5 ms·

I don't mind losing some privacy but it has to be symmetrical. Right now the government is like the clothed guy on a nudist beach and it's awkward.

• avmich 11y ago
  That's not enough. Government is a service for you - it should be naked by default, while you're clothed by default.
  • TeMPOraL 11y ago
    It's impossible as long as there are real actors that are a threat to it - i.e. as long as there is more than one government in the universe and all want access to the same resources.
    • avmich 11y ago
      Can you explain why? "Default" doesn't mean "always" - we can talk about hiding something, which is related to external threats. Why this can't work?
      • TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I stupidly misread you as saying "all-public". Let's call it a brain-fart. I'm all for government transparency, but I also accept that as long as nations compete with each others, there are areas in diplomacy, trade, espionage and military that need to stay secret.
• icanhackit 11y ago
  Right now the government is like the clothed guy on a nudist beach and it's awkward. That's a fantastic metaphor for the situation. That could be quite an effective advertising campaign against government surveillance because it visually shows the disparity of exposure while capturing the impropriety of the act. Perfect.
  • andy_ppp 11y ago
    Yes, it's the clothed guy on a nudist beach taking photos of everyone saying "don't worry I'm the government; these pictures are to stop terrorists."
    • TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Meanwhile ad industry - the person next to you on that beach, like you also naked, is too making photos and is the one running voyeur porn site.
      • CamperBob2 11y ago
        But then, advertising agencies didn't murder 50 million+ of their own customers in the last century alone.
        • eveningcoffee 11y ago
          Hmm. Are you sure? How about tobacco, unbalanced food, guns, ... all these things are advertised and are causing deaths - so their hands are not clean either. But yes, not their own customers, but the bad analogy holds only when you think that citizens are customers of the government.
          • CamperBob2 11y ago
            Tobacco and junk food are primarily harmful to people who voluntarily consume them, while guns are statistically never more dangerous than when wielded by one's own government/military/police forces. (There are exceptions -- such as present-day life in America -- but they are historically anomalous and probably temporary.)
    • junto 11y ago
      This is quite possibly the best thread ever.
    • junto 11y ago
• jensen123 11y ago
  Good point, but even if the loss of privacy was symmetrical, it would still be a problem. Somewhat smaller problem, perhaps, but still a very serious problem. In a world without privacy, the only things you could do/say/write would be the things that would offend nobody. You could not drink alcohol, since that would offend the teetotalers. You could not fly somewhere on vacation, since that would offend the environmentalists. You could not watch pornography or hire prostitutes since that would offend some feminists or religious conservatives. You could not eat meat, since that would offend vegans. You could not drive fast since that would offend those obsessed with safety. You could not make much money, since that would offend the socialists. You could not eat potato chips or drink soda since that would offend the health nuts. Etc. Etc. Etc. Because, if you offend someone, that person will like you less and punish you in various ways. Not hire you for a job, not rent you an apartment, not invite you to a party, not cooperate if you're a co-worker, not have sex with you, not do you a favor, not do business with you, not greet you, not open the door for you when you have your hands full of groceries, not hold the elevator when they see you coming etc. etc. etc. A world without privacy, even if that lack of privacy was totally symmetrical, and you could observe everything the government did, would be a world where you could not do/say/write a whole lot.
  • StavrosK 11y ago
    That's less "a world without privacy" and more "a world with easily offended people". This is not at all my experience in my culture. Here, if someone offends you, well, they're either a dick. Some people are dicks, you just shrug and move on.
    • jensen123 11y ago
      Maybe your culture is healthier than mine. But the other day, there was a link to the Wikipedia article on the con man who sold the Eiffel Tower: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Lustig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Lustig At the bottom, there is the "Ten Commandments for Con Men". They include "wait for the other person to reveal any political opinions, then agree with them" and "let the other person reveal religious views, then have the same ones". There is a reason why con artists do this. People in general tend to like people who are similar to themselves, and often dislike people who are different. Privacy makes it possible for people who are different from each other to live in harmony.
• fit2rule 11y ago
  I'd be okay with the NSA collecting everything if we could all access it. Having an elite, privileged 'security class' in society is absolutely heinous. But if the NSA could give Google a run for their money in terms of providing real service from the data they collect, in an open and transparent fashion, I think it'd be great for the world. I know I for sure would benefit from being able to access my long-ago lost data again ..