From: MikeE@ster.invalid   
      
   Marion wrote:   
   > Mike Easter wrote :   
   >   
   >> My 'philosophy' is that I don't have adversaries who need to know who I   
   >> am and so I don't have to go to any trouble for 'severe privacy'.   
   >   
   > My adversary is Google. Microsoft. Apple. Meta. Amazon. et al.   
   >   
   I don't consider those 'adversaries'. It is OK w/ me for google to do   
   what it wants to do w/ my persona. What little privacy I lose to MS is   
   insignificant; none to Apple, Amazon knows who I am.   
      
   That is I don't mind any of those privacy losses. If I did, I might have   
   some interest in managing it, but since I don't, I don't.   
   >   
   >> To me, the only people who need severe privacy are criminals and those   
   >> who are actively fighting against an oppressive state actor; that is, if   
   >> you do dev a strong adversary w/ some kind of power, you have a problem.   
   >   
   > Luckily you added "severe privacy", as if you just used the regular privacy   
   > word, that's something *EVERYONE* is entitled to. Basic privacy is a right.   
   >   
   That is the mantra of what I call 'privacy buffs'; but, like how we   
   'view' our politics and our religions and beliefs, saying privacy is a   
   right is meaningless since the 'idea' of 'privacy' is all over the map,   
   in terms of *degrees*. This person feels he has to do all this stuff;   
   this other person, may be just as aware of what privacy he has   
   'relinquished' and that is perfectly all right w/ him.   
      
   It is OK w/ me if someone wants to 'be' a privacy buff in this that and   
   the other manner; but I don't 'routinely' have any interest in that   
   level of privacy.   
      
   However, I AM interested (information-wise) to be /able/ to be whatever   
   kind of anonymous persona I wish to be; IF I wished to do so.   
      
   I used to lurk the alt.locksmithing group; not because I wanted to   
   actually pick locks, but because I was interested in the tech that was   
   discussed there.   
   >   
   > Snowden often compares privacy to free speech.   
      
   I don't 'read' Snowden; I don't concur w/ Snowden's beliefs. I am more   
   in favor of the surveillance 'benefits' than I am in favor of what ES did.   
      
   That does /not/ mean I don't think anyone should 'hide' from the   
   surveillance if that is what they want to do; but it isn't going to be   
   easy.   
      
   Speech isn't completely free; w/ every right comes some degree of   
   responsibility.   
      
      
   --   
   Mike Easter   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)