UI terminology for calculated validities

[MFPA]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi


On Friday 2 May 2014 at 3:02:30 AM, in <mid:4947277.3iX2JyFA0M at inno>,
Hauke Laging wrote:

> Let's not try to protect the users against themselves
> even in non- technical contexts.

Why not? If they are determined, they will get around the safeguards
anyway. If they were simply unwittingly going to do something
potentially harmful, the safeguards were worth it.



> Your opinion about
> leaking social information is not better that that of
> somebody who likes to leak it.

But either of those two is better than somebody who leaks it without
having considered all angles and formed an opinion, and without
considering the interests of others who may be harmed by his leaking.



> The result should not be
> you making that impossible for him

The leaking of personal and/or social information cannot be made
impossible but it needs to be a deliberate choice. We should get as
close as we can to making _accidental_ leaking impossible.



> but quite simple: He leaks, you  don't.

It is nothing like a simple "He leaks, you don't" when he is leaking
information relating to others as well as to himself. (More "He leaks,
you don't - so you avoid him like the plague. Oops, he already leaked
information about you before you found out he was leaky and started to
avoid him.")


- --
Best regards

MFPA                    mailto:2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-groups at riseup.net

Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iPQEAQEKAF4FAlNjtydXFIAAAAAALgAgaXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3Bl
bnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEJBMjM5QjQ2ODFGMUVGOTUxOEU2QkQ0NjQ0
N0VDQTAzAAoJEKipC46tDG5pilwD/Ar41w1C7TiTI7iA6Sk4H4YCLirnYhNzS9S9
ZHptNWfstBu4mrbVROz7smF9oRzFz6cn610tNskLRPdZmnNoXlyxq340civTF/Rd
fbu2yUxlVALmR5wwsBbG/rHVzFJV3WBAYgHBXdLOHgWTXr+Sid44s96Ms+3xIaEy
3UQLZcjT
=pMPH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----