2009 Privacy Putz of Year Award

In the tradition of the year–end custom of awarding something or someone with a “Best of” award for outstanding achievement in a particular category, I have decided to do the same with the area of privacy – with a bit of a twist. We constantly hear about of our loss of privacy as one of the chief byproducts of our interconnected, always-on world, and how we are barely grasping to what’s left of the shredded veil of secrecy behind which we were so used to hiding. I thought it would be more interesting to award the one person who has done the most to willingly obliterate his or her right of privacy.



So, welcome to the 1st annual ‘Privacy Putz of the Year’ award. Unlike the complexity of trying to choose who has done the most to advance the interests of privacy and security in our culture and day-to-day lives, it was comparatively simple this year to highlight the individuals who have done the complete opposite of what makes sense as it relates to try and maintain one’s anonymity and low-profile in this quasi-Orwellian world of me, me, me on the Web and TV.


For this year’s inaugural award, I decided to forgo the obvious, the deluded attention-seekers who were purposely willing to give their privacy away for a small taste of the nectar of fame. It would have been too easy, for example, to choose one of the three top higher-profile candidates: first, Nadya Suleman, the so called “Octo-mom”. This is the lady who recently produced a set of octuplets and then signed on to her own reality show so we could all voyeuristically enjoy another person taking care of their kids, only in this case it was 14 of them at the same time time. What was more interesting about Suleman, however, was that the world soon found out that this 33-year-old single mother already had six children who were born, just like the octuplets, through in vitro fertilization. (Six isn’t enough?!)


The second candidates I quickly discounted were the White House party crashers, Tareq and Michaele Salahi, I spoke about in my last blog who must have been shocked, shocked I say! that their personal lives would be so scrutinized after this little misdeed of theirs. However, to their credit, the Salahis did organize their Facebook page very nicely, fully detailing every person and dignitary they met that night, with glossy color photos in case the Secret Service didn’t know where to look for evidence of the security breach.


Finally, the last obvious candidate that was too easy to ignore was the pair of Kate and Jon Gosselin. These two have been so overexposed in the media and their story has been so hashed and rehashed that it warrants no further comment from me. They have reaped the wind; so let them now sow the whirlwind.


As for the viable candidates, First Runner up to the Privacy Putz award goes to one Craig Lynch, a 28 year-old prison escapee from Suffolk, England, who escaped from prison back in September but has not been content to just keep the low-profile of your average bloke who manages to make it over the prison wall, but has continued to update his Facebook status regularly - describing everything from what he had for dinner to who his next girlfriend in the New Year might be. This might be the digital version of the trail of popcorn…


But the real winner of the Privacy Putz Award for 2009 goes to the one individual who in my opinion did the most harm to her own privacy, the most to undermine her overall well being and anonymity, and that person was one Natalie Blanchard, an IBM employee from Quebec. Ms. Blanchard was out of work on long-term disability for depression for 18 months when suddenly her insurance company, Manulife, immediately terminated her monthly payments. How was it that the company came to such a definitive diagnosis of Ms. Blanchard’s ostensibly legitimate condition? A psychological examination? A thorough medical evaluation? Rock, paper, scisssors? Nope. Ms. Blanchard, actually, was apparently only too eager to assist the company in its conclusive diagnosis of her remarkable recovery from major depression.

Blanchard undermined her own case by posting certain pictures and status updates of herself on her Facebook page. What’s wrong with that, you ask? Well, in the past 18 months while she was “recovering,” a series of pictures she posted on her Facebook page show her taking the time-tested remedy for depression by attending a Chippendale’s male strip show while on vacation. Other pictures showed Blanchard at bars, beaches, and on three other 4-day holiday trips, which were recommended by her psychologist all the while collecting the benefits from her job at IBM. A Facebook status message said that she had climbed a mountain recently, as well. You go, girl.

It appears that her privacy settings, or lack thereof, on her Facebook page allowed either someone from her company or someone from the insurance company to view her tell-tale postings, because when she eventually called the insurance company to inquire why her payments had abruptly ceased, the reason given was that according to the photos and postings on her Facebook page, Blanchard was apparently no longer depressed! Wow! Manulife was able to diagnosis Ms. Blanchard essentially through hearsay, assumption and innuendo all from the comfort of the office PC. One small step for psychology; one giant leap for Manulife. Case closed. It’s a Holiday miracle.

Congratulations to Natalie Blanchard for the 2009 Privacy Putz of the Year award. Well deserved.

As I attempt to emphasize in every blog post here, we now live in a post-privacy world, devoid of the traditional trappings of common sense, guilt, shame and discretion. Using tools like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and even blogs like this puts your life, opinion, ideology and in some cases private life right out on the web for all to see, and see it forever.

Just think, the world used to be your oyster; now it is your fishbowl.

Happy New Year.

The Paradox of Privacy - Part III, The Exciting Conclusion

I hadn't intended this piece to run beyond one part, let alone two, but there are just too many interesting things to discuss about who the biggest threat to your privacy is…


I want to discuss the recent event of the two publicity seekers who crashed the White House state dinner last month. Their obvious desperate need for attention and B-List fame reflects what Andy Warhol said about everyone: we all want 15 minutes in the spotlight. Some get it. But at what cost? What the party-crashing couple is now finding out about the dark side is fame (even fleeting, undeserved fame like theirs) is what the first casualty always is: privacy.

Because these two miscreants put themselves in the spotlight willingly, it is obvious that the last thing they wanted from the experience is anonymity. What they are now and will experience a hundredfold more is the degree to which the blogosphere will go to turn over every stone and look for every skeleton in every closet to attempt to (rightfully) embarrass these two. What they will find is that they have awakened a sleeping giant of spite and vindictiveness that will rain down all hell upon them. You can see it already occurring by the revelations that the couple is involved in a plethora of lawsuits, bankruptcies and intra-family fighting.

Why? I believe primarily that Americans are easy lot to entertain and amuse - American Idol, People Magazine, NASCAR don't require much brain matter to process - but the one thing we demand is that our 'celebrities' bring something to the table. Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods and Oprah are famous for a reason - talent. Talent is their currency and we exchange it for fame and adoration. We realize at some level that we cannot easily be like them because they are 'better' then us in some unique way. The couple that crashed the White House is not better than us in any way; we resent their pretentiousness and base arrogance that is offset with nothing in return - it is a classic bait and switch. That they could crash the White House party - okay, good trick - but what do we get in return? A vacuum. Luciano Pavarotti could be arrogant; Bill Gates can be arrogant; Dr. J can be arrogant, he was after all one of the greatest basketball players that ever lived. These two, however, deserve what they get.

Most of only give up our privacy piecemeal – a bit here for some small convenience, a bit there for a 25% off coupon, etc. This couple relinquished their personal privacy wholesale with this selfish and thoughtless antic. Who will they have to blame for the sudden and very public loss of privacy? Who else? Themselves. I hope it was worth it.