Editor-At-Large: Privacy is down the YouTube and real friends are history
Teenagers weaned on the instant gratification of the internet do not understand the dangers that lurk in its virtual world
Sunday, 6 July 2008
Funny how we worry about ID cards, CCTV cameras and erosion of our privacy, and yet we spend hours logging on to the internet without a care.
I loathe the idea of the Government storing my personal details on some bound-to-fail computer system and I baulk at the amount of personal information handed over to American immigration every time a British citizen visits the US.
Now, a court ruling in the US means that any shred of privacy you thought you had on the internet will be violated too. Google, which owns YouTube, has just been ordered to hand over the details of 100 million people who logged on to the video site, many of whom are British citizens.
Google is currently locked in battle with the communications company Viacom, which claims that millions of hours of unauthorised clips are watched on YouTube, so infringing its copyright and depriving it of valuable income. The details it wants include users' names, email addresses and details of the clips they viewed. All of which leads to the question, should we expect the same standards of privacy on the internet as we do in the real world?
My anxieties are probably not shared by the younger generation who are the prime users of sites such as YouTube. For them, this is the obvious way to conduct their lives. But apart from loss of privacy, there's another aspect of the internet causing concern, and that is how prolonged use of social networking sites and chatrooms can affect the ability to make friends and communicate in the real world.
Last week, one of Britain's leading psychiatrists attracted attention when he claimed that the generation born after 1990, who were five or younger when the internet really took off, will find it harder to form lasting friendships than their parents did. The constant fast-paced interchange possible on the internet, where you can adopt another persona, can leave users feeling let down by the real world.
Studies in Australia and the US have shown that people who spend hours on the internet can end up lonely and with fewer real friends than those in previous generations. Although there's no hard evidence of an internet suicide pact among the 22 young people who have died in Bridgend recently, they all belong in this age range.
Fooling around on the internet and playing at being another person isn't harmful in itself – as long as you accept that, in the real world, it takes a lot more work to get on with people. Real friendships are ultimately far more valuable, but they take more effort than the click of a mouse to sustain.
Christie's revenge is a dish best served in court
I'm loving the soapy drama unfolding in New York, where one-time supermodel Christie Brinkley has insisted that her messy divorce from hubby number four, Peter Cook, is heard in open court.
She claims he spent £2,000 a month viewing internet porn, and instead of arguing over who keeps the wedding photos they are bickering over who gets which boat and custody of their daughter, the unfortunately named Sailor Lee.
Christie sobbed buckets recalling the discovery that her husband was cheating with a teenager from his office, and the girl in question has turned up in court wearing exactly the same outfit as Christie – a super-tight beige skirt and a crisp, white shirt. After marrying Billy Joel, you'd think nothing shocked Christie.
Why more of us are glad to be like Gay
Depending on which survey you read, we've got between £140 and £155 less a month to spend – which is bad news for the chairman of Marks & Spencer, Sir Stuart Rose, who faces anxious shareholders at their AGM later this week.
Poor trading figures, with food sales down 4.5 per cent on 2007, have led city experts to predict he might be out of a job soon. Sir Stuart claims we are in the worst economic downturn since the 1990s – although rivals seem to be weathering the storm.
Less disposable income means we have to relearn the art of frugal living, and what better role model than eco-gran Gay Cossins, who grows her own fruit and veg, concocts make-up and medicines, and swims daily in her rainwater pool. She's insulated her home so well she pays just £86 a year for gas and electricity, and her weekly shop costs £10.
All over Britain, there are more and more of these Good Lifers. In fact, I'm about to head north to thin out my lettuce and check on my tomatoes. Mind you, I'm going on the train so they won't be quite as cheap as Gay's.
Love all? I think not ...
I tried to watch the BBC's Wimbledon coverage but recoiled in horror and swiftly reached for the remote. Not Murray's pitiful showing against Nadal, but the ghastly appearance of the team in the commentary box.
The two Johns, McEnroe and Lloyd, have hardly a full head of hair between them. And all the sexual charisma they exhibited as professional players has vanished with middle age. Now it's more like Steptoe and son. And then there was Sue Barker's eye make-up (black liner with little flicks), frumpy frocks and helmet hair, which reminded me of Hyacinth Bouquet.
