If you want it to be private, then share it in a private setting (online or otherwise). If Google+ doesn't offer you that option, then go elsewhere.

Nick

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Mary Hodder <mary@hodder.org> wrote:

The definition of totalitarianism:

When everyone knows everything about everyone.

Everyone has something to hide, be embarrassed about, etc..

It's a false argument anyway to talk about who gets hurt with privacy outings..

instead.. if we want to have a civil and humane society.. we have to let each person
decide, within limits, what is private and what is public.

The right to be let alone is a right in Europe and it should be in the US.

On Aug 1, 2011, at 3:09 PM, 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> 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
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
community-unsubscribe@lists.idcommons.net

For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.idcommons.net/lists/info/community

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    community@lists.idcommons.net
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    community-unsubscribe@lists.idcommons.net

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.idcommons.net/lists/info/community