26 ms·

This article misses a huge thing everyone does have to hide, and that is the private information they have about their own family and friends. My Facebook, my

by natch 12y ago

This article misses a huge thing everyone does have to hide, and that is the private information they have about their own family and friends. My Facebook, my contacts list, my emails, my messages, my call history... all of these have private information about friends and family, and this private information should not be shared with others without the full consent of everyone involved.

hawleyal 12y ago
I think you're right, the author doesn't cover those collaterally affected by secret information. However, this is outside of the author's main point. The author is focusing on the principle privacy is not just about secret keeping things secret. Your example of people who may collaterally affected falls under this category. It's just an example of using the word private to equate secret.
nthcolumn 12y ago
I never viewed the internet as private. I hid my tracks not because I'd done anything wrong but because there are 'crazies out there', I have plenty to hide and why take a chance? Then 'wow' forums - I could say controversial things, play devil's advocate, really push the discussion farther than IRL with little fear of reprisal or even rebuke. Which was great for me because I'm the guy who parks the other way round in the car lot. I have always been a natural dissenter. Then my friends joined facebook - early days before it was humungous. It raided their contacts and my little cell was exposed. I had not used a separate email address for each person I had ever met. Silly me. Then Zuck said 'privacy is dead' and I remembered that even before that in college he had said 'I can't believe these idiots are trusting me with all this information' - or something like that I can't really recall - and I knew he was right. I wish it weren't so. We speak more guardedly now. Still get downvoted.
csandreasen 12y ago
... and you've shared that information with Facebook, your e-mail provider and your phone provider. The question shouldn't be whether or not you have information to hide (everyone does), but what information are you hiding from who and why?

by natch 12y ago

hawleyal 12y ago

I think you're right, the author doesn't cover those collaterally affected by secret information. However, this is outside of the author's main point. The author is focusing on the principle privacy is not just about secret keeping things secret. Your example of people who may collaterally affected falls under this category. It's just an example of using the word private to equate secret.

nthcolumn 12y ago

I never viewed the internet as private. I hid my tracks not because I'd done anything wrong but because there are 'crazies out there', I have plenty to hide and why take a chance? Then 'wow' forums - I could say controversial things, play devil's advocate, really push the discussion farther than IRL with little fear of reprisal or even rebuke. Which was great for me because I'm the guy who parks the other way round in the car lot. I have always been a natural dissenter. Then my friends joined facebook - early days before it was humungous. It raided their contacts and my little cell was exposed. I had not used a separate email address for each person I had ever met. Silly me. Then Zuck said 'privacy is dead' and I remembered that even before that in college he had said 'I can't believe these idiots are trusting me with all this information' - or something like that I can't really recall - and I knew he was right. I wish it weren't so. We speak more guardedly now. Still get downvoted.

csandreasen 12y ago

... and you've shared that information with Facebook, your e-mail provider and your phone provider. The question shouldn't be whether or not you have information to hide (everyone does), but what information are you hiding from who and why?