Prince Harry and the downsides of the digital age.
If you've been following the coverage of Prince Harry's recent trip to Las Vegas, you're likely very, very tired of hearing jokes about the "crown jewels." The day after one reporter (ironically) recounted the British prince remarking to a security guard that he "had to be careful or else he'd be 'up on Twitter or Facebook or YouTube thanks to somebody's mobile phone camera,'" photos of the prince sans princely attire were published on TMZ, thanks to somebody's mobile phone camera snapping away during a game of 'strip billiards.'
The photos spread faster, farther and wider than the British Empire during its heyday, leading to some pity for a 27-year-old who seems to have difficulty steering clear of social media scandals.
News Corp titan Rupert Murdoch urged on Twitter to, "Give him a break. He may be on the public payroll one way or another, but the public loves him, even to enjoy Las Vegas." Ironically, that was the day after the News Corp-owned Sun published the photos in its newspaper, despite warnings from the Royal Family's lawyers that it would violate press and privacy laws. The Sun argued that the photos are already very much in the public domain, and that publishing them is thus no longer a privacy violation. (TMZ and the phone photographer took care of that.) It's yet another example of Britain's byzantine press privacy laws struggling to keep up with a world in which information is very difficult to contain, as when a Scottish newspaper flouted a "superinjunction" on the press not to reveal the identity of a soccer star involved in a sex scandal after his identity became widely known thanks to Twitter.
You are not Prince Harry. Naked photos of you and tales of your partying ways probably won't fetch a pretty penny from gossip blogs, but we all do live in a world where our foibles can go public rather easily. The prince's folly offers up some privacy lessons that could be relevant to you, even if you don't have royal blood flowing through your veins.
1. Don't let cameras into your parties. Sometimes you want to capture the moment, but sometimes you don't. If you want everyone to be able to let their hair down (or take their clothes off), consider a camera ban at gatherings. It's a method endorsed by the powerful on this side of the pond: Barack Obama's staff reportedly collects phones from its wealthy donors when they attend private fundraisers.
2. Do invest in Batman's technology, says Chris Rock. He recently told the New York Times: "I saw 'Dark Knight [Rises]' the other night, and Bruce Wayne's walking into this party, and he presses a button, and no one's camera works. If I find a comedy club where no one's camera works, I'll go." Let's hope Lucius Fox is working on a retail version.
3. Don't take naked photos. Unless your job involves getting paid to be naked, it's privacy-wise not to take nude photos… or not to let them be taken of you… or at the very least, not to have your face in the same photo with your naked body. Lots of people still do choose to take naked photos, of course, so I'll make this more specific for those committed to the endeavor: Don't take naked photos if you are British royalty and they have a high resale value. If you are British royalty and still decree nudity for you and your friends, make sure not to get naked in front of random strangers' cameras, when those strangers have little compunction about sharing and selling said photos.
4. Don't believe the "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" motto. The ads lie. More generally, be skeptical of anyone who takes a photo or records something you do and promises "it's just between the two of you." That promise may be willfully forgotten at a later date.
5. Don't think that your secret Facebook account is actually a secret. According to the Telegraph, the prince couldn't resist the Siren call of Facebook. He had a secret, pseudonymous Facebook account under the name "Spike Wells," which apparently had rather strict privacy settings. The Telegraph reports that his advisers told him to take it down in light of the Vegas scandal. According to the Daily Beast, the account wasn't actually all that secret: "The existence of the Spike Wells facebook page had been known to many Harry obsessives for over a year." Why? Because of "Spike's" comments on the Facebook walls and photos of Prince Harry's real life friends, who didn't have strict privacy settings on their accounts.
Spike would frequently comment on the pages of his 400 friends, including Arthur Landon, who last week posted a picture of Harry passed out in the sand on Necker Island.
Until last week, Mr Landon's Facebook page was fully accessible to the general public.
In life and on Facebook, your privacy depends in great part on those you surround yourself with and "connect" to. Remember that every time you "friend" someone, even if especially if it's just for a night in Vegas.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario