> > With generalised access to information, the individual is more
> > vulnerable now than at any time in history. Almost anything that
> > anyone wants to find out about you, they can get hold of
> And if you don't believe this, have a look at
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6059726.stm
John:
Actually, the article doesn't show that. Had Mr. Jones not
revealed his own identity and posted pictures of himself and his
family online then Mr. Gibbons wouldn't have been able to
know who he was or where he lived and therefore wouldn't
have been in any position to attack him.
The information about oneself that potentially can put you in the
most danger is the information that you reveal online about yourself.
E.g. if you use your own name when sending messages (as I do)
then it is a very simple matter for employers, potential employers,
the government, NGOs, political opponents, et al to obtain those
messages and use your words against you. Hence, you need to watch
what you write!
Actually, the case against having open archives is undercut by the
argument above since if "almost anything anyone wants to find out
about you they can get hold of" then any attempt to suppress
the dissemination of information from a Net list will prove futile.
The real issue is: are we in favor of more openness or are we in favor
of more suppression? I'll take the side of more openness. Others can
defend suppression.
Jerry
|