zlacker

>>syness+(OP)
"This affects all of us. We must care." is not an effective way of convincing someone.

I personally do not care about privacy. I see no reason why I should.

It's just my opinion. I know other people do but please don't generalize.

>>blitzp+6c
Can I have access to your Senator's philandering text messages so that I can bribe them to make a vote you don't support?

>>brando+jf
you don't mean bribe, you mean blackmail. It's a good example. When you get anonymous, credible, extortion/blackmail attempts a good reaction is to go to the FBI and say, look, some anonymous person is blackmailing/extorting me. (a crime).

Now you can decide whether you want the courts to have any ability to connect that crime to the medium that you were communicated via, or whether that information should simply vanish in the ether, leaving anyone to blackmail or extort anyone else from the safety of their own home and behind an anonymous Internet connection.

you've, in fact, made the opposite point to the one that you meant to :) when crimes start getting committed, sometimes society needs recourse.

>>logica+el
If you outlaw anonymity, only outlaws will be anonymous.

But we were talking about privacy, not anonymity.

My argument is that even if you don't have secrets, someone with power over you (politician, judge, general, CEO) may, and you should want their secrets kept.