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
"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/communityhttp://lists.idcommons.net/lists/info/community