I can think of two scenarios offhand, neither of which is particularly nice, but that's unfortunately not the point. (The names I've chosen for these scenarios are alphabetical and the names of bots, and arbitrary when I can't think of a bot that fits that letter of the alphabet.)
Scenario 1: Anna is being passive-aggressive. Anna has a catty, passive-aggressive statement that she would like to make to Bit. This statement could apply to either of Anna's friends Bit or Charlotte. However, Anna does not want Charlotte or Dave to be offended by accident. Anna makes a post that only Bit can see, without indicating in any way that it is filtered. Unless Bit thinks to check with Charlotte or Dave, Bit will have no way of knowing that the passive-aggressive statement was intended for it. Scenario 2: Anna is testing a suspected security leak. Someone with access to Anna's locked entries has been leaking that information to Goat, who is not Anna's friend. Anna suspects that Frank is passing the information. Anna makes a post with subtly inaccurate information that is only viewable to Frank. If this information then surfaces from Goat, Anna will know that Frank is the source of the security leak. On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:37 AM, zvi <[email protected]> wrote: > Can you expand on that? I honestly don't understand how it becomes less > private to tell people "restricted beyond just the friendslist" and it > strikes me as dangerous for the person doing the locking, as those on the > filter are left to assume that everyone trusted by the OP is in on the > discussion, rather than some subset. > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:59 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Yes. The privacy involved in choosing to have a filter extends to >> disclosing whether or not there is a filter in use. >> >> principia_coh >> Alexis Carpenter _______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
