> people want to create a binary distinction between "public" [...] and "private" Because they (me included) tend to believe that's how it works in reality - a

> people want to create a binary distinction between "public" [...] and "private" Because they (me included) tend to believe that's how it works in reality - at least when the worst-case scenarios kick in. Something's either known or not, and there's a saying that a word spoken is past recalling (or similar idioms in many languages). Social and legal norms may provide one with a recourse/remedy after the exposure, trying to compensate for the leak, create a chilling effect to prevent others from performing similar actions, and possibly limit the distribution of the leaked information. Nonetheless, chances are, it will already be seen (and copied) by many, thus effectively becoming public. Sure, sometimes data could get lost forever, with no public copies remaining, but sometimes it could rise to extent of Streisand effect as well. So, well, I tend to believe it's a good idea to raise awareness that the only guaranteed way to not get burnt is to not share the sensitive information, at the very least with the parties you can't trust to handle it. And trusting any party must also include a consideration of the risks involved. This probably sounds harsh, but the idea of awareness is that it must be better be informed about worst-case scenarios and be safe(r) than unaware and sorry.