3 ms·

> I think we have to realize that some transparency into private lives is needed to have a proper society, and the anarcho-capitalists want full privacy from th

by leshow 10y ago

> I think we have to realize that some transparency into private lives is needed to have a proper society, and the anarcho-capitalists want full privacy from the get go This is almost a non-sequitor. If your private life is transparent then it ceases to be private. You're in fact advocating no private life. I strongly disagree that this position would be good for society. It's funny how you'd think you have to be an 'anarcho-capitalist' to want privacy. The rest of your comment is a strawman, whatever your feelings about 'anarcho-capitalism' is irrelevant to having a right to privacy.

ffwd 10y ago
> You're in fact advocating no private life. I strongly disagree that this position would be good for society. No, I'm not advocating for anything per se, I'm just bringing up opposite points of view. I don't have an easy answer either. Second, no privacy is what has been the standard since governments started. There has been no technology that has been able to make some aspect of reality 100% private, other than the decay of physical objects over time, essentially erasing the evidence. The fact that we can have permanent 100% private aspects of life is a brand new thing, and thus must be discussed in that manner. That's why I brought up the extreme of anarcho-capitalism - not to speak against it but as a counterpoint to what we have now/what has been.
- iamnothere 10y ago
  "No privacy" has certainly NOT been the standard. Before the information age, people were more likely to communicate extremely private information in person. Until the invention of microphones, this communication was most certainly private if you could avoid eavesdroppers! Now, with everything from TVs to phones to lampposts listening in, this type of communication carries less of a privacy guarantee, but it's still one of the only methods to obtain actual privacy under the right conditions. So let's all go back to in-person conversations, right? It's not that easy. Friends and loved ones no longer live as close as they once did, as technology has allowed us to stay connected at greater distances. This means that our options under the current state of the world are (a) keep sensitive information away from our trusted confidantes until we see them in person, whenever that is, or (b) get used to the idea that sensitive information could be exposed. Either one of these options brings with it increased psychological stress. This is a big reason why people want "unbreakable" security, and there's nothing nefarious about it!
  - ffwd 10y ago
    > "No privacy" has certainly NOT been the standard. Before the information age, people were more likely to communicate extremely private information in person. The first problem with this is that influence and power in society is proportional to how many people a person has access to and is around in some way. So yeah you could be private before but you couldn't do nearly the same damage or have the same influence without having people around. Technology empowers people across the world while at the same time potentially leaving no trace. The second problem is that communications is one thing, but evidence and 'data at rest' is another. Things like sexual abuse pictures, financial logs like cryptocurrencies, gps coordinates of where you've been, app logs in your phone and whatever else that may serve as evidence. In the old world, you had no choice but to burn or bury that evidence, but that also eliminates their usefulness to the criminal so there's a choice to be made by them before they destroy it. Basically in the old world you had physical items in a physical world, observed by the people around you, and your only friend was physical isolation, physical obfuscation (burying, using a safe, both of which aren't 100% private), or the decay/destruction of the physical items. Today you have pristine copies at global scale with 100% privacy and this is far more effective.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
ffwd said that you needed to be an anarcho-capitalist to want absolute privacy. To have a "proper society" (one where government can arrest murderers, say), you have to have some transparency. (Because if I'm a murderer, and I do the murder in the privacy of my own home, and there is absolute privacy, the government can't ever find out, much less prove, that I did it.) For the proper functioning of government for the legitimate benefit of society, there is a balance between privacy and transparency. The government is going beyond that balance, seeking more transparency. The anarchists go the opposite direction, seeking more (preferably total) privacy. Neither is in the public interest.

by leshow 10y ago

ffwd 10y ago

> You're in fact advocating no private life. I strongly disagree that this position would be good for society. No, I'm not advocating for anything per se, I'm just bringing up opposite points of view. I don't have an easy answer either. Second, no privacy is what has been the standard since governments started. There has been no technology that has been able to make some aspect of reality 100% private, other than the decay of physical objects over time, essentially erasing the evidence. The fact that we can have permanent 100% private aspects of life is a brand new thing, and thus must be discussed in that manner. That's why I brought up the extreme of anarcho-capitalism - not to speak against it but as a counterpoint to what we have now/what has been.

iamnothere 10y ago
"No privacy" has certainly NOT been the standard. Before the information age, people were more likely to communicate extremely private information in person. Until the invention of microphones, this communication was most certainly private if you could avoid eavesdroppers! Now, with everything from TVs to phones to lampposts listening in, this type of communication carries less of a privacy guarantee, but it's still one of the only methods to obtain actual privacy under the right conditions. So let's all go back to in-person conversations, right? It's not that easy. Friends and loved ones no longer live as close as they once did, as technology has allowed us to stay connected at greater distances. This means that our options under the current state of the world are (a) keep sensitive information away from our trusted confidantes until we see them in person, whenever that is, or (b) get used to the idea that sensitive information could be exposed. Either one of these options brings with it increased psychological stress. This is a big reason why people want "unbreakable" security, and there's nothing nefarious about it!
- ffwd 10y ago
  > "No privacy" has certainly NOT been the standard. Before the information age, people were more likely to communicate extremely private information in person. The first problem with this is that influence and power in society is proportional to how many people a person has access to and is around in some way. So yeah you could be private before but you couldn't do nearly the same damage or have the same influence without having people around. Technology empowers people across the world while at the same time potentially leaving no trace. The second problem is that communications is one thing, but evidence and 'data at rest' is another. Things like sexual abuse pictures, financial logs like cryptocurrencies, gps coordinates of where you've been, app logs in your phone and whatever else that may serve as evidence. In the old world, you had no choice but to burn or bury that evidence, but that also eliminates their usefulness to the criminal so there's a choice to be made by them before they destroy it. Basically in the old world you had physical items in a physical world, observed by the people around you, and your only friend was physical isolation, physical obfuscation (burying, using a safe, both of which aren't 100% private), or the decay/destruction of the physical items. Today you have pristine copies at global scale with 100% privacy and this is far more effective.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

ffwd said that you needed to be an anarcho-capitalist to want absolute privacy. To have a "proper society" (one where government can arrest murderers, say), you have to have some transparency. (Because if I'm a murderer, and I do the murder in the privacy of my own home, and there is absolute privacy, the government can't ever find out, much less prove, that I did it.) For the proper functioning of government for the legitimate benefit of society, there is a balance between privacy and transparency. The government is going beyond that balance, seeking more transparency. The anarchists go the opposite direction, seeking more (preferably total) privacy. Neither is in the public interest.