Six years ago, basketball star Kobe Bryant was arrested for sexual assault involved a young woman in a Colorado hotel room. The charges were dropped after his accuser, Katelyn Faber, declined to testify at a trial. To make amends to his wife, Bryant bought her a $4-million ring. While there was certainly a lot of media attention, the situation lacked one key element: social media.

Without blogs, Twitter, Facebook and Flickr pounding away, the Bryant camp was, for the most part, able to manage the situation – as much as one can manage anything involving a high-profile, millionaire athlete who had a “transgression” with someone other than his wife.

For Tiger Woods, however, social media (and his global celebrity) has been like a digital tsunami, slamming into his life again and again. While the traditional media coverage of Woods’ “transgressions” has been overwhelming, the social media hordes have been fueling the flames and the conversation with opinions and discussions, as well as breaking news.

With social media on the scene, it’s impossible to escape intense scrutiny when you do something wrong. And the spotlight remains on the scene of the crime for a long time as blogs, et al continue to feed on the victim’s misfortune.

Another fascinating angle to social media and how much we know about what people are doing is the amount of information that’s self-disclosed – what we’re doing, eating, thinking, buying, etc. Perhaps the most troubling are tools that broadcast your location (e.g. I’m at the Starbucks on 4th St. in New York).

It strikes me as very Orwellian (aka 1984-ish) and suggests yet another chapter of our private lives that we’re willing to sacrifice. As well, it’s a great way to broadcast to anyone interested in robbing your house, there are windows of opportunity on the public record.

Are you concerned about how much information you disclosed online? If not, why not?