dana's argument), this balance seems to reverse. If we may make the assumption that modern data aggregation techniques strip both your secrecy (where you go, what you buy) and your anonymity, I don't see why the city would necessarily foster more indifference towards loss of privacy. In the big city, you assume you have anonymity, which is easily stripped from you. In the country, you treasure your secrecy, which again may be easily taken away. Both are fallacies: they are just fallacies of a different kind.

It is certainly true that there may be less opportunity to lose ones privacy in the small town than there is the city; if you are fishing and killing deer, it is less essential that you deal with the web of technology that allows tracking and aggregation of identity. I would also expect that there be less surveillance infrastructure in small towns (with the notable exception of Walmart). While the existence of the threat may be diminished, I am not convinced that the attitudes are inherently less problematic. I certainly think it may be easier to see the risks posed by loss of secrecy than the risks posed by loss of anonymity: every EULA on the internet is a testament to loss of secrecy, while few people know how often google follows them home. This would not be a point about how attitudes towards privacy were strengthened by self reliance, but rather a point about how the dangers people look for are different, and about how one may be more apparent given the structure of surveillance and the internet.

I hope this was at least a little clear, and I am sorry it was so long.

-- TheodoreSmith - 22 Feb 2009