Individuals often question the extent to which one's right to privacy should be allowed to go. In attempting to find the right level of privacy, people must keep in mind issues such as public safety. There seems to be an inverse relationship between status and privacy. The more notoriety and money that a person gains, the less privacy he generally will have.

"Privacy" is the quality or state of being apart from company or observation and is the freedom from unauthorized intrusion. The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences states that a positive aspect of privacy is that it "insulates the individual from social pressures to compliance and generally reduces the need to act in ways that are likely to gain the approval of others" ("privacy"). Beneficial effects of privacy are reduced exposure to theft, increased personal security, freedom from judgment for harmless activities currently not popular, and reduced conflicts between people with different beliefs. While many of the characteristics of privacy are beneficial to the individuals in some situations, such as the work place, privacy may work against th

Groups of people tend to work better when there generally is less or no privacy. For example, employees at a job can commit crimes and slack off on the job much easier when they have some privacy as opposed to when none is present. An element of privacy that is not beneficial is the facilitation of crime. Crime can be committed much easier when employees are not being monitored. This is a good illustration of how profit and privacy are related. The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences later went on to say that a negative characteristic of privacy is that it promotes seclusion between people. History has repeatedly shown, that the human species accomplishes more when its members work together. The building of the pyramids is such as example. The intimacy that status and privacy share can be easily illustrated by the life of an ordinary woman on the Internet.

One individual who has to deal with the issue of privacy is Jennifer Ringley, a self proclaimed "normal person." She broadcasts her entire life on the Internet and has written an article titled Why I Star in My Own Truman Show to tell about it. Her entire house is rigged with web cams, which are small and discreet cameras that transmit pictures to the Internet. She claims to not even notice them in her day-to-day activities. Owning a web cam myself, I can understand her point of view. I have caught myself picking my nose once when the web cam was on and then I felt all embarrassed because people were watching and I had forgotten about it. She then goes on to assert that she is not an exhibitionist, which according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is "the act or practice of behaving so as to attract attention to oneself" ("exhibitionism"). Although Ringley definitely has the attention of many people, she says she doesn't change her behavior from what she would normally do at home just because people are watching, so this does not put her under the general definition of an exhibitionist. I believe her when she says that people watch her because they want to see what a normal person do

Some common words found in the essay are:
Washington Post, Collegiate Dictionary, Social Sciences, Privacy Privacy, Own Truman, Jennifer Ringley, Dictionary Online, Slate Sept, social sciences, privacy beneficial, politicians privacy, encyclopedia social, web site, collegiate dictionary, International Encyclopedia, international encyclopedia social, encyclopedia social sciences, international encyclopedia, Michael Kinsley, dictionary online 2001, privacy people, private lives, people watching, merriam webster collegiate, webster collegiate dictionary,
Approximate Word count = 1407
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)