4 ms·

So you'd have no problem with your neighbor hacking and dumping your entire inbox online for the whole world to see?

• kazagistar 8y ago
  There is a difference between individuals and governments. Public servants like politicians choose to enter the public space willingly, and must be held accountable and responsible. The only safe way for a government to hold power is via transparancy and auditability. Of course those to whom we relinquish the power of life and death should be held to a different standard of lower privacy. Having the government secretly spying on private citizens is such a disgusting and dangerous reversal of how it should be, and your comparison is completely off base.
  • stef25 8y ago
    I agree with politicians choosing to enter the public space and that they should be held accountable. Spying on private citizens is wrong but has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, which is - despite the fact govt should be held accountable, that does not mean they aren't entitled to private communication. The public doesn't need to know every letter they wrote during their political career and their communications certainly don't have to be accessible by anyone wholesale, which is in fact exactly what WL is trying to achieve. Lower privacy != no privacy. WL completely ignores the concepts of confidentiality, security clearances, NDAs at all levels of government, from your standard office clerk all the way up to the president and everything in between. There's no way that can be justified.
• cwkoss 8y ago
  I'd have a problem with my neighbor hacking me. If they found that I was involved in a scandal, and gave that information to the New York Times, and they fact checked and published it, would be ridiculous for me to try go after NYT.