Re:Privacy is the most important concept of our time
by notahacker on Friday October 02, 2020 @11:48AM
(#24663834)
> perhaps it's because I'm privileged, but I don't really see how this is a problem? does it really matter if someone holds abhorrent beliefs privately if everything they do in public (and at their job) is consistent with their publicly espoused views?
If somebody has both expressed abhorrent views and made deceptive statements, why on earth would one assume they could be trusted to only act in accordance with their public statements?
Re:Privacy is the most important concept of our time
by leetcrew on Friday October 02, 2020 @12:16PM
(#24664115)
that's not quite an answer to the question I asked. people don't always behave in a way that's consistent with the privately or publicly held beliefs, and I think it would be foolish to expect them to.
suppose you have a hiring manager that's secretly a racist, but nevertheless hires a diverse group of talented engineers because that's what's in their job description. doesn't it only become a problem if people find out?
Re:Privacy is the most important concept of our time
by notahacker on Friday October 02, 2020 @12:44PM
(#24664433)
In the real world - and even more so in a super privacy-conscious version of the real world - nobody has perfect information about how the other person acts towards others. Politicians renege on public commitments and racists hire minorities to bully all the time.
Suppose you have a hiring manager that expresses racist views about minority engineers but then tells you not to tell anyone. Why on earth should their plea for secrecy and some nonwhite faces in the office lead you to assume that they're scrupulously fair in their decision making?
Re:Privacy is the most important concept of our time
by postlamper on Friday October 02, 2020 @12:47PM
(#24664466)
it becomes a problem the minute there's divergence because lack of integrity undermines trust. of course, the seriousness of the problem correlates with the size of the divergence. and given that, as you rightly note, there is always going to be some degree of divergence, social responses should be informed by the degree of the divergence, and should forgive relatively trivial ones.
> If I was flat out telling my family I didn't like race X and wished that religion Y could be outlawed, and then shared in the public realm that racists are terrible and that freedom of religion for all is paramount...shouldn't someone be able to call me out on it? And if not me, imagine a person of some power or influence: don't we want to know when someone's public political stance is different to how they really feel?
perhaps it's because I'm privileged, but I don't really see how this is a problem? does it really matter if someone holds abhorrent beliefs privately if everything they do in public (and at their job) is consistent with their publicly espoused views? if instead of only confiding in close family members, the person abused the privacy protection to spread their views to many private groups, this would start to blur the line.
a more clear cut example would be if someone privately expressed a credible and imminent plan to harm someone else. you would definitely want an exception for that.