Matt Alder’s Work / Life stream

From my point of view this was the best presentation of the day

More Social Recruiting Content - Fred Wilson's key note

Some great content delivered by Master Burnett at the Social Recruiting Summit on Monday. Will post more of the great content from other speakers soon

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Mashable CEO Pete Cashmore: In today's wired world, no such thing as privacy
• He blames social media, which have encouraged lives to be lived in public
• Without valuable audience for your work, you aren't on radar, Cashmore says
• Cashmore: Those who broadcast themselves online will be more connected, influential

RELATED TOPICS

• Information Privacy
• Twitter Inc.
• Facebook Inc.

Editor's note: Pete Cashmore is founder and CEO of Mashable, a popular blog about social media. He is writing a weekly column about social networking and tech for CNN.com.

London, England (CNN) -- A U.K. firm is set to launch a camera to capture every moment of a person's life. While you may reel at the privacy implications, I'd wager that the high price of not capturing and sharing every moment of our lives will soon dwarf the cost to our privacy.

The SenseCam, worn on a cord around the neck, will retail for $820 and capture an image every 30 seconds. Originally developed by Microsoft Research in Cambridge, England, the technology has been licensed to Oxford-based Vicon, which will produce a version for Alzheimer's and dementia researchers by the year's end and a consumer version in 2010.

It's easy to see the associated risks of a life-logging device. From stalkers to identity theft, recording such information (and to unlock its true value, posting it online) makes us vulnerable to all manner of bad actors.

But what about the cost of not sharing? In the online realm, that might mean you simply don't exist.

Privacy is dead, and social media hold the smoking gun.

Photo-sharing site Flickr made a brave decision in its early development: By default, photos would be public. Though ambitious at the time, the choice now seems obvious. What value do photos have when they're not shared?

Twitter followed suit: Its private accounts are rare, meaning Twitter's fire-hose of updates is becoming an invaluable stream of the world's consciousness (incidentally, this month saw that stream licensed to both Microsoft and Google to bolster their search efforts).

Even Facebook, which once held fast to its model of private sharing among close friends, is pushing an "everyone" button that makes your updates public.

Unknown and unemployed

The value of a life led in public is most obvious to those seeking employment. Working in media, I frequently find myself talking to journalists who now possess a distribution channel entirely separate from their publication.

With thousands of Twitter followers and hundreds of Facebook friends, these writers are building large audiences for their personal brands that make them a valuable asset to employers.

As he tweets out his latest story to his 1.1 million Twitter followers, does David Pogue need The New York Times, or does The New York Times need David Pogue? And what becomes of the newly unemployed journalist who doesn't set up a Twitter account like Pogue, who has posted more than 2,000 tweets on technology, fatherhood and other topics?

Without industry connections or a valuable audience for your work, you aren't even on the radar.

Unemployment is just an extreme example of the cost of not sharing in professional life, of course. The "who you know" mantra holds true throughout the world of work, and the more content we share, the more connections and opportunities open up.

Location-based services lead the way

New York-based Foursquare is being heralded as the "next Twitter" by the team at Mashable, early adopter Robert Scoble and numerous thought leaders in the tech space. Posting an update from your phone every time you "check in" to a restaurant or bar might be seen as an invite to have your house robbed ... but what of the hundreds of missed connections when you choose not to share? In this connected era, a private life is a lonely one.

Foursquare is far from alone, however: From Twitter's upcoming location-based features to Google Latitude, not to mention the fact that most modern smartphones ship with GPS, sharing your location looks set to become the default, too.

You can't improve what you don't measure

This month also saw the first shipments of the Fitbit: This clip-on pedometer is worn day and night, logging your exercise and sleep patterns and sending the data wirelessly to the Fitbit Web site whenever you're near the base station. Do I need to mention that this data is then shared with friends and family?

The benefits here are obvious: Logging all your physical activity online gives incentives to improve and accurate measurements of your progress. Roping in friends and family makes this a shared goal. You're not alone in your fitness regime.

