On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:30:35PM -0700, Tim May wrote: | On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 03:48 PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote: | > | >>Adam | >> | >>PS: Bob Blakely once defined privacy as the right to lie and get away | >>with it, which fits into some of what many people mean by privacy. | > | >Another possible definition is the right to tell the truth and get away | >with it. | > | >But both definitions are rather about free speech than about privacy, | >but | >then we'd get to a fight over definitions which is in this context | >better | >to leave on the shoulders of people making encyclopedias. | > | | Maybe I have a minor corollary to Somebody's Law: "All debates about | privacy eventually degenerate into foolish and off-target debates about | the meaning of truth." | | It never makes sense to argue about a "right to lie" or a "right to | tell the truth." One man's lie is another man's truth. And even | _asking_ for a true response is usually an overstepping, as it presumes | the asker knows what is true and what is not. Pilate said it all 2000 | years ago. I wasn't arguing, I was quipping. I find the many meanings of the word privacy to be fascinating. So when someone commented that the car's tattle-box is or isn't a privacy invasion, I thought I'd offer up a definition under which it is. Its a definition that lots of people use, as John points out. Perhaps better than 'right' would be 'ability,' 'The ability to lie and get away with it.' Adam -- 'No, honey, I was working late at the office.'