Privacy, evolving with time, is a delicate concept

We have come to the brink of the privacy slippery slope. First, state rulers, whether of the democratic or dictatorial bent, cite national security to justify increasingly intrusive espionage. Then Facebook Live came along. Not only do
 we have to deal with the prying eyes of government, but we must also beware of the growing prevalence of fellow citizens’ cameras. And now comes further warning that even more of our personal information is to be shared online whether we like it or not.
 The live broadcasting on TV news of the suicide of a high-ranking academic last week represents the tip of the iceberg. We are going to see much more of such ghastly fare. The empowerment given ordinary citizens by the social media is testing the limits of just how much personal privacy can be chipped away. The digital revolution is fuelling a competition that not long ago was the exclusive territory of the professional news media. And when it comes to being the first to report a story, “healthy competition” can turn nasty in a hurry.
Journalists know this well. They have long handled the dilemmas of whether to disclose names, publish photos or otherwise open the doors to private lives. Today these are no longer just journalistic choices. The decisions are up to any owner of a smartphone who happens to be where an unexpected newsworthy event is just beginning. If they decide the event should be shared with the broader public, then their friends online have a simpler choice – to spread it further or not, and so it goes, endlessly, being found by anyone browsing the Internet.
Journalists these days are more likely to be debating whether they should report what’s being shared online by thousands or millions. If people are talking about it, then it becomes news – of a sort. Whatever’s happening out in the street, even if previously relegated to office water-cooler chat, easily warrants front-page placement when enough people show interest.
And outside in the street is the beginning of the hazardous
 slippery slope. The social media feed on themselves and the conventional media freely takes bites. With the government listening in as well, modern society, most members of which can be found online, might be able to run, but it certainly can’t hide.
The privacy that older generations once enjoyed is now the stuff of nostalgia. Younger people have a different understanding of what it entails. Those who grew up being able to stay in constant touch with their friends have come of age and are reshaping the world accordingly. We live in times when a personal relationship can be jettisoned because a digital message goes unanswered for a few minutes too long, where couples announce their decisions to divorce on Instagram.
If such deeply personal information is freely shared for all to see, that is the prerogative of the messenger. The slope gets slippery for everyone, though, when the information is not volunteered but taken without our permission. Such was the case with the academic who killed himself. Certainly his loved ones would not have wanted millions of strangers to witness his final tragic hours. Privacy is by nature a matter of some delicacy, shattered irreparably when more people than anticipated become privy to our secrets.
Maintaining privacy is a question of conscience, though there are some people who will misinterpret that to mean anyone can do anything they like if there is no absolute right or wrong. But playing privacy in the realm of conscience also helps making decisions easier. Bringing personal conscience into the quotient requires imaging ourselves in the predicaments of others. If everyone could remember to do that, each of us would have a lot more privacy, and the world would be a more dignified place.