[repo001]

No. You don't get to invalidate someones right to privacy because you've given yours up.

The argument that if you don't have anything to hide you don't need privacy has been beaten to death already.

And when it comes to sexual preferences there are still many countries/states where being able to hide it is a life or death situation.

[whalesalad]

> No. You don't get to invalidate someones right to privacy because you've given yours up.

I am not invalidating someone's right to privacy.

> The argument that if you don't have anything to hide you don't need privacy has been beaten to death already.

Also not suggesting this at all. I am merely trying to offer a different viewpoint. I interpret the original post as, "I made a mistake, I need need help fixing this so I am not found out" - to which I would say no mistake has been made. That is all I am saying.

If you really value your privacy you don't use Facebook, it's that simple... you can't have one foot in the door and the other outside and think it'll work to your favor.

[quinndiggity]

> I am not invalidating someone's right to privacy.

You are saying that not having the choice to choose what to share is acceptable though. Privacy isn't about having something to hide, it's about having the same rights you have with your day-to-day thoughts; you aren't forced to shout every single thought that pops into your mind, you are able to pick and choose what you would like to express and share. Privacy and encryption aim towards that goal.