Edward writes: "if you are chatting in the knowing presence of others, you know who can hear you and you can moderate your volume based on who you want to listen. <snip> so in the case of data collected from the internet . . . did the subject have a reasonable expectation that YOU would be observing them? Did they have the chance to modulate their transmission based on your presence?" I find this very interesting. Clearly, most people will moderate their tone and volume in a coffee shop or other venue where others are around. We can assume that what is easily heard is not "private," or relatively less so than communications made at a volume below the hearing threshold. In web communications, it seems according to this thread, that which is available for millions of people to easily overhear can not be so easily considered to be "public" as the loud bragging of the oaf at the bar (though this can be overheard by only a few people). I do not contest this, but I am curious as to why someone may consider an easily read document (or viewed pictures) to be at all safe from prying eyes. I think there is something fundamental going on here that ought to be investigated. Its not just blogs, but also the phenomenon of recording one's crimes on their phone, which makes prosecution astoundingly easy. What's going on in a broader cultural sense that makes people publicly broadcast, or close to it, what they really intend to be privately held? I just can't believe that there are that many deeply ignorant people out there.... Cheers, Cam