|
|
|
|
|
|
by RyanDScott
5948 days ago
|
|
|
I know I'm greatly generalizing here, but when it comes to privacy there are two types of people: good people with legitimate things to hide and bad people with bad things to hide. Knowledge is everything. If I know the government is logging my chats and I'm in the "good people" category, I'll try not to say anything I don't want public and at the same time hope they are catching the "bad people" by logging their chats too. But does that mean we only care about the privacy of good people? Or do we justify breaching the privacy of good people in order to "protect" them from the information bad people might have? For me, I'll give up a lot of my privacy if it means less savory characters are stopped from doing bad things. But it's a fine line, and it can be crossed when so much of my privacy is given up that it becomes dangerous to me because of the usefulness or sensitivity of the information divulged. ---------- The death of privacy is quickly being carried out by the age of false privacy. It's the age of not knowing who is hearing what or even know how much you are sharing; but more so, it's the age of cover-up, where you buy privacy by putting forth a salted self. Those immersed in social media are getting increasingly apt at concealing the bad and accentuating the good. Personal blogging is usually nothing more than an exercise in deception. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. I don't want to know your dirty secrets. |
|
|