Nicholas, I wonder if you are a middle class, middle aged white guy who has been lucky enough to have never experienced persecution, or had good grounds to fear it? The implicit sentiment that "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about" is too often the position of the privileged. Can you not imagine that expressing one's political or religious views (for example) brings personal risks to many of the dispossessed or disadvantaged in the world. Why should people have to go hide offline to enjoy privacy of their communications? Steve. Stephen Wilson Managing Director Lockstep Group Phone +61 (0)414 488 851 http://lockstep.com.au <http://www.lockstep.com.au> Lockstep Consulting provides independent specialist advice and analysis on digital identity and privacy. Lockstep Technologies develops unique new smart ID solutions that enhance privacy and prevent identity theft. On 2/08/2011 8:09 AM, Nicholas Crown wrote:
but that is a totally different problem then the one I am raising which is whether people with medical conditions they want to talk about with others and get support (share +1s) or a buddhist in Kansas (can share freely with other buddhists or seekers without their hyper conservative christian neighbors finding out) or having a feminist persona that is not linked to your work identity in the tech industry (and if it was you would find work had to come by in the valley) is free to use google+ not linked to a "real name".
Why can't people just be who they are and stand in their own shoes for what they believe in? Trying to be a buddhist behind closed doors in Kansas does no one any good. If you believe in feminist tenants, than stand up for those and speak your voice. I understand that persecution could come in any one of these cases, but that is the beauty of taking a stand on the truth. If your ideal is not worth sharing with your own ID, then it's not for you. About the only one that I struggle with is the case where you have some medical condition you would like to discuss in a private setting. Can that case not be solved with a private/closed group? If it's too sensitive for that, then take it offline.
Nick
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Tony Rutkowski <trutkowski@netmagic.com <mailto:trutkowski@netmagic.com>> wrote:
"Rights to anonymity." Surely you are joking.
In law, there is no such network based right. In technology, there is no such capability.
Like Scott McNealy said rather publicly in 1995 - Privacy: get over it.
--tony
On 8/1/2011 5:38 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
(3) If you use crime prevention as the rationale for taking away users' rights to anonymity, then
____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: community@lists.idcommons.net <mailto:community@lists.idcommons.net> To be removed from the list, send any message to: community-unsubscribe@lists.idcommons.net <mailto:community-unsubscribe@lists.idcommons.net>
For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.idcommons.net/lists/info/community <http://lists.idcommons.net/lists/info/community>