zlacker

For context, I'm generally sympathetic to the "I've got nothing to hide" people

I find your example illustrates the point . The UK has insane libel laws

The sane solution would be to address these laws, not to create mechanisms for people to arbitrarily evade laws

A lot of pro privacy arguments seem to boil down to "well we should make it a bit easier for people to break the law, cus maybe the laws are just bad". This line of reasoning just feels really unsatisfying..

>>contra+(OP)
I think we need both. We need clearer and more just laws governing free speech, and we need the right to the protection of our private speech.

>>contra+(OP)
It doesn't sound like libel/defemtation were involved in either case. Sounds like they were treated as criminal matters.

>>contra+(OP)
> The UK has insane libel laws

It is somewhat strange since the tabloids are extremely toxic and spam gossip.

>>simonh+i1
> we need

You're not wrong, but there are more pressing concerns

>>psd1+km
The UK passes roughly 33 acts of parliament per year, and 3,000 Statutory Instruments. What other concern is so pressing that passing one act of parliament would render the nation unable to complete it?

>>contra+(OP)
“Making it easier for people to break the law” is a weird way of saying “Making it harder for authoritarian governments to abuse its citizens”