7 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2018
    1. As technologies change, and as they alter the societal architectures of visi-bility, access, and community, they also affect the contours of the public sphere, which in turn affects social norms and political structures.
  2. Sep 2017
    1. Court repudiated the notion that a person who places documents with a bank would, as a result, forsake an expectation of confidentiality. In the view of the Court, even if the documents cease to be at a place other than in the custody and control of the customer, privacy attaches to persons and not places and hence the protection of privacy is not diluted

      2 important observations

      • recognition of privacy attached to persons and and not places (moving beyond a propertarian view of privacy)

      • sharing of information does not lead to forsaking a reasonable expectation of privacy. Without reference, repudiation of third party doctrine. privacy not quivalent with secrecy.

    2. Aristotle’s distinction between the public and private realms can be regarded as providing a basis for restricting governmental authority to activities falling within the public realm.

      Aristotle's Public v private sphere. Role of government restricted to public sphere. Early conception of a sphere of rights (?) repelling state action

    3. Mill posited that the tyranny of the majority could be reined by the recognition of civil rights such as the individual right to privacy, free speech, assembly and expression

      Mill's conception of civil liberties to counter majoritarian actions

    4. If the reason for protecting privacy is the dignity of the individual, the rationale for its existence does not cease merely because the individual has to interact with others in the public arena. The extent to which an individual expects privacy in a public street may be different from that which she expects in the sanctity of the home

      'Man is a social animal' is not a valid counter to right to privacy

  3. Oct 2016
  4. Sep 2016
    1. who will (and will not) control and define the learning process, who will (and will not) profit from the ways that learning processes are enacted, who will (and will not) have access to science and scholarship and the infrastructure necessary for creating it, who will (and will not) participate in the design of curriculum and assessment and learning spaces, who will (and will not) profit from the benefits of science and artistry, and who will (and will not) have opportunities to attend schools and colleges.

      Several (though not all) of these questions relate to the core sociological one: Who Decides? The list sounds, in part, like a call for deeper and more nuanced “stakeholders” thinking than the typical case study. The apparent focus (at least with parenthetical mentions of those excluded) is on the limits of inclusion. From this, we could already be thinking about community-building, especially in view of a strong Community of Practice.