Superinjunctions - is privacy possible in the digital age?

Amid all the hoo-ha about superinjunctions here in the UK, I am quietly cheering at the twitterers and other social media who have 'outed' Ryan Giggs et al.
It seems to me that these legal instruments are only used by those with enough money to afford them. The rest of us, sadly, have to protect our reputations the old-fashioned way..... by, well, trying to be good people, and when we aren't, admitting to it.

Those who find themselves in the media spotlight are now subject to scrutiny like never before. Things can slip out of control so quickly, too - it almost seems like one's privacy can be entirely lost in 24hours. And of course, since Google and others have a policy of caching pages, the history sticks around for quite some time.

I remember a colleague some time ago talking about the value of shame - the idea that shame can actually be a positive thing, because it at least helps to prevent us from engaging in anti-social or criminal acts.

Clearly, though, shame is a tough feeling to endure - hence some of the huge sums spent by some in obtaining these injunctions. All to defend against shame.

.