I apologize in advance for dragging this out, but there are some cold, hard facts that have not been stated.
My original point was that many people post neither a photo of themselves nor sufficient information to give us much of an idea of who they are. It's a simple matter of satisfying our curiosity and connecting with us. Clearly, some people on this thread strongly disagree.
But if you think that NOT posting a photo or a biographical sketch of yourself is going to safeguard your privacy and insulate you from potential harm, then you are living in a mythical world with an invisible wall around yourself.
In my reporting days, long before Internet databases became so common, I was an expert at finding people. I once tracked down and interviewed a U.S. Army soldier who had deserted during the Vietnam War and relocated to Sweden. I directed federal authorities to a kidnapper and rapist who had given local police a fake name and thereby slipped through their hands.
I did not find these people by magic. I did not find them through blogs or Internet photos or biographical details they had posted about themselves. I found them through public records.
If you are married or have ever been divorced, if you vote, if you pay property taxes, if you own a car, if you drive, if you have ever been sued, if you are licensed to do anything, there is a record of you. Some are more public and accessible than others, but all of them can be found.
The criminal has even more resources. In the movie The Verdict, Paul Newman tracks down a key witness, who had moved out of state and changed her name, by stealing the phone bill of one of her friends.
If you've got a Max Cady on your tail, he can find you. And he can do it regardless of whether you've published a book or posted a blog.
In all the instances where I found people who did not want to be found -- and I even wrote an article about how to do it by telephone for the Investigative Reporters & Editors Journal -- I never ever relied on a photo. In one case, I found someone and knocked on his front door (he never opened it) without ever knowing what he looked like.
Social Security numbers, by the way, are very difficult to obtain. They are not public records and generally do not appear on public records (though they often are listed on death certificates). But you don't need one to compile a complete dossier on someone.
I even compiled such dossiers, complete with very private details, on three editors at newspapers where I wanted to work. Two of them were impressed; the third one was livid.
With the widespread circulation of Internet databases, such details are far easier to obtain. All it takes is a name and, typically, one other piece of information.
To me, the choice is not whether you want to keep your privacy or give it up. That decision is basically out of your hands. The choice is whether you want to share and connect with readers and engage in a two-way exchange or whether you want to keep them at bay and engage in a one-way monologue.
My original point was that many people post neither a photo of themselves nor sufficient information to give us much of an idea of who they are. It's a simple matter of satisfying our curiosity and connecting with us. Clearly, some people on this thread strongly disagree.
But if you think that NOT posting a photo or a biographical sketch of yourself is going to safeguard your privacy and insulate you from potential harm, then you are living in a mythical world with an invisible wall around yourself.
In my reporting days, long before Internet databases became so common, I was an expert at finding people. I once tracked down and interviewed a U.S. Army soldier who had deserted during the Vietnam War and relocated to Sweden. I directed federal authorities to a kidnapper and rapist who had given local police a fake name and thereby slipped through their hands.
I did not find these people by magic. I did not find them through blogs or Internet photos or biographical details they had posted about themselves. I found them through public records.
If you are married or have ever been divorced, if you vote, if you pay property taxes, if you own a car, if you drive, if you have ever been sued, if you are licensed to do anything, there is a record of you. Some are more public and accessible than others, but all of them can be found.
The criminal has even more resources. In the movie The Verdict, Paul Newman tracks down a key witness, who had moved out of state and changed her name, by stealing the phone bill of one of her friends.
If you've got a Max Cady on your tail, he can find you. And he can do it regardless of whether you've published a book or posted a blog.
In all the instances where I found people who did not want to be found -- and I even wrote an article about how to do it by telephone for the Investigative Reporters & Editors Journal -- I never ever relied on a photo. In one case, I found someone and knocked on his front door (he never opened it) without ever knowing what he looked like.
Social Security numbers, by the way, are very difficult to obtain. They are not public records and generally do not appear on public records (though they often are listed on death certificates). But you don't need one to compile a complete dossier on someone.
I even compiled such dossiers, complete with very private details, on three editors at newspapers where I wanted to work. Two of them were impressed; the third one was livid.
With the widespread circulation of Internet databases, such details are far easier to obtain. All it takes is a name and, typically, one other piece of information.
To me, the choice is not whether you want to keep your privacy or give it up. That decision is basically out of your hands. The choice is whether you want to share and connect with readers and engage in a two-way exchange or whether you want to keep them at bay and engage in a one-way monologue.
