3 ms·

> They don't "see them as real human beings" because the victims are dehumanized as a different tribe. Exactly. And the way to counteract this is by speaking u

by imgabe 11y ago

> They don't "see them as real human beings" because the victims are dehumanized as a different tribe. Exactly. And the way to counteract this is by speaking up and showing them that the victims are real people. Not by hiding the victims. As long as they never see or hear about or meet any real person that's a member of the oppressed class, they can maintain the illusion that they are "others". It's easy for someone to hate "gays" as an abstract notion. It's a lot harder to hate your gay neighbor Fred, who waves hello in the morning and asks how your day is going and picks up the mail for you when you're out of town. Maybe it's valuable in the short term for some individuals to be able to hide, but it only slows down the progress overall. Aside from that, my main point is that, valuable or not, hiding is not going to be an option. Digital information doesn't stay in one place. Even if you think it's really wrong that it doesn't, it still doesn't. Music companies think it's really wrong that people can share copies of music files, but that hasn't stopped it from happening. Ignoring the reality of it and trying to legislate it away hasn't stopped it. It won't stop companies/governments from sharing information about you either. So, if that's what you're relying on to keep you safe, you're not going to be safe.

mindslight 11y ago
> And the way to counteract this is by speaking up and showing them that the victims are real people How's that been working out for hard drug users, file sharers, and non-molesting pedophiles? > hiding is not going to be an option This is such an utterly defeatist conclusion. There will always be some types of information that are impossible to keep private and some that will be easy to, but there's a huge middleground that requires organization and resources (eg traffic cameras, credit bureaus) to collect, aggregate, and exploit. The entities currently doing are centralized, so they could easily be put out of business. Individual actions and peers will only leak certain things through eg mass photos, and to presuppose omniscience on the part of a would-be decentralized reconstructor is to ignore how that capability would be bootstrapped - the economic advantage from private surveillance that currently goes unregulated. Obviously the existing power structures have a lot more to gain by developing surveillance than prohibiting it. But a decently secured computer containing one's private files is a shining beacon of a Schelling point as well. I really don't see the point of capitulating early and backfitting it into a philosophy of openness. I guarantee our rulers won't be quick to do so either.
- imgabe 11y ago
  Defeatist? No. I don't think it's defeatist to avoid relying on something that has been proven, time and time again, to be unreliable. > How's that been working out for hard drug users, file sharers, and non-molesting pedophiles? Hard drug users: many countries and jurisdictions are moving towards decriminalization and legalization, as well as emphasizing treatment over jail time for non-violent drug offenders. File Sharers: File sharing continues unabated as far as I can tell. The most successful efforts to stop it have been offering attractive paid alternatives rather than hunting down file sharers. Non-molesting pedophiles: Admittedly, an uphill battle. But you're here, on a public forum, mentioned them as an abused, oppressed class, so that's something. Not the first time I've seen such an opinion either. Privacy is nice, but it's not a security measure. Even the NSA, with thousands of people working full time to find secrets and keep them, cannot keep their information secret. > The entities currently doing are centralized, so they could easily be put out of business. Theoretically, yes, Congress could pass a law making credit bureaus illegal. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to happen. I never said "don't secure your computer". There's a big difference between making sure a keylogger doesn't grab your bank account number and worrying yourself stupid because a list of places you were last week is in a database somewhere that, in all likelihood, nobody is ever going to look at. The former is a reasonable precaution against a verified threat that you can personally take useful action on. The latter is just pointless stress about some vague danger that you have little immediate control over.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    Sure, ambiguous "progress" is being made, but the individuals in those situations don't benefit by publicly broadcasting their activities. This entire "progressive" attitude that everything continually gets better, besides being based on this recent most-peaceful time in history, relies on individuals pushing forth and being the change to their local social groups while simultaneously hiding from the larger social machines that would quickly squash them. The individuals in these situations would be ill-advised to widely broadcast their activities and, if pushed to do so, would pull back from their lives rather than become martyrs. I'll openly tell you that I consider it immoral to support the copyright cartels hell-bent on destroying the Internet. But I'm certainly not going to further details as doing so would only increase my risk. > list of places you were ... nobody is ever going to look at An extreme straw man that the NSA is also fond of. The information is being collected so it can be churned over by algorithms for very deliberate purposes. The distilled results are then used, by somebody, to investigate and persecute outliers, engage in price discrimination, and implement commercial psychological warfare (advertising). It's not a matter of non-actionable stress, it's a matter of being aware of the privacy preserving/revealing choices one makes, and casually looking for alternatives. This license plate issue is a great example of what your viewpoint directly enables - a problem caused solely by government requiring people to publicly broadcast their identity, putting them at the mercy of private surveillance. Government obviously has an inherent interest in tracking everything and everyone down to the last quark (all organizations seek more control), but it would be foolish for individuals to acquiesce in hope of some singularity of enlightenment and tolerance.

