-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is your opinion on internet privacy?
- Thread starter Vendetta
- Start date
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
And there's a difference between hiding things and simply not sharing everything.
If you're "not sharing" pertinent facts because you know your partner would make different decisions if they had all the facts - then you're hiding things that they probably have a right to know.
Not cool.
Do I tell my husband every time I buy a new pair of shoes? No. But do I HIDE that I've bought a new pair of shoes? No. If he asked me, I'd tell him. But if I lied and said, "I've had these for months now," and then he looked into my bank account and said, "But honey, what's this purchase from the shoe department of Neiman Marcus for $300?" then - I lied, and his actions are justified.
Now - if he asked, "Did you just buy those shoes?" and I said, "Why do you ask? It's my money, and I buy what I want," and THEN he looked into my bank account - he's snooping. Or if I said, "Hell, yes, I bought these shoes, and it's my business what I buy with my own money," he'd be out of line to look as well.
The point is this - when you're lying to a partner who expects honesty, then you're the one whose violated the trust and you have no right to sling that accusation at anyone else.
If you're "not sharing" pertinent facts because you know your partner would make different decisions if they had all the facts - then you're hiding things that they probably have a right to know.
Not cool.
Do I tell my husband every time I buy a new pair of shoes? No. But do I HIDE that I've bought a new pair of shoes? No. If he asked me, I'd tell him. But if I lied and said, "I've had these for months now," and then he looked into my bank account and said, "But honey, what's this purchase from the shoe department of Neiman Marcus for $300?" then - I lied, and his actions are justified.
Now - if he asked, "Did you just buy those shoes?" and I said, "Why do you ask? It's my money, and I buy what I want," and THEN he looked into my bank account - he's snooping. Or if I said, "Hell, yes, I bought these shoes, and it's my business what I buy with my own money," he'd be out of line to look as well.
The point is this - when you're lying to a partner who expects honesty, then you're the one whose violated the trust and you have no right to sling that accusation at anyone else.
Last edited:
blackout
Violet.
Sometimes a partner forfeits their "right" to your honesty,
in light of their inability to deal MATURELY with your honesty.
At that point, if you are stuck in the legalities of a marriage,
the only thing left to do
is put your entire life in a state of total lockdown.
(from that person)
Excepting of course, shared financial obligations and such.
It REALLY ****** me off that divorce is so hard to pull off
when you are financially lacking.
But I don't feel like crying this morning.
While I do support legal marriage rights for all,
I don't see the upside.
I would NEVER recommend it to my children.
And they have seen FIRST HAND, why.
legal autonomy is the way to go. IMO and E.
blackout
Violet.
And to that end...
imagine how much HARDER that would be,
if you had previously shared all of your pass codes and such.
No no. It's a bad idea.
blackout
Violet.
Until it goes bad.
eh
You can never say you know for sure.
But everyone has the right to stake their own odds.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Nothing's certain except death and taxes. But I can say with some assurance that I've learned from my past mistakes and have made a much better choice of a mate this time around. He's so honest that sometimes it's almost painful - but I much prefer that to the alternative. Plus, it matches my style of honesty.
blackout
Violet.
Well, I could go on and on about my problems with legal marriage,
but I would derail the thread.
While the topic is related, my comments would not directly reflect the OP topic.
Besides, I really need to keep my blood pressure, and stress levels down.
Really. My life (and lack of a life) is literally killing me.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
You're right, UV, the topics are interrelated.
All the more reason to make fully informed decisions, both before and after marriage or entering into what you agree to be a monogamous relationship with intertwined lives.
And it's our right, and as you pointed out, responsibility, to be fully informed of any facts or activities present which might play into our decisions.
All the more reason to make fully informed decisions, both before and after marriage or entering into what you agree to be a monogamous relationship with intertwined lives.
And it's our right, and as you pointed out, responsibility, to be fully informed of any facts or activities present which might play into our decisions.
Hypersonic
???
Caught with what? Given my examples how can someone be caught if honesty was forthcoming? I would say its the womans fault for allowing herself despite the clear intentions of the guy to allow her feelings to develop. If a man has no obligations to a womans why be mad?
Last edited:
Hypersonic
???
In a way it makes sense. Ok look at it from this angle. If I take mycomputer to a software company for then to either install a program or to do some maintenance work, my expectations are that they will do what I paid them for. Let's say I gave them my pass code to get in the main part of my computer so they can do their job. Now.my expectations at least mentally would be that they would complete their task and that is it. Let's say they access adult content on my computer and in some way I found out, the fact that the person went through private content of mine there would be a sense of violation. If if you think that this logically that the person didn't since I gave them access at least mentally we would feel that there would be a violation since the expectations of this software person was to complete their task and not deviate from it by indulging their curiousity into content that has nothing to.do with them.
In a way it is a yes and no situation only because there was an expectation. Surely, if someone had underhanded intentions and they are experienced, they wouldn't willingly give out private information so they can become caught.
blackout
Violet.
And yet if they found illegal content on your computer,
(weather they were actively "snooping" or not)
YOU would be the one (potentially) in trouble with the law.
idea
Question Everything
on one hand, I try to live without anything shameful to try and cover up, so privacy is not that big of a deal... on the other hand... I don't want someone hacking my bank account number, or stalking my kids... the internet does tear down a bit of the privacy wall, no doubt.
Hypersonic
???
In this example we aren't concerned with what ifs I am referring to the actual scenario. If I have a picture of a naked kid in my computer that doesn't prove I am a freak there has to be substantial evidence
Last edited:
Hypersonic
???
Invasion of privacy is invasion of privacy. If I have a bank account with millions of dollars and the bank teller overhearsme of being a bank robber and shares this info with police, and they find nothing that bank teller who just exposed my account to police off hearsay, violated my privacy especially if, by sharing my account which has no unusual transactions wasn't warranted.
blackout
Violet.
Well the point is, legal right can stand in the corner of the "snooper".
(under certain circumstances)
In those cases, what matters, is what the law says.
And these cases are actual scenarios.
blackout
Violet.
In some cases, the law will work against the "snooper",
and the slandered may well be in the right to
come against them with a law suit.
(for damages)
I'm not a lawyer though.
I don't know the "ins and outs".
Hypersonic
???
Hmmm I think from your own personal biases you are perhaps intentionally not agreeing with my scenario in relation with my discussion with the other member. I am not talking about American laws or whatever I am talking about invading privacy despite being told to specifically do a task
McBell
Unbound
Fail.
Now if you had said she shared it with her friend or neighbor, I would agree.
However, you seem to be moving the goal posts.
Unless of course, you are finished with the whole "give someone my password and complain that they looked at what my password revealed to them" scenario..?
Hypersonic
???
I didn't fail you just have a low comprehension of something completely obvious. Someone that gets a hold of adult information from your computer has invaded your privacy when you want them to complete a specific task and its especially evident if the person uses your private information to their benefit. Hence is why I used my friend as an example and put the example of computers along with it