4 ms·

Public figure who doesn't want randos knowing where their house is. Non-public or public figure who doesn't want their name associated with certain business ac

Public figure who doesn't want randos knowing where their house is. Non-public or public figure who doesn't want their name associated with certain business activities that they partake in.

dheera 3y ago
Or even non-public figure not wanting randos knowing where their house is. I'm not a public figure and I don't want where I sleep posted all over the internet. I don't have the budget for security if some Twitter fool decides to give me a death threat because of a comment.
- deadbabe 3y ago
  If someone really wants to know where you live, they will find you. If the information in your bio is actually yours, there’s already plenty to work with. :)
  - rrr_oh_man 3y ago
    A lock is not to keep out bad guys who want to get in, but to keep good guys honest. Same with privacy. Why not install a camera on your toilet while we’re at it? Or do you have something to hide?
    - deadbabe 3y ago
      I’ll do everything I can to keep sickos the hell away from me. Too many stalkers or people DMing inappropriate shit. But I never forget that in the end I’m never truly safe from someone trying to do serious harm.
    - csa 3y ago
      > A lock is not to keep out bad guys who want to get in This is definitely not true. Locks are to keep randos from invading your space — drunk, drugged, and/or mentally unhealthy people end up in the oddest places sometimes. My buddy had a guy high on meth open and climb through a laundry room window and start wandering through his house. I’ve twice had drunk people knock on my door loudly and try to let themselves in (different cities) and swear that they were at the right address. These were all in decent/nice areas (some not so nice areas a mile or so away, but still…). Same with privacy corps… You don’t want some rando who is irrationally angry at your business or at you to be able to find you easily. You don’t have to be as famous as Barbra Streisand in order to be a person of interest to mentally unhealthy randos. Just my 2 cents…
      - rrr_oh_man 3y ago
        Totally agree, and I don’t feel this invalidated my point
  - dheera 3y ago
    > If the information in your bio is actually yours, there’s already plenty to work with. :) I make it pretty hard, actually.
- excitom 3y ago
  I remember when you could find someone's home address in the white pages of the phone book.
  - avmich 3y ago
    I guess sending threats then required more of sending a physical mail, which could be used with better effect in dealing with threats?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - klyrs 3y ago
    Back in the day, I looked up a minor celebrity in my hometown and just... knocked on his door one afternoon and had a nice chat. Can't wait to explain this to my grandchildren.
  - bongodongobob 3y ago
    And you could opt out if you wanted.
- yencabulator 3y ago
  USA is uniquely dysfunctional in only being able to (mostly) identify people by referring to an address. You could very well have public ownership records without revealing addresses.
williamcotton 3y ago
Both seem counter to the notion of a republic and the accountability needed for private property. From what I can gather most houses of public figures are already known.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  > Both seem counter to the notion of a republic and the accountability needed for private property. Imagine that you own and run Acme Critical Publishing, which publishes exposés of crimes and ethical lapses of the sitting President. In speeches, he starts rambling about your company as an example of Horrible Very Bad People, and the next thing you know some supported of his casually looked up your home address online and now there are burning lower-case-t's on your lawn... I'd say the republic and accountability are both suffering in that scenario. It's one of those "tools that can be used for for good or evil" things, and simply prohibiting the tool isn't necessarily the best way to maximize the good while minimizing the evil.
  - seabass-labrax 3y ago
    In your story, there are two failures; firstly, the President's failure to exhibit due care in the content of his speeches (an increased responsibility due to his lofty station), secondly, the lack of a police response to disperse ominous gatherings before they become violent. Neither of these failures have anything to do with the anonymity of company directors. The President could know you personally, and still leak your address. Similarly, there could be a mob vandalising your property even if you didn't run Acme Critical Publishing, because that kind of thing happens in riots sometimes. In some countries there is almost no anonymity on the public record, but this doesn't seem to negatively affect the level of violence in their societies compared to otherwise comparable locations. Therefore I would opine that 'enjoying safety' and 'enjoying privacy' are two very different and mostly orthogonal issues.
    - Terr_ 3y ago
      > disperse ominous gatherings [...] a mob [...] riots Hold up, I didn't say anything about a riot, let alone a physical gathering. Just the contents of a speech where your hypothetical publishing company has become fingered as a target. It could very well be a video on a campaign-blog. > the level of violence in their societies The analogy isn't about violence, it's about kinds of damage to you (and to the republic) when the privacy is pierced, and violence just happens to be the most illustratively-obvious form of that.

