Safe privacy is an important component of autonomy, freedom, and thus psychological well-being, in any society that values individuals. ... Summed up briefly, a statement of "how not to dehumanize people" might read: Don't terrorize or humiliate.
Don't destroy privacy. Terrorists of all sorts destroy privacy both by corrupting it into secrecy and by using hostile surveillance to undo its useful sanctuary.
Then Jones wrote, "I hope that makes it clear why I can't continue. There is now no shield from forced exposure. Nothing in that parenthetical thought list is terrorism-related, but no one can feel protected enough from forced exposure any more to say anything the least bit like that to anyone in an email, particularly from the U.S. out or to the U.S. in, but really anywhere. You don't expect a stranger to read your private communications to a friend. And once you know they can, what is there to say?"
In fact, Jones said "now that I know that ensuring privacy online is impossible," she's cutting the cord from the Internet. She recommended using Kolab in Switzlerland if you intend to stay online.
"The tragic and unnecessary loss of a site like Groklaw is a reminder of what is threatened by the surveillance state, and the current attacks on the free press," wrote Computerworld's Glyn Moody. "It's the canary in the coal mine, serving as a warning to us to act before it's too late."
Please read the sad news and final post on Groklaw in full.
Sign up for CIO Asia eNewsletters.