

The Right to Anonymity is a Matter of Privacy - srl
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/right-anonymity-matter-privacy

======
Omegalisk
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.

~~~
loup-vaillant
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.

~~~
panacea
>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?

~~~
loup-vaillant
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.