by imgabe 11y ago

mindslight 11y ago

> And the way to counteract this is by speaking up and showing them that the victims are real people How's that been working out for hard drug users, file sharers, and non-molesting pedophiles? > hiding is not going to be an option This is such an utterly defeatist conclusion. There will always be some types of information that are impossible to keep private and some that will be easy to, but there's a huge middleground that requires organization and resources (eg traffic cameras, credit bureaus) to collect, aggregate, and exploit. The entities currently doing are centralized, so they could easily be put out of business. Individual actions and peers will only leak certain things through eg mass photos, and to presuppose omniscience on the part of a would-be decentralized reconstructor is to ignore how that capability would be bootstrapped - the economic advantage from private surveillance that currently goes unregulated. Obviously the existing power structures have a lot more to gain by developing surveillance than prohibiting it. But a decently secured computer containing one's private files is a shining beacon of a Schelling point as well. I really don't see the point of capitulating early and backfitting it into a philosophy of openness. I guarantee our rulers won't be quick to do so either.

imgabe 11y ago
Defeatist? No. I don't think it's defeatist to avoid relying on something that has been proven, time and time again, to be unreliable. > How's that been working out for hard drug users, file sharers, and non-molesting pedophiles? Hard drug users: many countries and jurisdictions are moving towards decriminalization and legalization, as well as emphasizing treatment over jail time for non-violent drug offenders. File Sharers: File sharing continues unabated as far as I can tell. The most successful efforts to stop it have been offering attractive paid alternatives rather than hunting down file sharers. Non-molesting pedophiles: Admittedly, an uphill battle. But you're here, on a public forum, mentioned them as an abused, oppressed class, so that's something. Not the first time I've seen such an opinion either. Privacy is nice, but it's not a security measure. Even the NSA, with thousands of people working full time to find secrets and keep them, cannot keep their information secret. > The entities currently doing are centralized, so they could easily be put out of business. Theoretically, yes, Congress could pass a law making credit bureaus illegal. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to happen. I never said "don't secure your computer". There's a big difference between making sure a keylogger doesn't grab your bank account number and worrying yourself stupid because a list of places you were last week is in a database somewhere that, in all likelihood, nobody is ever going to look at. The former is a reasonable precaution against a verified threat that you can personally take useful action on. The latter is just pointless stress about some vague danger that you have little immediate control over.
- mindslight 11y ago
  Sure, ambiguous "progress" is being made, but the individuals in those situations don't benefit by publicly broadcasting their activities. This entire "progressive" attitude that everything continually gets better, besides being based on this recent most-peaceful time in history, relies on individuals pushing forth and being the change to their local social groups while simultaneously hiding from the larger social machines that would quickly squash them. The individuals in these situations would be ill-advised to widely broadcast their activities and, if pushed to do so, would pull back from their lives rather than become martyrs. I'll openly tell you that I consider it immoral to support the copyright cartels hell-bent on destroying the Internet. But I'm certainly not going to further details as doing so would only increase my risk. > list of places you were ... nobody is ever going to look at An extreme straw man that the NSA is also fond of. The information is being collected so it can be churned over by algorithms for very deliberate purposes. The distilled results are then used, by somebody, to investigate and persecute outliers, engage in price discrimination, and implement commercial psychological warfare (advertising). It's not a matter of non-actionable stress, it's a matter of being aware of the privacy preserving/revealing choices one makes, and casually looking for alternatives. This license plate issue is a great example of what your viewpoint directly enables - a problem caused solely by government requiring people to publicly broadcast their identity, putting them at the mercy of private surveillance. Government obviously has an inherent interest in tracking everything and everyone down to the last quark (all organizations seek more control), but it would be foolish for individuals to acquiesce in hope of some singularity of enlightenment and tolerance.