> "I once read an article that said you should be very careful of
> anybody who can disagree vehemently and convincingly with another
> person's point without ever categorically accusing them of being
In fact you should seek out such people, because in matters of opinion that is the exact definition of someone with whom you can have a civilised discussion.
> With this in mind, just because someone may have differing
> views to mine on the implementation of privacy in software
> doesn’t mean they are wrong. Likewise, just because my
> views may differ to theirs doesn’t mean I am wrong. We are
> all different and we all manage our information and our
> expectations around information sharing in different ways.
I kind of regret the way I said what I said above now, but I still think Jono has failed to address my privacy concerns. From the point of view of somebody who is worried about the privacy implications of the Amazon integration, all the post really does is to say "Well I'm not worried". It does say it in quite a reasonable and comforting way though.
Actually, I came away confused, because he never stated "This is exactly what Ubuntu does, and here are my reasons for why it is okay."
I disagree with your point - in fact, I think you are wrong. But we can still have a civilized discussion. My reasoning is that when facts and disagreements are not clearly stated ("here are the facts; the other party came to conclusion X, but I come to conclusion Y for these reasons"), it's easy to get bogged down in points that are not central.