XMO Resources
Peace beyond disillusionment is never found in denial, repression, or silent acquiescence to the unacceptable.
June 28, 2025
Peace beyond disillusionment is never found in denial, repression, or silent acquiescence to the unacceptable.
June 28, 2025
General Relationship Standards
Privacy
continue >>>
A) Yes. I agree and commit to follow this standard as described above.
B) Hmmm… Let me give this some thought. I might have some questions.
C.) No. I disagree with the protocol of privacy and related expectations as described above. If this is a requirement of having a friendly relationship with you, I will have to decline.
continue >>>
Home | Contact Us | Screen Test
Apostasy | Our Mission | Legal Notice
Copyright (c) 2009-2024
Home | Contact Us | PBR Development
Copyright (c) 2009-2025
Privacy
continue >>>
Return to Contents
We believe that respect for personal privacy is a reasonable standard for general relationships and a reasonable expectation to have.
As that is the case, it should be assumed by default (without asking) that all personal disclosures are made with the expectation of privacy. This means that no right to re-share such information with others exists without asking specifically for permission to share.
Similarly, private information acquired by observations made in close proximity or via private access specifically granted to you are subject to the same expectations.
Wrongly (in our opinion), some suppose that personal disclosures that are subject to privacy expectations are limited to sensitive highly personal information, like who you might be sleeping with or whether you cheated on your taxes. More appropriately (in our opinion), personal information that is subject to privacy expectations is simply information about you, personally that is acquired from you, personally, or as a result of special access not generally available to the public.
The degree of sensitivity of the information is not the standard by which an expectation of privacy is measured. Accordingly, your assessment of how much it might "matter" if you shared the information, is not an appropriate measure of the applicability of the expectation of privacy. You do not have the right to decide what "matters" and what doesn't where someone else's privacy is involved.
If the information is about the other individual personally, then it is subject to an expectation of privacy unless stated otherwise, or unless already generally known (not just supposed) to the public. (Like your place of employment, if it happens to be Walmart... not if it happens to be for a private company not known to the public.)
Further confusion (to put it charitably) in the minds of some seems to arise when the question of who they want to share the information with comes into play. Some believe others have special privileges or rights to know things about you that trump your expectation of privacy. For example, members of certain cults suppose that it is appropriate to share their assessment of your conduct as it relates to their notion of your spiritual "worthiness" or well-being with senior members of their cult. (i.e. a Mormon's home teaching supervisor or Bishop). We completely disagree.
Others believe that family members are entitled to special privileges to information about your welfare, employment, or whereabouts. We disagree. Anything that is personal information about you should be presumed to fall under the reasonable expectation of privacy unless you specifically authorize sharing the information.
What about the "posse"? Some unfortunate souls just can't make decisions on their own and require airing out their personal lives and the choices or experiences that they have with their posse (close family or friends) for feedback.
Getting help with how to reply to a challenging message or respond to a disappointing situation often gives rise to a "committee meeting" with the posse for feedback. Violations of personal privacies, including the details of private conversations are, unfortunately, quite common in such scenarios. They are routinely justified. We disagree with that call. It is our view that private information should remain private unless extreme circumstances warrant otherwise.
An example of extreme circumstances that might warrant disclosures that would otherwise not be appropriate, in our view, would involve self defense, where one's own privacies have been violated in the course of unfair condemnation and/or inaccurate representations made to others, giving rise to the legitimate right of an individual to correct misinformation and, therefore, call attention to legitimate questions of credibility of the individuals making the inaccurate and inappropriate reports or claims.
We do not seek relationships with people who unnecessarily trample on privacies in the course of pursuing the secret feedback of a close cadre of family or friends to manage their relationships. We prefer relationships with confident, independent thinking people who do not justify the violation of privacies in exchange for secret or otherwise illegitimate feedback and direction from third parties to manage their relationships.
Have you read the forgoing discussion on privacy and do you agree that it is a reasonable standard that you will follow in your relationship with the person who sent you this information?
We believe that respect for personal privacy is a reasonable standard for general relationships and a reasonable expectation to have.
As that is the case, it should be assumed by default (without asking) that all personal disclosures are made with the expectation of privacy. This means that no right to re-share such information with others exists without asking specifically for permission to share.
Similarly, private information acquired by observations made in close proximity or via private access specifically granted to you are subject to the same expectations.
Wrongly (in our opinion), some suppose that personal disclosures that are subject to privacy expectations are limited to sensitive highly personal information, like who you might be sleeping with or whether you cheated on your taxes. More appropriately (in our opinion), personal information that is subject to privacy expectations is simply information about you, personally that is acquired from you, personally, or as a result of special access not generally available to the public.
The degree of sensitivity of the information is not the standard by which an expectation of privacy is measured. Accordingly, your assessment of how much it might "matter" if you shared the information, is not an appropriate measure of the applicability of the expectation of privacy. You do not have the right to decide what "matters" and what doesn't where someone else's privacy is involved.
If the information is about the other individual personally, then it is subject to an expectation of privacy unless stated otherwise, or unless already generally known (not just supposed) to the public. (Like your place of employment, if it happens to be Walmart... not if it happens to be for a private company not known to the public.)
Further confusion (to put it charitably) in the minds of some seems to arise when the question of who they want to share the information with comes into play. Some believe others have special privileges or rights to know things about you that trump your expectation of privacy. For example, members of certain cults suppose that it is appropriate to share their assessment of your conduct as it relates to their notion of your spiritual "worthiness" or well-being with senior members of their cult. (i.e. a Mormon's home teaching supervisor or Bishop). We completely disagree.
Others believe that family members are entitled to special privileges to information about your welfare, employment, or whereabouts. We disagree. Anything that is personal information about you should be presumed to fall under the reasonable expectation of privacy unless you specifically authorize sharing the information.
What about the "posse"? Some unfortunate souls just can't make decisions on their own and require airing out their personal lives and the choices or experiences that they have with their posse (close family or friends) for feedback.
Getting help with how to reply to a challenging message or respond to a disappointing situation often gives rise to a "committee meeting" with the posse for feedback. Violations of personal privacies, including the details of private conversations are, unfortunately, quite common in such scenarios. They are routinely justified. We disagree with that call. It is our view that private information should remain private unless extreme circumstances warrant otherwise.
An example of extreme circumstances that might warrant disclosures that would otherwise not be appropriate, in our view, would involve self defense, where one's own privacies have been violated in the course of unfair condemnation and/or inaccurate representations made to others, giving rise to the legitimate right of an individual to correct misinformation and, therefore, call attention to legitimate questions of credibility of the individuals making the inaccurate and inappropriate reports or claims.
We do not seek relationships with people who unnecessarily trample on privacies in the course of pursuing the secret feedback of a close cadre of family or friends to manage their relationships. We prefer relationships with confident, independent thinking people who do not justify the violation of privacies in exchange for secret or otherwise illegitimate feedback and direction from third parties to manage their relationships.
Have you read the forgoing discussion on privacy and do you agree that it is a reasonable standard that you will follow in your relationship with the person who sent you this information?
A) Yes. I agree and commit to follow this standard as described above.
B) Hmmm… Let me give this some thought. I might have some questions.
C.) No. I disagree with the protocol of privacy and related expectations as described above. If this is a requirement of having a friendly relationship with you, I will have to decline.
continue >>>
Home | Contact Us | Screen Test
Apostasy | Our Mission | Legal Notice
Copyright (c) 2009-2024
Home | Contact Us | PBR Development
Copyright (c) 2009-2025