3 ms·
From my perspective, this sounds far too much like “Why do you need privacy or cryptography if you have nothing to hide?” Everyone here should be well aware by
by toofy 8y ago
From my perspective, this sounds far too much like “Why do you need privacy or cryptography if you have nothing to hide?”
Everyone here should be well aware by now that wanting privacy != nefarious behavior.
- V-2 8y agoThere's a difference between an individual and an organization that intends to have an impact on the society. The society can't, or shouldn't demand that I give up privacy of my inherently private matters. But it is very reasonable for the society to expect a basic degree of transparency from an NGO or a political party - insofar as the actions in question are meant to have public impact. It's a two-way street, to me. Note that I'm not even entering the subject of legal obligations here. Whether or how to enforce this approach is a separate discussion (quite a few democratic constitutions do forbid political organizations of clandestine structures and membership). I'm only referring to common sense, and what feels justified. Is it a private matter if someone held on trial is the judge's boss in a secret organization they both belong to?
- wl 8y agoThese kinds of organizations generally don't exist to have a public impact. They exist to transform individuals. > Is it a private matter if someone held on trial is the judge's boss in a secret organization they both belong to? A judge has an obligation to recuse where there's a conflict of interest, regardless of the nature of that conflict. This is not a good argument against private societies, unless you want to start banning any situation that could at some point lead to a conflict of interest.