Don't want to share? Scared what others might think? Ask yourself whether the opportunity cost is really a price worth paying.

In the attention economy, privacy is obscurity

We're living at a time when attention is the new currency: With hundreds of TV channels, billions of Web sites, podcasts, radio shows, music downloads and social networking, our attention is more fragmented than ever before.

Those who insert themselves into as many channels as possible look set to capture the most value. They'll be the richest, the most successful, the most connected, capable and influential among us. We're all publishers now, and the more we publish, the more valuable connections we'll make.

Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Foursquare, Fitbit and the SenseCam give us a simple choice: participate or fade into a lonely obscurity.

By Nick Higham BBC News

The Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, thanked 'tweeters' for their support

When is a secret not a secret? When it's on Twitter.

An injunction served on the Guardian and at least one other national newspaper was meant to stop the papers reporting that the MP Paul Farrelly had tabled a Parliamentary question about the oil traders Trafigura and its solicitors Carter-Ruck. And it succeeded - up to a point.

In a front-page story, the Guardian said it was prevented from identifying the MP who had asked the question, what the question was, which minister might answer it, or where the question was to be found.

In a twist the paper described as "Kafka-esque", it was also banned from telling its readers why it had been banned from doing so.

In one sense, the injunction was effective. In most of the mainstream media this morning, you would have found no mention of who or what was involved.

Red rag

No injunction was served on the BBC, but ever since the Spycatcher case in the 1980s news organisations which knowingly breach an injunction served on others are in contempt of court, so the corporation too felt bound by the Guardian injunction.

But the lawyers in this case clearly reckoned without the "blogosphere". In the anarchic, anything-goes world of the internet, where free speech is a frequently-heard rallying cry, injunctions banning publication of anything are unpopular. This one seems to have acted like a red rag to a bull.

The social networking site Twitter was soon awash with posts deploring a threat to media freedom and the reporting of Parliament.

It's a bit like an artist achieving a Radio 1 ban, which can result in chart success. What you seek to suppress only generates further interest Econsultancy Guardian claims victory on 'gag'

Stephen Fry, celebrity tweeter, called it "this barbaric assault on free speech", and the very information Trafigura and its lawyers were anxious to keep secret was being freely bandied about.

Guido Fawkes's political blog and the website of at least one mainstream publication, The Spectator, apparently chose to ignore the injunction entirely.

A Google search for Trafigura in mid-morning threw up a dozen online articles on the subject.

Favoured few

The digital marketing company Econsultancy - on its own website - observed all the activity on Twitter, saying: "This tidal wave of tweets makes for particularly bad PR, given the banning order against the newspaper.

"It's a bit like an artist achieving a Radio 1 ban, which can result in chart success. What you seek to suppress only generates further interest."

Imposing injunctions on news organisations has never been a foolproof way of stopping information from leaking out. But in the old days, when the principal means of transmission was word of mouth, only a favoured few ever got to hear of it.

Trafigura will deny it had anything to do with Twitter, but we know don't we? We know! Yay!!! Stephen Fry

The digital revolution has changed all that. Anyone with a PC or a laptop or an iPhone or a Blackberry, or any other digitally-enabled device, can now discover what all the fuss is about.

On this occasion the injunction seems to have been utterly counterproductive. The Guardian obtained a High Court hearing to challenge the injunction this afternoon. But at lunchtime Carter-Ruck bowed to the inevitable, and the Guardian's website was soon running full details.

The first news, of course, came from the Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, via Twitter. "Thanks to Twitter/all tweeters for fantastic support over past 16 hours!" he wrote.

And the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg tweeted: "Really pleased Guardian ban has been lifted. This is a victory for freedom of speech and online activism".

And Stephen Fry's reaction? "Can it be true? Carter-Ruck caves in! Hurrah! Trafigura will deny it had anything to do with Twitter, but we know don't we? We know! Yay!!!"

Bookmark with:

• Delicious
• Digg
• reddit
• Facebook
• StumbleUpon

What are these?

E-mail this to a friend

Printable version

You can read more on www.recruitingfuture.com