Personal privacy is dead, and for that matter so is taste. They have been wiped out by the disturbing explosion of technology and the insensitivity of the Internet, which appeals always to the lowest common denominator and facilitates personal intrusion.

Precious little remained of either before the ubiquitous development of telephones that also take pictures and permit the user to embarrass anyone with the clandestine push of a button -- and almost instantly transmit their handiwork to millions. These actions, often with sinister motives, have become so common that no one, including the victims, should be at all surprised -- least of all the British royal family.

While the senior occupants of Buckingham Palace by the very nature of their station often seem to dwell in a time warp of pomp and circumstance, the younger generation should have some idea of their vulnerabilities in the modern world. But apparently not Prince Harry, third in line for the crown. He recently was photographed cavorting in the buff with some party girls in Las Vegas, where whatever happens, contrary to the city's slogan, most decidedly does not stay there.

Now the outraged palace and its guardians have tried quite unsuccessfully to bully the British press into not publishing pictorial evidence of the prince's foolishness, utterly ignoring the fact that everything except Harry's family jewels already had gone viral from Nevada to London. But to report this in print, I suppose, would be in bad taste.

The British newspaper The Sun refused to abide by her majesty's wishes in the best tabloid tradition of shunting taste aside. The paper rightfully argued that by the time its 3 million readers got to take a look, millions of the queen's loyal subjects already had seen Harry's bottom on some screen. The editors of Sir Rupert Murdoch's chief tabloid argued their actions represented a blow for press liberty. While that is true to some degree, it obviously was too sensational not to pass up at a time when newspapers are struggling to make ends meet. Most family newspapers aren't willing to offer this up at the breakfast table.

The plight of young Hal -- to borrow from an earlier royal with an unbridled reputation for tawdry behavior -- is one faced daily by celebrities, whose protests never cease to amaze me. The answer to this dilemma, of course, is to make certain your actions in public or even private gatherings are about as exciting as a kiss on the cheek.

It is difficult to believe many of the complainants actually aren't seeking to benefit from the experience, like the movie star who climbed out of a car in a manner that revealed she wasn't wearing any underpants.

But damage to the innocent should concern us all. The social networks are full of what we used to label "I don't believe I would have told that" information, mainly from youngsters who have no concept of how long they will pay for this. Sadly, transmitted photos of body parts by naive teenagers with raging hormones have become almost routine fare for the world's voyeurs.

Would I have published the pictures of Harry? No, unless the gun in his hand was actually smoking and there was a body on the floor. Even then, I believe I would have found a way to soften the exposure, not for his sake but for the reader's. Thankfully, the four newspapers I read daily still abide by rules of good taste, even when it may be financially costly to do so. Interestingly, one of those, The Wall Street Journal, is owned by Murdoch, who had enough sense when he bought the paper not to accompany the stock market report with a daily picture of a bare-breasted woman, a la The Sun. I guess he figured the fluctuations of the Street were exciting enough.

As time proceeds, we all, celebrity or not, will be lucky to escape the intrusions brought on by our own creative genius.