3 ms·

> The false hope is unrelated to a privacy violation; it came from unauthorized message deletion. It would have happened equally if messages had been deleted un

> The false hope is unrelated to a privacy violation; it came from unauthorized message deletion. It would have happened equally if messages had been deleted unheard. You are using a unique definition of privacy here to say that meddling with data you have understood to be private is not a privacy violation. > How would more privacy have helped? Unscrupolous journalists would not have had any reason to hack the phone to listen to and delete messages. Ultimately, because there wouldn't be any messages or because their storage was encrypted and guarded beyond reasonable means to access it without permission.

fragmede 7y ago
The false hope in the Milly Dowler story is deeply heart-breaking, but a privacy violating system that couldn’t generate false hope would still be bad. If the phone company mailed copies of every phone call made by the family, to reporters, I think we can agree that would still be gross.
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> You are using a unique definition of privacy here to say that meddling with data you have understood to be private is not a privacy violation. I'm saying that meddling with someone else's data isn't a privacy issue in the same way that if I enter your home and cut your table in half, the destruction of your table isn't a privacy issue. It's a destruction-of-property issue.
- boomlinde 7y ago
  > I'm saying that meddling with someone else's data isn't a privacy issue in the same way that if I enter your home and cut your table in half, the destruction of your table isn't a privacy issue. If I had written a message on the table that directed the recipient to destroy it to communicate something to me, it would be. Then you'd have entered our correspondence and communicated on their behalf in a setting I understood to be private, which in turn might prompt me to change my course of action and further correspondence.

fragmede 7y ago

The false hope in the Milly Dowler story is deeply heart-breaking, but a privacy violating system that couldn’t generate false hope would still be bad. If the phone company mailed copies of every phone call made by the family, to reporters, I think we can agree that would still be gross.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> You are using a unique definition of privacy here to say that meddling with data you have understood to be private is not a privacy violation. I'm saying that meddling with someone else's data isn't a privacy issue in the same way that if I enter your home and cut your table in half, the destruction of your table isn't a privacy issue. It's a destruction-of-property issue.

boomlinde 7y ago
> I'm saying that meddling with someone else's data isn't a privacy issue in the same way that if I enter your home and cut your table in half, the destruction of your table isn't a privacy issue. If I had written a message on the table that directed the recipient to destroy it to communicate something to me, it would be. Then you'd have entered our correspondence and communicated on their behalf in a setting I understood to be private, which in turn might prompt me to change my course of action and further correspondence.