[jes]

w_t_payne did not specify the level of detail, so it's conceivable that s/he intended that the transactions be sufficiently detailed so as to be able to ascertain, for example, what products Sally purchased.

But even in your case, indicating anything about Sally's activities seems to me to put her at the mercy of the tribe, such that they might start asking her "So, what did you buy at the pharmacy, Sally? I see EPT test kits are $11.87, when you include sales tax. I'll bet you're sexually active! Am I right?"

With respect, there are reasons that are both legitimate and moral to not have to disclose one's activities to strangers, and compromising on this principle isn't a good idea, in my view.

[w_t_payne]

The responses raise some pretty good points - but do you think that there is a level of detail at which public disclosure is OK? What about if transactions were randomly made public, with a probability of disclosure that increased with the size of the transaction? The chances of Sally's activities being made public would therefore be vanishingly small, but any cash flow, or series of flows, which were significant (in aggregate) would be made public with near certainty. Obviously, there are parameters that control this mechanism, and there is harm to be had, as well as good.

Are there sets of parameters for which the good outweighs the bad, and, if so, is there a parameter that maximises either the good / bad ratio, or maximises the good for a certain "acceptable" level of good, or minimises the bad for a certain "desired" level of good.

[tedunangst]

Maybe someday I'll learn not to clarify somebody else's post.

[jes]

I appreciated your comment and the opportunity to further discuss a topic (privacy) that I think is important and under attack in our society today. Thank you.

[tedunangst]

oh, no worries. i was more complaining about the person who downvoted me, presumably on impulse.