The Right to Anonymity is a Matter of Privacy | Hacker News Reader

The Right to Anonymity is a Matter of Privacy

eff.org

51 pointssrl5 comments

It's interesting that a group of people that is so in favor of free information (the "Internet" type of person) would also be almost equally in favor of control over information that pertains to them (privacy). Don't get me wrong; if a person wants to be private, I'm all for them getting their wish, but, to me, it seems to go against the ideas of open source information and a more transparent structure of communication.

As far as Anonymity goes, I believe that being anonymous gives people the freedom to complete their own desires more easily, and puts the pressure on the person and the system to being about good behavior rather than simple peer pressure.

I can't say I understand why you think freedom of information and privacy are mutually exclusive.

It's about power inequality. To some extent, knowledge is power. Even more so when you already have leverage (the police for instance, uses its monopoly on civil violence to act on information about criminals —catch them). If you want a just and fair society, you probably don't want too much differences of power. So, you'd redistribute power in a way similar to the way taxes (are supposed to) redistribute wealth.

Information can be used to redistribute power: give some to the powerless, and deny some to the powerful. Open Big-Corps and governments, and keep the private citizens' privacy.

>So, you'd redistribute power in a way similar to the way taxes (are supposed to) redistribute wealth.

Is that really what taxes are supposed to be? (Genuine question) I thought they were a levy on businesses and personal income in a sovereign region used to fund the governance, infrastructure and societal needs of that sovereign region?

Oh. Right. I assumed a socialist setting. My country (France) has a welfare system (unemployment, retirement etc…), so part of its taxes are directly redistributed.

Note however that direct redistribution isn't the only way. For instance, the infrastructure (like roads and schools) benefits many citizens. You can reasonably equate such benefits with "a bit of wealth". So it is still a form of redistribution of wealth.

I don't think wealth redistribution can easily be separated from state.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com