Sean Barrett wrote:
The distinction is a simple one, and only those who are actively working to eliminate privacy find it difficult to understand.
Anyone who calls privacy a "simple" issue doesn't know what he's talking about. It is a common political cheap-shot tactic to accuse those who do see the complexities of an issue of simply being the enemy so no further thought is required, but if we are to deal with the issues rationally, we must work to encourage discussion, not foreclose it.
I see most issues of privacy today as necessary evils: the only reason I keep some things private is because we live under a powerful and intrusive government that will jail me for doing some things I have every right to do, and also because common societal norms may make me unpopular for doing those things.
I would certtainly prefer to solve those problems by fixing the intrusive government and the irrational society; but I can't do that overnight. I can, however, maintain some privacy while working towards those ultimate solutions.
But nowhere in any of that do I confuse "privacy" with the totally unrelated issue of "freedom" as many people do, nor do I pretend that it is a simple issue.
See, for example,
http://www.piclab.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?The_Benefits_Of_Transparency