Notes on "Obscurity: A Better Way to think about your data then privacy"

Is compiling data then "illegal" in some sense because it violates privacy even though the data itself is the public sphere. And, if it is illegal, what is it that we are making illegal, people's ability to think complexly (to dream up what to compile and where to get it) and people's ability to work hard (actually do the compiling)?  What if everyone compiled the data, would it then be legal? Very related to the big poll companies being mad at the stat guy (Nate . . . can't think of last name) because he was compiling their public data. They argued they could do it too so it wasn't any big deal that he was doing it and in fact he was "stealing" from them in a way. But the fact was, they weren't doing it and perhaps couldn't do it because it required an insight or a curiosity that Nate had that the people at the poll companies were lacking. Do we have a way to "commodify" that kind of thinking?

In the digital age--who should have access to public information? Who should be allowed to collect it? Who should be allowed to "comment" on it?  How can commenting on public data be considered a violation of privacy?

If something happens in "public" does it make it publicly accessible? Are we agreeing to being on "public display" the minute we leave our private homes or offices? Is a car in "public"? Do we have a right to obscurity if not privacy? One or both?

When you post something on the internet in any space are you saying that this post is available not only for public viewing but for public compiling and public commentary over all time? What does that mean?