Re: [Wikipedia-l] Two issues here:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Lars Aronsson wrote: | Jimmy Wales wrote: | |>It's o.k. to delete anything that violates someone's privacy | | In Europe we are hearing this sort of argument being used to cover up | Watergate-like situations. The next Richard Nixon might claim that | his privacy would be violated if the scandal was reported. This makes | me think twice when I hear the word "privacy". It's a very vague | term, and can sometimes be used as an opposite to "justice". | | I'm starting to agree with Scott McNealy: "Privacy - get over it", | http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,17538,00.html The distinction is a simple one, and only those who are actively working to eliminate privacy find it difficult to understand. Richard Nixon (or for a more recent example, Slick Willy Clinton), as a public figure, had no right to privacy. He gave it up when he chose -- of his own free will -- to seek public office. I, on the other hand, retain my right to privacy, except where I have taken affirmative action to weaken that right. I have no right to keep the files on my Web site private -- I started my Web server, giving up that right. I have an absolute right to keep my actions in my home private, because I have done nothing to lead anyone to believe I have given up that right -- I haven't installed a Web-cam, invited a news crew in, or anything like that. - -- ~ Sean Barrett | Incoming fire has the right-of-way. ~ sean(a)epoptic.com |