> The attitude that a company's payroll data is a company's privileged information, and the general public has no right to it?
Let me phrase it differently. I think people should have the right to count their money in public. So you should be able to say, publicly, "I am getting this amount of money from this guy".
So while you see this as an infringement of "rights of company to have private information", I see it as infringement of "individual rights to count money publicly". We have different valuations of these rights and that's why we disagree.
> But I am not an employee. Your strawman argument is irrelevant.
I think it comes down on whether or not you believe that you benefit from other people having information you already have or not.
> "Free speech" does not apply here, since it's a company's private information
Yeah, according to laws. The big question is if such arrangement is beneficial for the public. I don't think so, and we apparently disagree here.
> I think people should have the right to count their money in public.
But people should not have the right to count someone else's money in public, which is what you were implying. An employee may have the right to share; but I don't have the right to that information. It is asymmetric.
> But people should not have the right to count someone else's money in public, which is what you were implying.
I actually wasn't; if you reread my comments, I advocated that the people should be able to share information about their own salary with anybody without fear. (Although you should be free to criticize other things publicly without fear as well, and that includes compensation of others.)
Let me phrase it differently. I think people should have the right to count their money in public. So you should be able to say, publicly, "I am getting this amount of money from this guy".
So while you see this as an infringement of "rights of company to have private information", I see it as infringement of "individual rights to count money publicly". We have different valuations of these rights and that's why we disagree.
> But I am not an employee. Your strawman argument is irrelevant.
I think it comes down on whether or not you believe that you benefit from other people having information you already have or not.
> "Free speech" does not apply here, since it's a company's private information
Yeah, according to laws. The big question is if such arrangement is beneficial for the public. I don't think so, and we apparently disagree here.