Deborah Hill Cone: My life, and I'll share if I want to

Hi, my name's Deborah and apparently I am an oversharer. A random sampling of my Facebook status updates: "Champagne is good for colds ... Highlight today: connecting the washing machine all by myself. Lowlight: flooding half the house ... Spent the entire night awake agonising over end of my marriage. Came up with this erudite and sophisticated insight: SHIT HAPPENS ... Cleaned fridge, walked dog, sent daughter to circus, threw out stuff, had a cry.

So basically ticking off the things on one's list when moving house after your marriage has ended ... Is it tragic that I always make an effort to get dressed up to see my shrink? Today: wet-look leggings. It's not that I have a crush, just that I want to look like I am coping admirably. Which is somewhat redundant."

As you will know if you are a regular reader - howdy, you three - I also overshare in this column. And now I know, oversharing hurts.

I got this email from Janis. "I have never been compelled to write to a journalist before but feel that I needed to tell you how much I used to enjoy your column in the Business Herald. I have been quietly seething for the last few months and each week I am hopeful of reading your business column but almost always there is reference to your unfortunate personal circumstances." Oh dear.

Maybe I should simply dob myself in to the Law Commission. It is doing a review of the 1993 law on privacy with a view to tighter rules about what we can and can't share.

I can't summarise the commission's 508-page document here - suffice it to say, it is wide-ranging and the outcome will be important not just for normal punters but also for marketers and the media.

The Law Commission's review asks: "To what extent is the definition of 'personal information' inherently complex and ambiguous, and to what extent could it be clarified in the statute or by some other means?" Sorry, it's too late to make a submission - they closed last week. Good luck with finding an answer.

Because as a net-curtain-twitching country of only four million people we are decidedly paranoid about privacy.

It's not entirely healthy. When individuals are so precious about their privacy - especially powerful individuals - it makes me wonder what they are hiding.

Either that, or I know they are presenting a fancy persona to the world and are fearful that someone will see behind the facade and realise it is all held together with nothing but sticky tape and paper clips.

For example, last week the Wellington City Council said it couldn't discuss the $2 million owed in rates by The Apprentice boss Terry Serepisos because it would invade his privacy. You decide which category that one fits into.

The privacy we really should be fussing about is that of our kids. The rest of us can make our own decisions whether to share with the group. So whatever the Law Commission comes up with, I hope it recognises the profound distinction that it is one thing for me to talk about my "unfortunate personal circumstances" and quite another for someone else to do so.

I can tell you I've got nits - again! - but not so dandy when someone else does. Regardless, I hope the commission errs on the side of making it easier for people to choose to share and be open of their own volition.

Sorry Janis; no matter how affronted you are, I believe the Facebook revolution has been a powerful and positive change. It has allowed us to show our failings and our humanity to each other in ways we couldn't do hidden behind our net curtains. I'm not an unrepentant oversharer after all. I'm just a sharer.

dhc@deborahhillcone.com