Public figure who doesn't want randos knowing where their house is. Non-public or public figure who doesn't want their name associated with certain business activities that they partake in.

dheera 3y ago

Or even non-public figure not wanting randos knowing where their house is. I'm not a public figure and I don't want where I sleep posted all over the internet. I don't have the budget for security if some Twitter fool decides to give me a death threat because of a comment.

deadbabe 3y ago
If someone really wants to know where you live, they will find you. If the information in your bio is actually yours, there’s already plenty to work with. :)
- rrr_oh_man 3y ago
  A lock is not to keep out bad guys who want to get in, but to keep good guys honest. Same with privacy. Why not install a camera on your toilet while we’re at it? Or do you have something to hide?
  - deadbabe 3y ago
    I’ll do everything I can to keep sickos the hell away from me. Too many stalkers or people DMing inappropriate shit. But I never forget that in the end I’m never truly safe from someone trying to do serious harm.
  - csa 3y ago
    > A lock is not to keep out bad guys who want to get in This is definitely not true. Locks are to keep randos from invading your space — drunk, drugged, and/or mentally unhealthy people end up in the oddest places sometimes. My buddy had a guy high on meth open and climb through a laundry room window and start wandering through his house. I’ve twice had drunk people knock on my door loudly and try to let themselves in (different cities) and swear that they were at the right address. These were all in decent/nice areas (some not so nice areas a mile or so away, but still…). Same with privacy corps… You don’t want some rando who is irrationally angry at your business or at you to be able to find you easily. You don’t have to be as famous as Barbra Streisand in order to be a person of interest to mentally unhealthy randos. Just my 2 cents…
    - rrr_oh_man 3y ago
      Totally agree, and I don’t feel this invalidated my point
- dheera 3y ago
  > If the information in your bio is actually yours, there’s already plenty to work with. :) I make it pretty hard, actually.
excitom 3y ago
I remember when you could find someone's home address in the white pages of the phone book.
- avmich 3y ago
  I guess sending threats then required more of sending a physical mail, which could be used with better effect in dealing with threats?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- klyrs 3y ago
  Back in the day, I looked up a minor celebrity in my hometown and just... knocked on his door one afternoon and had a nice chat. Can't wait to explain this to my grandchildren.
- bongodongobob 3y ago
  And you could opt out if you wanted.
yencabulator 3y ago
USA is uniquely dysfunctional in only being able to (mostly) identify people by referring to an address. You could very well have public ownership records without revealing addresses.

williamcotton 3y ago

Both seem counter to the notion of a republic and the accountability needed for private property. From what I can gather most houses of public figures are already known.

Terr_ 3y ago
> Both seem counter to the notion of a republic and the accountability needed for private property. Imagine that you own and run Acme Critical Publishing, which publishes exposés of crimes and ethical lapses of the sitting President. In speeches, he starts rambling about your company as an example of Horrible Very Bad People, and the next thing you know some supported of his casually looked up your home address online and now there are burning lower-case-t's on your lawn... I'd say the republic and accountability are both suffering in that scenario. It's one of those "tools that can be used for for good or evil" things, and simply prohibiting the tool isn't necessarily the best way to maximize the good while minimizing the evil.
- seabass-labrax 3y ago
  In your story, there are two failures; firstly, the President's failure to exhibit due care in the content of his speeches (an increased responsibility due to his lofty station), secondly, the lack of a police response to disperse ominous gatherings before they become violent. Neither of these failures have anything to do with the anonymity of company directors. The President could know you personally, and still leak your address. Similarly, there could be a mob vandalising your property even if you didn't run Acme Critical Publishing, because that kind of thing happens in riots sometimes. In some countries there is almost no anonymity on the public record, but this doesn't seem to negatively affect the level of violence in their societies compared to otherwise comparable locations. Therefore I would opine that 'enjoying safety' and 'enjoying privacy' are two very different and mostly orthogonal issues.
  - Terr_ 3y ago
    > disperse ominous gatherings [...] a mob [...] riots Hold up, I didn't say anything about a riot, let alone a physical gathering. Just the contents of a speech where your hypothetical publishing company has become fingered as a target. It could very well be a video on a campaign-blog. > the level of violence in their societies The analogy isn't about violence, it's about kinds of damage to you (and to the republic) when the privacy is pierced, and violence just happens to be the most illustratively-obvious form of that.