Sean Barrett wrote:
> The distinction is a simple one, and only those who are actively
> working to eliminate privacy find it difficult to understand.
Anyone who calls privacy a "simple" issue doesn't know what he's
talking about. It is a common political cheap-shot tactic to accuse
those who do see the complexities of an issue of simply being the
enemy so no further thought is required, but if we are to deal with
the issues rationally, we must work to encourage discussion, not
foreclose it.
I see most issues of privacy today as necessary evils: the only
reason I keep some things private is because we live under a powerful
and intrusive government that will jail me for doing some things I
have every right to do, and also because common societal norms may
make me unpopular for doing those things.
I would certtainly prefer to solve those problems by fixing the
intrusive government and the irrational society; but I can't do
that overnight. I can, however, maintain some privacy while working
towards those ultimate solutions.
But nowhere in any of that do I confuse "privacy" with the totally
unrelated issue of "freedom" as many people do, nor do I pretend
that it is a simple issue.
See, for example,
<http://www.piclab.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?The_Benefits_Of_Transparency>
--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee(a)piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC