On 6/6/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
It's not at all impossible. Detailed information about private people is harmful. Even >excessively detailed information about public figures. publishing private phone numbers of >celebrities is an obvious pain in the ass.
Such information is not encyclopedic.
We don't need to know if George Bush has Herpes.
Until it becomes a political issue.
People have a right to live without a spotlight turned on them.
Not under US law.
Likewise detailed information about how to kill people is rather obviously harmful.
And yet there don't appear to be any shortage of self defence classes or shooting galleries.
None of the statements you made are true. Rough approximations may be arrived at with >respect to all 3.
Going by your above examples this would not appear to be the case. Detailed information about how to kill can be used for good or ill.
The question is whether dissemination of the information is useful or harmful.
"useful or harmful" is even worse since it fails to define who it is useful for.