The motive is a desire to dispel paranoid BS.
A noble sentiment but the paranoid
tend not to respond to a rational argument. In almost all cases such paranoia is exactly that, paranoia.
So how many ways, qualified or otherwise, can you read a statement like, "If you live in the USA, there's no such thing as privacy"? The statement is just plain hooie.
Well, firstly, I didn't write any such thing as "If you live in the USA, there's no such thing as privacy"
- once again
that's your fabrication, which
at face value would be fairly described as hooie. Your presumption I was talking about the US is typical of
your US centric view of the world, not mine. I don't have one. The issue raised here are far beyond such mere 'national' boundaries.
Second, there's no explict
right to privacy that I'm aware of and what privacy exists does so only as far as an agent seeking to voliate it is willing to go. I did say privacy is an illusion because most people don't really know what
they mean by it.
There is such a thing as privacy, even for those of us in the USA. No, it's not absolute. Neither is the right to free speech, or the right to be secure in one's home or person. The fact that none of these things are absolute does not mean that they don't exist.
The
only person talking in absolutes here is you. But then that's your usual stance isn't it, when someone disagrees with you - resorting to arcane obfuscation.
You can lose your privacy if you're careless. Write your social security number, charge card number, or bank account number on the outsides of a few envelopes, and see how long your privacy lasts. On the other hand, your privacy can be protected, and it's not that hard to do. You do not have to be terrified of giving out any information. Little bits of info here and there are generally harmless.
Aside from stating the obvious, your point is.....?
Suppose I say that my avatar photo is indeed of me (which I have never before stated here, but let's postulate that it is) and that it is posted elsewhere on a site which has my real name in a copyright notice. So what? It could only be found by chance. I have supplied no information which would distinguish that one page with the photo from the billions of pages on the net. So how, exactly, have I compromised my privacy by posting the picture and stating some information? As a practical matter, the only way it would serve to identify me is if someone who already knew me wanted to verify that BD is indeed me. He might now have enough info to do so. That's the extent of my risk.
Where, exactly did I say you
had compromised your privacy or anything else? Your capacity for making stuff up is getting better every day.
All I said was if someone has access to the right information, all of which is available to identify the person who did post such a photo it can be found, who it is wasn't the issue. The meaning of privacy is misunderstood by so many people, including you so it would seem. It's not about whether someone can find out who someone else is online, that's
anonymity, and, very often quite easily got around.
Again, risk. Who said anything about risk? Only you. You are telling us about how you are at 'limited' risk when no-one said you were at any risk at all. The only 'risk' if you insist on using the word, is that someone may find out who you are without you wishing them to. That's not a breach of privacy, because your name isn't private by any sensible definition of the word, in the way your banking details are for example.
'Risk' relates to what someone does with that knowledge, not how they obtained it.
P.S.
While I enjoy the debate, I enjoy it better based on things I actually wrote, not things you would like people to
think I wrote. That gets boring
really fast.
