Contradictheory: Is a tame point better than not making one at all?

Today's column was a bit of a tough one. I wanted to write something about the whole what-do-we-call-our-God debate that is currently gripping the nation's politicians, but people told me not to go there.

So I actually started writing about why there were so many single-person vehicles in KL, and that maybe it was because of the lack of trust, and then that would segue into the doughnut story that the people we should really trust is each other, and not those at the top... but I kind of shunted myself into this article.

At the end of the day, I think I got my point made, even it was a little passive. Maybe that's not all bad, 'cos I don't think Fire-Scorched Molotov is a colour scheme I would pick for my front door.

Labels: contradictheory

Facing up to FaceBook

Last Sunday's article was about the problems of privacy, using Facebook as an example, and trying to highlight our new Data Protection Act. I also quietly inserted a paragraph that noted that Governments were exempt from the Act.

The only reaction on the web that I saw about this was at http://dizzyzizzy.blogspot.com/2010/01/er-facebook-privacy.html, who said that she wanted to share her stuff - that's the point of Facebook. I don't disagree, but I also hope that my real lconcern was clear: that you didn't have full control of your personal data is a problem. So, yes, you can share it with the world if you want to, but you should also be able to take it away at any time too.

Labels: contradictheory, privacy