4 ms·
I don't like that. It sounds too much like the "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" argument for privacy invasion.
by tekromancr 13y ago
I don't like that. It sounds too much like the "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" argument for privacy invasion.
- simonh 13y agoSorry, but no. It's absolutely not the same thing at all. There is absolutely no conflict between being entirely public and open with the majority of your online activities, yet standing up for the rights of those who do need privacy, such as children or political activists or possibly women in some situations. We all need and expect privacy in some activities such as banking or voting records, but that's entirely compatible with generally living life in the open. My name is Simon Hibbs and outside perhaps one or two minor and very short lived cases, I have never used any other identity online.
- MereInterest 13y agoIt sounds as though the difference is voluntary vs. forced removal of privacy. The ideal of being willing and able to show oneself to the whole world, as opposed to being ashamed of each action. That said, I disagree with the statement. Different social groups have different norms, and those norms should be respected. I tend to make a large number of sexual jokes when around a particular group of friends, but those jokes would not be taken well by other groups of friends. It is not that the jokes are wrong, but simply that they do not work for everyone. To broadcast them to all my various social groups would be mean-spirited, and so I do not.