The Internet is an ideal medium for the exchange of information, but at what cost to our privacy?

All eyes were on last week Leveson research and public spectacle of the press, and finally eat. Cameras focused on the notable figures involved, and who testified against a property room unscrupulous and unethical practices.

This modern witch hunt, alerted by the phone-hacking scandal that rocked the Murdoch press, the rule also revealed much about the UK, attitudes towards privacy. When questionable practices presented in the juicy treats celebrities in print was largely indifferent. Only when research tenacious

Guardian

journalist Nick Davies has discovered a gap in our national unwritten code of ethics - which, above all, like us regular people affected - people will start taking action.

What I find most fascinating, however, is how the relationship between media sensationalistic diverted attention from another development, endemic in our attitudes to privacy - which is spending online. The horror that many people express about the operations behind the scenes of the empire Murdoch and Fleet Street shows the degree of faith that the readers who was in the newspapers. Are not the people in charge of journalism supposed to have our best interests at heart

But not all the information about us was consciously shared online: our mobile phone numbers online may occur because a friend decided to update his Facebook profile with your own number and details of everyone in your address book are also found in the database of the public. Our history is de-limited research and analysis, giving precise details of where we are, who we are and what we want. Our online profiles public and private cross-pollination between networks, databases are sold to the highest bidder.

Internet complicates and obscures issues: people are not always aware that what they say and do in virtual reality - whether in a private community of an appeal or in a manner explicit public - is recorded and stored, because their interaction with the computer itself is intimate - they and the machine. They feel deprived of networks that interact feels closed. And so they are more inclined to share without much resistance.

But unlike the speech in which Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg said privacy in the era of social media "dead", the survey of Alan Westin of Columbia University, said that our views on privacy are still based on personal and cultural diversity. Do you live in an authoritarian or democratic? How many can claim social legitimacy on the basis of their wealth, race and state? Who are in their lives, their life circumstances, their personal situation? The answers to these questions shape our views on privacy.

Find best price for : --Columbia----Westin----Alan----Zuckerberg----Mark----Facebook----Rupert----Leveson--