Group 1 will debate whether the internet is the end of private life, while Group 2 will debate whether internet transparency is necessary for security, honesty, and tranquility. The debate will focus on key paradoxes regarding privacy and the internet. These include the changing boundaries between public and private life online; how digital intimacy is defined by user actions, not identity; and whether transparency is seen as progress, though it may create a monitored world. The document provides source material for the debate groups to consider different perspectives on privacy in a digital age.

1. DEBATE SESSION
BRAND, DIGITAL AND CREATION
PRIVATE LIFE IN A DIGITAL LIFE
FEBRUARY 2013

2. VINAY, José Sergio
JO, Junhyon
YANG, Chunjiayi
VOINEA, Andra
SAVOCA, Gabriele
LAUK, Andreas
WANG, Hsing-Yi
VIJAYKAR, Sneha
#1
THE DIGITAL
REVIEW
Press / digital review: digital
communication / facts news
Individual review of digital related topics
to be presented in a short talk (5 mn
max)
The article / document / photograph is
to be accessible for the entire group
(through a link or a photocopy or any
other copy)

3. #2
THE DEBATE
VINAY, José Sergio
MORITZ, Paloma
HU, Feining
SAVOCA, Gabriele
LU, Lanyao
LEJARD, Julie
JO, Junhyon
VOINEA, Andra
MASMEJEAN, Louise
LAUK, Andreas
LI, Mengying
ACHART, Isabelle
Group 1 Group 2
Is Internet the end of
our private life ?
Is Internet
transparency a
condition to security,
honesty and
tranquillity.

4. RESPECT THE
RULES

5. THE DEBATE
KEY
PARADOXES TO
REMEMBER

6. 1. OIKOS VS POLIS
INTIMACY AS A
POLITICAL QUESTION

7. THE PARADOX OF A
CONSTANTLY
CHANGING NOTION
• TRADITIONAL OPPOSITION BETWEEN
OIKOS (THE INDIVIDUALLY RULED
PERSONAL SPACE) AND THE POLIS (CITY)
• BEFORE THE 18TH CENTURY, NO
LEGITIMACY OF PRIVATE LIFE 
HABERMAS « REPRESENTATIONAL
CULTURE »
• AFTER THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, THE
BOURGEOIS SOCIETY INVENTS PRIVATE LIFE
(EG. THE DIARY) SEPARATED FROM THE
PUBLIC SPHERE (OFFENTLICHKEIT).
• MASS MEDIA ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE
WEAKENED THE PUBLIC SPHERE DURING
THE 20TH CENTURY.
• INTERNET – THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE
PUBLIC SPHERE OF THE 21ST CENTURY – IS
INVADED BY PRIVATE LIVES AND A HIGH
CONFUSION BETWEEN PRIVATE AND
PUBLIC LIFE.

8. https://www.google.co
m/settings/ads/onweb
2. DIGITAL INTIMACY
IS NOT ABOUT WHO
YOU ARE, BUT
ABOUT WHAT YOU
DO

9. 3. SOME USERS ARE
TRYING TO TAKE
PROFIT OUT OF
PRIVATE LIFE LOSS

10. http://www.intel.com/museumofme/r/index.htm
…LOOSING SOME
INTIMACY MAY BE A
SOURCE OF UTILITY

11. 4. RADICAL
TRANSPARENCY IS
SEEN AS A
CONDITION OF
PROGRESS

12. OPEN SOURCE,
TRANSPARENCY AND
ULTRA-FREEDOM AS
CONDITIONS FOR
DEMOCRACY

13. 5. TRANSPARENCY
AS A FRONTIER IN
OUR
CONTEMPORARY
WORLD

14. BUT DEFINITELY
CREATING A
MONITORED WORLD ANTIDOTES:
BANALITY/TRIVIALITY
PERSONA
ABUNDANCE

15. BIBLIOGRAPHY

16. WEBOGRAPHY
http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2008/03/09/how_
youth_find.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/busines
s/09cell.html?_r=2&
http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2006/05/20/er
osion_of_yout.html
http://www.artisopensource.net
http://wikileaks.org