4 ms·

Cute. If the government is using information to abuse people, then the problem is that the government is abusive, not that they have too much information. If yo

by imgabe 11y ago

Cute. If the government is using information to abuse people, then the problem is that the government is abusive, not that they have too much information. If you take away the information, but leave the abusive government in place, you haven't solved anything. The solution is not to limit the information, it's to limit the government's power.

mindslight 11y ago
Privacy is a way of limiting governments' power, and singular attempts to limit power don't seem all that effective. So why wouldn't we try everything we can? Readily giving up one protection in hope of replacing it with another is a great way to be left with neither. Furthermore, the definition of "abuse" isn't universal. If 80% of people think some self-contained behavior should be prevented, then lacking privacy the remaining 20% will be abused with no way to change it.
- imgabe 11y ago
  > Limiting the government's power doesn't seem to be so effective, so why not try "both" [0]? Really? It hasn't? Has your lord recently claimed his right of Prima Nocte with your new wife? Have you ever been conscripted into his army to fight against another lord? Have you seen many people summarily executed because they displeased a nobleman? I'd say we've come a fairly long way, historically, in limiting the ability of government to abuse citizens. Obviously, there is still room for improvement. > If 80% of people think some self-contained behavior should be prevented, then lacking privacy the remaining 20% will be abused with no way to change it. We have a way to change it. It's called "democracy". Letting unjust laws stand and trying to hide from the authorities instead of changing the unjust law is cowardly and ultimately ineffective. At one point 80% of people thought such self-contained behavior as being gay or interracial marriage should be illegal. We didn't make stronger privacy laws so that you could hide that you're gay or married to someone of a different race, we made it so those things aren't illegal. That is the right fix. That is the only fix that will ever work.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    I rephrased my comment a bit, because "privacy" versus "limiting government power" is a false dichotomy. The former is one avenue of the latter. And by saying that limiting power is somewhat ineffectual, I'm referring to the shorter term when a government will attempt to take all the power they can in an emerging area (eg mass surveillance), and only later be slowly pushed back as society slowly learns why the specific concentration is a bad approach. > We have a way to change it. It's called "democracy". Except that "democracy" describes the situation I outlined where the majority tyrannizes the minority. You're really saying that the way to change it is to simply wait, which is a complete disservice to anybody persecuted in the past, or anybody being persecuted today for things that are "still" unpopular. If you believe progress is truly inevitable, why are you bothering to discuss this? IMHO, the way progress is created is through specific instances of people fighting for it. And a meta-issue like privacy is what enables those on the forefront to be the social change before it is accepted. You'd have no gay marriage if sodomy laws were enforced effectively.
    - imgabe 11y ago
      > You're really saying that the way to change it is to simply wait, which is a complete disservice to anybody persecuted in the past, or anybody being persecuted today for things that are "still" unpopular. That is not at all what I'm saying. The many activists for civil rights did not simply "wait". They protested, they petitioned, and most importantly, they made it very publicly known who they were and why and how they were being oppressed. Literally, the exact opposite of being private. Most normal people (the 80% in your example) don't really want to be involved in oppressing or abusing anyone. It's easy for them to let it happen if they don't know the people it's happening to and see them as real human beings, but that's what happens so long as the main concern is maintaining privacy. Look at what's happened since being gay has gone from private, closely guarded information to generally publicly available, or at least not explicitly hidden. Are gay people more oppressed or less oppressed now?
      - mindslight 11y ago
        > normal people (the 80% in your example) don't really want to be involved in oppressing or abusing anyone Salem Village? Persecution of hackers (ongoing)? Drug hysteria (ongoing)? "Terrorism" (ongoing)? Heck, the privacy issue is itself an instance. Even if we disagree about the utility of privacy, surely you should accept that it could have value to others! In my experience, people are quite ready to support draconian "justice" against nonconforming behavior. They don't "see them as real human beings" because the victims are dehumanized as a different tribe. Direct violence based on traditional distinctions seems to be fading, but I'm not going to bet the farm based on short-term history. The general phenomenon certainly has found new avenues - eg the recent trend of bullying via social media. If you haven't developed the intuition that group dynamics can turn horribly wrong, then I don't know how I could convince you that being able to hide from the majority is a valuable thing. Most people will not understand this - themselves being part of the oppressive majority (see: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2346 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2346). No worries, I'll continue to preserve my privacy in every way possible!

