That said, I do think it’s rather naive to fail to draw any parallels at all with situations where such information is required by law. The fact that this data is being stored in a relational database with personally identifiable information attached to it is inherently dangerous, insofar as it is the exact same system that would be used if this data were to be required by law. In other words, the technology itself can be used for good or ill, and I think we ignore that at our own peril. Atomic power, when used to light our homes, is a great and wonderful thing. But that is not the only purpose to which it can be put, should people choose to do so. I think that’s worth remembering.

I also think it’s worth considering what our own personal limits are concerning how much privacy we are willing to give up in exchange for, as you put it, “having your information organized, shared, compared to friends’, and so on.” Where do we draw the line between convenience and privacy? How much are we willing to give up of one in order to have more of the other? In asking these questions, I haven’t yet determined an answer for myself, which was kind of the purpose of the post - I was surprised at my reaction, especially given that, while the other sites I’ve used have bothered me a bit, they haven’t bothered me enough to stop using them. So I’m intrigued by where different people draw their own lines, and why. Why am I fine with del.icio.us but not Goodreads?

I guess I should note that I tend to question everything. I’m obsessed by the things we tend to take for granted in daily interactions. Not only do they tell us a lot about ourselves, but when we forget the foundations of our beliefs, it often happens that inconsistencies creep in. So I can’t really help but force myself to remain aware of the what ifs and the parallels between other things. Drawing parallels helps uncover those inconsistencies and brings you back to the basics and forces you to ask, “well if I responded that way to X, why am I responding differently to Y?”

The whole point is that the information you choose to release (or not) on a site like goodreads is voluntary. No-one forces you to join nor to input “everything that influences your thought” there. And I’m pretty sure the site has an easy to find privacy policy statement. If you agree with it, make the effort to subscribe to that site and furthermore include your data, then it’s implied that you waive what for someone else could be considered private information (and rightly so) in exchange for having your information organized, shared, compared to friends’, and so on. If you choose not to be a part of it for your personal reasons, as you clearly do, you are welcomed to delete your account, or not even use the service in the first place. It’s not nuts at all, it’s just your choice.

But then that’s hardly the same as having the access to this information required by law from public locations, such as schools, bookshops and libraries, without any provisions for individual choice, rights or privacy. I don’t think it’s even fair to compare both scenarios. Or is it?