Digital Advances Raise Questions About Privacy

This column may leave as many questions unanswered as it answers, but they need to be raised.

Consider "privacy":

• The quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others.

• The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion: a person's right to privacy.

• The state of being concealed; secrecy.

In recent news events locally and internationally, I was reminded of something we Americans value most. When a sensational story comes along, newspapers and photographers in particular must weigh the delicate balance between the First Amendment's promise of freedom of the press and invading someone's or some family's right to privacy.

That was the case in Farmville as police reported the killings of four people Sept. 18 and the arrest of a young man from California. It was a story many of you followed all week in the newspaper and many more followed online.

No one has done a better job of reporting the details of the story than the

Richmond Times-Dispatch. But where is the line of privacy in a story that involves an estranged husband and wife, Facebook pages that suggest a cultist following of a music genre, and questions about proper parenting that some believe played a role in the murders?

. . .

Several days later, I was reminded again of the balancing act.

When disasters struck Indonesia, the Philippines, and American Samoa, the first images were not from news photographers -- they were from cell phones, small digital cameras, and video from small camcorders.

As I watched photos roll in through The Associated Press wire service, one photo in particular struck me as an odd commentary on how privacy, regardless of where you are, may be a thing of the past.

In the middle of a makeshift emergency treatment center in Indonesia, a person was standing amid all the confusion, apparently recording the activities with a camcorder. That photo probably was shot on someone's personal digital camera.

. . .

As the world changes, how we get our information may be the most significant development. No longer are trained journalists the sole proprietors of news and information. Millions now have cell phones with a still camera and video capability. Anyone with a laptop, smart phone, digital camera, and Internet access can blog, Tweet, or post stories and visuals at will. And if that isn't enough, you might be captured on video at any street corner or on your next visit to a store.

Are we a better society because of this?

Is lost privacy the price we pay for a truly open society?

What are the responsibilities that come with unfiltered information, for the supplier and the reader?

In terms of our coverage, we check and double-check facts before we post them online or commit them to print. We seek permission from the families or others involved before we rush in with our cameras. And perhaps most important, we offer subjects a chance to present an opposing point of view or a chance to explain what may not be obvious.

Does that make journalists better? Not necessarily, but it does offer fairness and balance.

In a society that may no longer offer privacy, perhaps that is the most we can expect.