by imgabe 11y ago

mindslight 11y ago

Privacy is a way of limiting governments' power, and singular attempts to limit power don't seem all that effective. So why wouldn't we try everything we can? Readily giving up one protection in hope of replacing it with another is a great way to be left with neither. Furthermore, the definition of "abuse" isn't universal. If 80% of people think some self-contained behavior should be prevented, then lacking privacy the remaining 20% will be abused with no way to change it.

imgabe 11y ago
> Limiting the government's power doesn't seem to be so effective, so why not try "both" [0]? Really? It hasn't? Has your lord recently claimed his right of Prima Nocte with your new wife? Have you ever been conscripted into his army to fight against another lord? Have you seen many people summarily executed because they displeased a nobleman? I'd say we've come a fairly long way, historically, in limiting the ability of government to abuse citizens. Obviously, there is still room for improvement. > If 80% of people think some self-contained behavior should be prevented, then lacking privacy the remaining 20% will be abused with no way to change it. We have a way to change it. It's called "democracy". Letting unjust laws stand and trying to hide from the authorities instead of changing the unjust law is cowardly and ultimately ineffective. At one point 80% of people thought such self-contained behavior as being gay or interracial marriage should be illegal. We didn't make stronger privacy laws so that you could hide that you're gay or married to someone of a different race, we made it so those things aren't illegal. That is the right fix. That is the only fix that will ever work.
- mindslight 11y ago
  I rephrased my comment a bit, because "privacy" versus "limiting government power" is a false dichotomy. The former is one avenue of the latter. And by saying that limiting power is somewhat ineffectual, I'm referring to the shorter term when a government will attempt to take all the power they can in an emerging area (eg mass surveillance), and only later be slowly pushed back as society slowly learns why the specific concentration is a bad approach. > We have a way to change it. It's called "democracy". Except that "democracy" describes the situation I outlined where the majority tyrannizes the minority. You're really saying that the way to change it is to simply wait, which is a complete disservice to anybody persecuted in the past, or anybody being persecuted today for things that are "still" unpopular. If you believe progress is truly inevitable, why are you bothering to discuss this? IMHO, the way progress is created is through specific instances of people fighting for it. And a meta-issue like privacy is what enables those on the forefront to be the social change before it is accepted. You'd have no gay marriage if sodomy laws were enforced effectively.
  - imgabe 11y ago
    > You're really saying that the way to change it is to simply wait, which is a complete disservice to anybody persecuted in the past, or anybody being persecuted today for things that are "still" unpopular. That is not at all what I'm saying. The many activists for civil rights did not simply "wait". They protested, they petitioned, and most importantly, they made it very publicly known who they were and why and how they were being oppressed. Literally, the exact opposite of being private. Most normal people (the 80% in your example) don't really want to be involved in oppressing or abusing anyone. It's easy for them to let it happen if they don't know the people it's happening to and see them as real human beings, but that's what happens so long as the main concern is maintaining privacy. Look at what's happened since being gay has gone from private, closely guarded information to generally publicly available, or at least not explicitly hidden. Are gay people more oppressed or less oppressed now?
    - mindslight 11y ago
      > normal people (the 80% in your example) don't really want to be involved in oppressing or abusing anyone Salem Village? Persecution of hackers (ongoing)? Drug hysteria (ongoing)? "Terrorism" (ongoing)? Heck, the privacy issue is itself an instance. Even if we disagree about the utility of privacy, surely you should accept that it could have value to others! In my experience, people are quite ready to support draconian "justice" against nonconforming behavior. They don't "see them as real human beings" because the victims are dehumanized as a different tribe. Direct violence based on traditional distinctions seems to be fading, but I'm not going to bet the farm based on short-term history. The general phenomenon certainly has found new avenues - eg the recent trend of bullying via social media. If you haven't developed the intuition that group dynamics can turn horribly wrong, then I don't know how I could convince you that being able to hide from the majority is a valuable thing. Most people will not understand this - themselves being part of the oppressive majority (see: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2346 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2346). No worries, I'll continue to preserve my privacy in every way possible!