Privacy in 2.0--Imperiled or Reformatted?

Alas, this (http://www.jasoneiseman.com/blog/?p=210 ) is as close I could get to Aaron's "privacy is not an option" post on walkingpaper, and as I'm not particularly fond of wrestling repeatedly with my browser Task manager, it will have to suffice.

The notion of privacy concession as a coin of the Web 2.0 realm troubles me. The blithe assertion that Web 2.0 users must pay (by relinquishing some privacy) in order to "play" in the world of social sites chills me. I want to believe that participation need not be orchestrated by the basest commercial needs of the site provider/sponsors.

We've seen this crusade before, in textile towns, mining communities, chemical plant environs. Tap into the bounty, live better...just leave a few inalienable rights at the door. After all, they don't spend well at the local Wiggly Piggly.

But why backslide unnecessarily? The environmental movement has demonstrated, in some degree at least, that industry can be molded by human concerns. People, especially those who've lived deep enough to recognize the contours of power and vulnerability, need not bend unquestioningly to efforts of industry to refashion humans. A healthy alternative to the "privacy is not an option" slogan might be "mandatory privacy relinquishment is not an option." Or how about "Reformat networks, not people."