Fw: [Reader-list] The Vedavatis of this world

[Tapas Ray]

Vivek:

Apologies to you and to other "practising pseudo-secularists" who have found
my posts unethical. But I have a point or two to make about personal
details.

I think this list - or any listserv for that matter - is a public space,
which people enter with full knowledge of its publicness. Therefore, I think
it is reasonable that they should expect to have the spotlight turned on
their persons if they choose to enter into a discussion, especially on a
controversial topic. By joining the list, and further by entering into a
discussion, Vedavati has indicated a conscious choice to pass from the
private to the public, even if she is not already a public figure, in the
sense that she does not hold public office or is not well-known around the
country or the world or whatever community one may choose as the reference.

Now the question of personal details. Unless you know something about the
person, how do you place her/his statements in context? How do you interpret
them? When you attend a meeting, don't you ever (consciously or
unconsciously) place the speaker's statements in the context of what you
know about her/him as an individual in all its dimensions? As for the
concrete case of our discussion on Vedavati, I do not think I have mentioned
anything other than what is relevant to the discussion. When I wrote that
she seems to live "in an apartment building with a tell-tale name", I meant
that the name of the apartment building underlines her stated beliefs.

I could have quoted the name of the building, indeed the address itself, but
did not because I thought it would be neither necessary, nor right to
pinpoint her apartment the way some US news web sites have pinpointed
certain individuals' homes not only with addresses but also with satellite
photographs. However, anyone can find Vedavati's address, even from the
telephone directory (if one does not have access to the internet, which
leaves out members of this list by definition).

Yes, googling does raise questions of surveillance and invasion of privacy.
But is it fundamentally different from looking up a person on the phone
book? In the case of search engines, the "phone book" covers the entire
world and given you not just the phone number and the address, but masses of
other information. Also, surveillance is usually understood in the sense of
an activity of governments and corporations. I am sure you know they have
other, extremely sophisticated methods - such as email interception - and do
not depend just on search engines. Using the term "surveillance" with
reference to the practice of "googling" people seems a bit out of proportion
to me.

Cheers,

Tapas


> Hi Tapas and all,
>
> As a practising pseudo-secularist myself, I of course align with your and
> others' reasoned positions politically, and have been quite disturbed by
> some of the rhetoric that has recently made its presence felt on the list.
>
> *However*, I do think we should really refrain here from discussing any
> person on the list or her/his personal details, especially if they are not
> already public figures.   It happens a lot on the Hindutva lists, where
> individuals of a certain political leaning are blacklisted and discussed
> in a very personal and invasive way.  I don't think we should stoop that
> low, and eventually it's likely to backfire.
>
> Googling is inevitable; but it does raise the spectre of surveillance and
> violations of privacy.  To discuss an individual in this way on-- 
> don't forget-- a listserve with over 1100 subscribers worldwide is, I
> think, hurtful.  I certainly wouldn't want my identity being probed in
> public like that.
>
> And what, after all, happened to sophisticated discussion and analysis?
> Humour and irony are always welcome; but with a little sensitivity,
> please.
>
> My ten paise,
> Vivek