Privacy and the Internet: Do we create our own reality?


I had just read on a popular site I frequently visit that pictures of David Carradine's dead hanging body were published on the internet. For those of you who haven't heard yet, David Carradine (Bill from Kill Bill and he was also the star of the Kung Fu) was found dead hanging in his apartment about a week ago. There wasn't quite any indication as to whether it was suicide or an accident. I know what you're thinking, "How could it be an accident? He was hanging there." but his body was described as hanging by the neck along with 'other parts of his body'.

Anyway the point of this blog isn't to argue whether it was suicide or an accident, but the point is that many gruesome pictures of his death were leaked onto the internet without the family's permission. It makes me wonder what kind of control we have over our own privacy on the internet. I'm not talking about the regular privacy that we typically squander on our own free will (ex: posting a blog, posting pictures, status updates, personal info, etc), but I'm talking about information that was never intended to hit the internet or have any exposure at all (the passing of a loved one, crucial personal information, medical records, etc).

The story of David Carradine's leaked photos reminded me of another story I had seen on CNN about 2 months ago. There was a special on a family who faced a similar situation as Carradine's family. What had happened was that a young 17 year old daughter decided to take her father's high end sportscar, without his permission or knowledge. Long story short, she crashed it into a lamp post and was killed instantly. Needless to say, she was travelling at an extremely high speed and the crime scene was so gruesome that they couldn't let the family identify the remains of the daughter.

Now they said a brain disorder that she had was a factor to the crash, but that's not the point. Some highway cops who first appeared on the scene decided to take some pictures with their cell phones. Not only were these photos taken from the crime scene, but the officers attached them in an email to several family members as a warning chain letter against speeding. Fast forward 2 weeks, and the father of the victim gets an email forwarded to him by some random contact titled something to the effect of 'Spoiled princess wraps Mercedes around lamp post and gets what she deserves'. Inside the email were several photos of the gruesome scene and he had to see the remains of his own daughter that he was never intended to see from the beginning. How wrong is that? Not only does he have to witness the horrific visuals, but he's also taunted by the email's contents that scoffs at his own daughter's tragic death!

Well anyway, the story went on and the issue became that it was extremely easy to find the infamous photos on the internet. The family was working hard with a lawyer to stop all of the websites hosting the photos, but there were already 15 different websites that featured the said photos. They were also taking in callers at CNN to see what they thought of the story, and one caller was on the air talking about how she looked up the photos and remarked about how terrible they were and how no one should have to see their own daughter like that. The host proceeded to give the caller crap for looking up the photos, but she reasoned it as needing to see how easy they were to look up. It makes me wonder if that was the real reason though..

I'll admit, I was conflicted as to whether I should looked up the photos immediately after the story was over. I even went as far as looking up the name of the daughter to see how many results were to come up, but I didn't look into the actual sites with the photos in it. Thankfully, I've now forgotten the name of the victim so I couldn't look even if I wanted to, but the whole thing makes me wonder how much we're drawn to misery.

We can all read that story and say how extremely wrong and terrible it is that the websites posted those pictures, but aren't we to blame as well? The original website wouldn't have put up the photos if there wasn't anyone interested in looking at them to begin with, let alone 15 websites. This just illustrates the supply and demand of the kind of crap that goes up that we're instantly ready to eat up. I think our hunger for the controversial is what fuels so many of the things we consider garbage today. Take tabloids for example. Everytime I walk to a supermarket lineup, I can't help but catch a glimpse of the many tabloids that stare you right in the face. In my mind I always ask myself, "Why do they print this crap that's not even true? How are they still in business?" but secretly I know the answer. It's basic supply and demand. If there's a demand for crap, then some business or businesses are gonna supply that crap and make money off of it, no matter the ethical costs.

Another example of this theory at work is the TMZ franchise. For those of you who don't know, TMZ is basically a company of paparazzi's who find anybody and everybody famous, no matter what the situation, and film them doing whatever they can get. They have a website and now a regular TV show where they just highlight every cameraman's shot of a famous person doing retarded things. If you watch the show, you'll notice that it's their job to say whatever they can to set the celebrity off or to make a scene of the whole thing. They'll say things that range from stupid to completely offensive just to get that 10 second video of a celebrity slipping up. The whole thing is stupid and painful to watch for me, yet they continue to gain popularity.

I guess the point is that they're gonna keep churning this stuff up as long as we continue to eat it. The same trend goes for reality TV shows. All I know is it's gonna get worse before it gets better. As the shock factor wears off for today's antics, just wait for them to push the envelope further in order to get our attention.