I think you have addressed the matter of privacy before in this blog. Maybe yes;maybe no. In either case, I have said privacy is dead. Even wrote an essay about that. Rights? What are those, in a world where natural selection rules. Your previous, regarding democracy is just another tile in the mosaic. Bill of Rights; Ten Commandments---these tenets and many others are merely contrivances, designed to coerce humans into behaving correctly---equitably---ethically---morally, and most of all: persuading us, somehow, that it is not in our best interests to willy-nilly, kill each other. We ain't listening. Or, we could be listening, yet refusing to hear. Give a listen to the pop tune by Mike and The Mechanics: The Living Years---it says a lot in fewer than four minutes. To me, anyway.

Not said, how Facebook's sea change was not social networking per se - that was old - it was that its users began using their REAL NAMES. Consider Facebook's predecessor, MySpace, where users would create catchy handles, for example, 'CorgiFan'. That's way more under the radar, than say, Joan Smith on Facebook, where anyone can find her just by entering her name in the search. Interesting, no?

Where does the concept of personal privacy intersect with the idea of larger issues of social benefit, especially when there is a conflict between the two? One example of this is the use of surveillance cameras for public safety conflicting with the individual's anonymity.
However, this show brought up another interesting case. In the discussion of smart meters as an invasion of personal privacy, another side of this issue is the intent to optimize and reduce utility usage. And there is certainly a valid argument to be made that this is an issue of larger social need in terms of climate issues and energy independence. Individuals' energy usage habits impact everyone, so where does someone's right to privacy collide with another's right to live in a healthy environment?
In an example like this, is the real issue an insistence that an individual's right to privacy outweighs all of our rights to a decent environment? Or does this come back to fear of what might be done with the collected data outside of the context in which it is collected? And does that imply that the issue is not really an issue of privacy but rather of responsible use of private data?

One thing that was brushed aside, albeit i hope unintentionally, by one of your speakers, suggesting the need for agreement or consent (can't remember which term was used) to allowing otherwise-private information to be collected or stored indefinitely or shared with others, by non-governmental entities, was striking to me in that no one challenged it, & the speaker seemed to think that requiring "consent" or agreement to disclosure or indefinite storage is a solution.
Hasn't anyone noticed that virtually all corporations use "agreements" that the consumer MUST sign, to get any services or products. Thus, for example, proposing that google can't share its private information collected about you, without your agreement or consent, is a useless right these days! Have you read through the often-tedious, lengthy, & totally self-serving "agreements" corporations from banks to on-line services REQUIRE you to sign before you'll have access to ANYTHING. Have you ever tried to amend the contract or strike the term allowing them to do anything they want with the information they collect on you? Not likely!
These are what i learned in law school to be "adhesion contracts" (or, more formally, contracts of adhesion) -- contracts drafted solely by one side of the "bargain", for their purposes, allowing for no changes by the other party, so that one is forced to agree and has no bargaining power over the terms of the contract. Unfortunately, for anyone concerned with consumer rights, privacy rights, or any other individual rights, the courts have emasculated the doctrine of adhesion contracts (which were originally held to be unenforceable, since they are not real bargains at all, & the ability to bargain for each side's desired terms & to come to what has been traditionally been called, in law, "a meeting of the minds," is a sham). Now almost no contracts are held by courts to be adhesion contracts, no matter how overbearing, no matter that consumers have absolutely no ability to bargain over terms, no matter that consumers have absolutely no ability to refuse to agree to a specific term that is objectionable, such as giving up one's right to privacy.
I mention that because the emasculation of the doctrine that adhesion contracts are unenforceable means that the contracts we are required to agree to by virtually every provider of software, services, internet access, & our ability to save things on the internet or to post anything with an expectation of privacy, requires us to give up any such right. Under your speaker's apparently-progressive proposal, we can agree to give up a right to privacy of the information we, for example, post to facebook or store on the internet; however, the reality is that we must give up that right, to be able to use any of these services. Thus, despite what i trust was a well-meaning proposal, he has offered a right that we could probably never use in the real world!
Why bother proposing any such right, if the proposal allows corporations against which we need to enforce it can require us to "agree" to waive all our rights?

I think that searching in the constitution for a "right to privacy" is an example of the type of trap feared by some who opposed the Bill of Rights. The philosophical underpinning of the Constitution is the Social Contract: Rights are "endowed by the creator", not granted by the Constitution. The question should not be "where in the Constitution is there granted a Right of Privacy" but rather "where in the Constitution is there evidence that I gave up my Right of Privacy".
Deriving a power to "have a camera on every corner" from a power to "have a policeman on every corner" misses a key point. A human policeman will be forced by his/her own limitations to concentrate on being on the lookout for suspicious activities. The camera "captures all" and the record can be subsequently edited to take incidents out of context creating the appearance of suspicion where none existed. When governments or corporations have unlimited access to easily edited unlimited information we are no longer "secure". If this were not the case the phrase "witch hunt" would not have entered the vernacular.

Privacy on a tiny planet with 7 billion people,
Hmmm?
Hey, I got it, technology!
Its time you build us another room.
Room for privacy, and more room to grow.
=

Dear Fred:
I do not mean to be disrespectful, but---how would anyone KNOW you were building a suitcase nuke, unless someone was watching (somehow), or unless you were bragging about it? Privacy, if it ever existed at all, is/was elemental. Not relative. Not contingent. Monkeys care little for privacy, in any elemental sense. Whether they care about human interference, if true, seems our fault not theirs. Tool usage takes time---lots of it. We now know that certain primates and birds have dabbled, and succeeded. Van Pelt, Neuman and others have figured out that privacy is now irrelevent. But, here it is---in case you have not paid attention: we have, willy-nilly,given our permission to have our privacy removed. There are several combinatory influences, which are inextricable. Popular culture, which we worship. Information Technology, which we cannot live without (Intel; Microsoft; Apple and others have ensured this...), and our insatiable desire for "quick and easy"---re-inforced by the first two categories mentioned.
There is a lot of real money being stolen by our twenty-first century economy. And most of those losing the cash don't even get the fact that they are being fleeced. Keeping up appearances, and all...

I just listened to this show and one point that was not brought up is the fact of personal choice to divulge privacy. As an avid user of the internet, and prior to its rise, electronic bulletin board systems, i have a long standing experience with online personal information sharing. Currently, i am a user of several nline services but am choosing to pull myself away from many of these services.
In my opinion, people need to take responsibility for their own choice to allow personal infomation to be shared online. Suring this show, there was a comment about how we can protect our privacy with online diaries. The fact is that you cannot. Period. If you want a private diary, you can choose to use a pencil and paper. They both still exist. Typewriters are another option as is a computer not attached to any network.
Further, if i dont want my 537 friends on facebook to know anything about me, i should delete my account. There is no law that forces us to use online services such as facebook, or web-vased email services. If you want good email privacy, use a pop-based email client with a PGP interface,
My point is that we can still choose our own levels of privacy within the law. I choose to live off grid in a home heated by firewood. I have no land line and use a google phone number as an interface to a variety of pre-paid cell phones. I have no internet connection of my own. I do not carry a cell phone with a gps. I drive an 84 VW withh nop lojack system, etc.
Managing our privacy can be our own responsibility to a large degree.