Thank God the Williams sisters can be relied on to look glamorous at all times.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited




Comments
20 Comments
What the f#ck does not being able to make friends have to do with our privacy being invaded by viacom? Could you please talk about topics that are more related? And about topics that are actually worth an ounce of journalism?
I also thought this was funny:
"Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by Independent.co.uk's Terms of Use"
Posted by Luke | 07.07.08, 22:28 GMT
Viacom needs to f@ck off we have a right to do what we like w/o having viacom up my a$$. What next a leash shoved up my a$$?
Posted by Amanda | 07.07.08, 22:18 GMT
Janet: Lay off our Sue. Her contribution to the enjoyment of millions watching Wimbledon on BBC TV is enormous. The warmth and sincerity with which she conducts her chats with former greats like McEnroe, Becker, Borg and others is beyond any criticism especially from one of the most unattractive women who appears from time to time on the small screen.
If there is any reason for anyone to reach for their remote is to see you on the box. It's not only the visual, but the voice which I find so disturbing.
You're a very intelligent woman, Janet........what you said about Sue Barker and others doesn't become you.
Posted by Mike | 07.07.08, 14:06 GMT
Viacom will never have any business from me.
Posted by anonymous | 07.07.08, 11:14 GMT
Janet: Thanks for your comments, but one major point is missing on the the Viacom attack on Google: Viacom will never likely pursue the millions of names. Why? They know they've inserted the coup de grace and put the death knell on YouTube. Their intention of course to put the kabosh. Now successfully done with the cooperation and complicit action of one judge.
Posted by jason the obscure | 07.07.08, 09:22 GMT
(part two) As for the rest of the snippet, this has nothing to do with age. The internet is like wealth, it only exaggerates personalities that we're naturally inclined. If a person is gregarious, outgoing etc then more likely they will only continue this online. The same goes with a quiet mouse like myself. I've been fortunate enough to create meaningful friendships online. The rule of thumb is that if it can happen on the internet it can happen in the real life and vice versa. Internet bullying for one is something that happens in real life. Of course anonymity lends to making it easier to commit these kinds of acts however are we then to invade their privacy and go after their behavior through authoritative means? Oh wait, we can't can we? Invading privacy is wrong. Unless you want to exclude those who commit certain wrongs..
Posted by cec | 07.07.08, 03:59 GMT
We leave a fingerprint everywhere we go. Satellites can track you, cameras ranging from convenience stores to transportation cameras to say that then there is shock regarding our privacy on the internet is insanely naive. As a younger person, I don't normally have much concern over "privacy" because nothing in my behavior lends to suspicion. My watching the dog skateboarding will do little but make someone think I'm possibly a loser who needs to get out more. That might be a bigger truth than even I suspect. (part one)
Posted by Cec | 07.07.08, 03:58 GMT
I belive we are heading into a police state, all the tell tale signs are there for instance monitoring our emails and what sites we visit, viacom taking youtube to court under the guise of copyright infringement and seeking all the personal details of every user that has logged onto it's site etc. This not an orwell novel this is reality and it's getting worse by the day, 9/11 was an inside job( look up "New american century" on google they had been planning it since 1997). Building seven wasn't even hit by a plane but collasped into its own foot print, hundreds of scientists around the world back this claim as well as police officers and even ex cia operatives. The BBC reported that the building collapsed 20 mins before it actually fell how did they forsee this happening? do they have a crystal ball. 7/7 bombings, a training excersise was being carried out before the attacks involving the same tube stations at the same time look up peter powers on youtube it's no joke wake up people!
Posted by Neil c | 07.07.08, 01:03 GMT
The powers that be have long hated YouTube, as it has many videos that discuss topics they don't want you thinking about, like 9/11 and who is really running things. This is the start of them policing the last free place on earth (the internet).
FYI "your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions." - Even the Independent keeps records, the internet hasn't been totally free since the mid 1990s.
Posted by Thomas Lloyd-Roberts | 07.07.08, 00:27 GMT
The Internet has long been a pain in Authority's side. With YouTube is front and centre in identifying and disclosing issues governments would prefer remained dead and buried. But not any more: "We know what you watched." Keep this in mind when selecting your emigration destination. Then you too can advise HMG to "Kiss my Donkey".
Posted by Andrew Milner | 06.07.08, 19:50 GMT
20 Comments