The only difference between the two proposals is the word "extreme"
That's a very shallow reading. There is a deep and fundamental difference in the two positions. If there was a stated policy that privacy breaching was something to be done only when absolutely necessary, I would trust the gods to follow that policy. Were that the case I do not think tye would have even considered peeking at private data in the present case because in upholding policy he would have asked himself "is this breach absolutely necessary?", and the answer can only be "no" for such a trivial situation. Instead, the gods have no such policy and so the question above doesn't get asked ... the question they might ask themselves is "what is the harm in this particular case". And *that* is a fundamentally different question, and the wrong question if you take privacy seriously. Using that (or similar) question as your guide makes *you* the judge of the value of *my* privacy.
I am very far from being the black-or-white person you suggest. Some concepts just do not lend themselves to continuous scales. What sense does 30-percent or 80-percent anonymous have to you? And I do realize the nature of access involved in administration as I administer a small multi-user system/gateway myself. Seeing bits of priveledged information such as IP addresses is a *long* way from connecting the dots to isolate and identify users and/or user behavior.
In reply to Re: Re^11: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery? (grey)
by Anonymous Monk
in thread Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery?
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |