Of particular interest to anybody blogging (or posting comments), is Randy Barnett’s post at the Volokh Conspiracy:What is Off The Record?:

I love the Internet, and it was the advent of accurate search engines, Google to be specific, that really brought out its potential. Add to this the ability to reach an audience via blogging. So far as I am concerned, the Internet + search + blogging is a modern miracle. But, as with any technological marvel, there are downsides. One for me is the threat to the sanctity of a private conversation. I once had private lunch at a restaurant with two student interns who peppered me with questions. Afterward, one of them posted an account of my answers as though it had been an interview. The account was positive and generally accurate, but contained candid statements concerning my career ambitions that, while I had no qualms about offering them in private, would certainly not want published. I later learned that a goodly number of my students had read it.

His specific point is about people posting accounts of private conversations on the internet, where they become open to the world. Or, as he poses the question:

In the world of Internet + search + blogging, however, what is “off” and what is “on” the record?

The sad answer is that you can’t assume that anything is off the record. (We lawyers, of course, have always operated from the premise that you don’t put anything on paper that you wouldn’t want someone else to read.)

That isn’t really the issue here, of course; when you blog, you realize (hope!) that people will read it. But the underlying question — about whether people will suffer negative consequences based on what’s out there about them on the web — is still valid.

(As I note in the comments over there, the real problem is search engine archives; those effectively ensure that once something is posted, it exists forever, at least in Google’s cache, even if the official web page is later deleted.)

I guess I have two predictions:

First, as to things we did when we were young popping up again in the future and derailing our political careers, or our regular careers: I bet the public is actually a lot more sensible than private businesses are. The public is more likely to forgive candidates who engaged in “youthful indiscretions” than employers are to forgive job applicants. (Perhaps that’s because the public can’t be sued for negligent voting, the way private businesses can for negligent hiring.)

Second, this issue will be hyped in the near future, but it won’t take long to bore people. Just as smoking marijuana was a big deal for a candidate at one point, but now even Barack Obama’s admitted cocaine use barely rates a yawn. Or, you know, some American Idol contestant got kicked off for appearing in racy photos online a few seasons ago — but now it’s a big snore. And once everyone on the planet has their own blog (if that isn’t the case already), employers aren’t going to waste their time reading them just to see if they can find something bad about job applicants — so even if there are posts out there that show, I don’t know, people molesting porcupines, who’s going to notice?