4 ms·

Isn't this a "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument?

• dragonwriter 10y ago
  No, because it's not the tool alone it's the shady act without the tool vs. the shady act with the tool. (And it mostly only applies to acts that, while perceived as shady, wouldn't be perceived as outright evil on their own -- no one thinks that something that is unquestionably murder on its own is more evil because you tried to conceal it [0], but if you are taking your co-workers' food out of the fridge, the idea that it wasn't intentional wrongdoing is harder to maintain when you're also caught stashing the wrappers in someone else's trash.) [0] "No one" is a dramatic exaggeration, of course, and this assumes that the acts done in concealment aren't evil on their own, etc., etc.
• evgen 10y ago
  No, a bit closer to 'mens rea' with regards to conspiracy.
• takeda 10y ago
  First, there's a huge difference to blocking access to everyone, and perhaps just allowing access to selected few vs allowing access for everyone and blocking access to few that could penalize you for doing it. Second, privacy has nothing to do with it, this is not an information we talking about, but a service. A bit like dealing weed/prostitution/etc and actively looking if there isn't any cop around.