5 ms·

Ohh, so the only thing that you have to do is change every single human being to do what your ideal of world is? The closest thing I have been to the ISS is li

by pipio21 10y ago

Ohh, so the only thing that you have to do is change every single human being to do what your ideal of world is? The closest thing I have been to the ISS is living on a small phishing boat for a week. I could warrantee you EVERY SINGLE PERSON THERE WANTS PRIVACY. And it is crazy if you do not respect it, this people can throw you out of the boat, you could not imagine how difficult it is to live in a small space with other people for a long time. You say nobody on the ISS wants privacy, based on what? Have you asked them, I bet you do not. You have just thought about it based on your own prejudices on the comfort of your home. I have lived in China with so many people everywhere, after that living on Norway or Alaska or Argentina feels so great. Vast Spaces just for you. In my opinion it is just the animal inside with her territory, as simple as that, gorillas have it, lions have it, and we have it as animals. When they remove privacy from us they are removing our personal territory: We are not free anymore, we are in someone else territory(the country masters, or the big companies). Without Privacy we can be judged at any time for any reason. They are observing us and they could hunt us like prey when we are weaker, they can take advantage of our vices in order to profit, they could blackmail us. Remember Bill Clinton or Kennedy having sex with young women, Hillary holding mails in her personal accounts(probably so she could sell it to someone else), prime ministers holding accounts in fiscal heavens. This is only what we know, and it is a normal thing even on people on charge, people are not perfect. The people that know all of this have power and they could and actually legally blackmail those in power and they do. We can go for Utopia and try to change every single human for it, which is impossible. "Tolerance and respect" how much tolerance and respect have you seen in the last elections for example, when the people in power risked loosing their power? Zero. All politicians have personal dossiers of all adversaries and friends and no doubt they will use it if you are on their way to power, money or glory.

tslug 10y ago
I don't know where you get the Utopian / changing-everyone conclusion from. I don't see any Utopian solutions, but I do see the potential for dramatic improvement. Improvement requires more information, not less. Democracy is about equality. You don't have equality when you don't have equality of information. The only way to have a level playing field is to have everyone's information publicly available. Once you do that, you have to emulate the benefits of privacy in some other way. Tolerating more and respecting the wishes of others is I think the best way forward. If you've got a better way to emulate the benefits of privacy, I'm all ears, but don't try to convince me we can have privacy back, not in this age of the internet of things, drones, Uber, Google, Facebook, smart cars, cell phones, big data, big corporations, big government. It's just not going to happen.
- mario100 10y ago
  You are assuming that the concept of tolerance and respect are the same for everyone.
  - tslug 10y ago
    Not at all. I think how everyone wants to be shown respect is quite different. This would be an enormous problem if we didn't all have cell phones in our pockets and the ability to specify how we want to be treated. For instance, if you stuck multiple cameras in my shower that were broadcast to everyone, I would ask that you not force my friends or family to see it (but if course if they wanted to, they could), and I'd ask that you not tell me what you think of the footage unless you're a dermatologist telling me about a worrisome new mole you noticed, or you're someone who notified a first responder because you noticed I just slipped and knocked myself unconscious and was starting to bleed to death, in which case I'd like to thank you. If you want to make me a part of a study, go nuts! If you want to jerk off to me, I'm flattered, but again, prolly don't want to hear about it (unless you're my type). That's how you can respect me. I can specify it. We all can. There's probably multiple lists of things that large groups of us want in order to feel our shower footage was respected, and I could just click on one of them. I'm sure many of mine fall under the GoNutsButDon'tWantToHearAboutIt and MedicalAndScientificValue lists. So if you decide man, gotta have me some of that shower footage of Dave, by all means, but with this approach, knowledge comes with a measure of responsibility. This is very unlike how it works today. If footage of you in the shower leaks, boy, that's that. Here comes the internets to tell you everything you never wanted to know about your genitalia...
- type0 10y ago
  > Democracy is about equality. You don't have equality when you don't have equality of information. I'm not sure what you mean by it but in many countries collecting counter-intelligence info on intelligence agency employees would be punishable by law. If anything this sorts of laws will probably become universal with time.
- newscracker 10y ago
  > The only way to have a level playing field is to have everyone's information publicly available. This is extremely naive, to put it mildly. More people will be oppressed and suffer heavily if this were to happen. All that such a request would result in is a dictatorship where everybody's information is publicly available except for the few who rule. I also don't understand how anyone could bring about "tolerance and respect" while having all information public, considering what history has shown us for thousands of years, and is continuing to show us day by day. The two put together seem like a desire to destroy capitalism, which is not easy to destroy or replace because of innate human characteristics. It does seem like you are dreaming of a Utopia that's far more difficult to achieve than better (not necessarily perfect) privacy through technology, laws and culture. While I do see that privacy erosion happening and increasing, that's not an excuse for saying that nobody should have privacy at all. If you really mean "all of everyone's information" to be public, I can only assume you want everyone's photos, videos, messages, safe locker key codes, banking passwords, credit card numbers, health records and everything else to be publicly available. That sounds utterly ridiculous to me, unless you revise what you mean by "information" and what you mean by "everyone". The moment you start on that revision, you're already talking about privacy controls again.

by pipio21 10y ago

tslug 10y ago

I don't know where you get the Utopian / changing-everyone conclusion from. I don't see any Utopian solutions, but I do see the potential for dramatic improvement. Improvement requires more information, not less. Democracy is about equality. You don't have equality when you don't have equality of information. The only way to have a level playing field is to have everyone's information publicly available. Once you do that, you have to emulate the benefits of privacy in some other way. Tolerating more and respecting the wishes of others is I think the best way forward. If you've got a better way to emulate the benefits of privacy, I'm all ears, but don't try to convince me we can have privacy back, not in this age of the internet of things, drones, Uber, Google, Facebook, smart cars, cell phones, big data, big corporations, big government. It's just not going to happen.

mario100 10y ago
You are assuming that the concept of tolerance and respect are the same for everyone.
- tslug 10y ago
  Not at all. I think how everyone wants to be shown respect is quite different. This would be an enormous problem if we didn't all have cell phones in our pockets and the ability to specify how we want to be treated. For instance, if you stuck multiple cameras in my shower that were broadcast to everyone, I would ask that you not force my friends or family to see it (but if course if they wanted to, they could), and I'd ask that you not tell me what you think of the footage unless you're a dermatologist telling me about a worrisome new mole you noticed, or you're someone who notified a first responder because you noticed I just slipped and knocked myself unconscious and was starting to bleed to death, in which case I'd like to thank you. If you want to make me a part of a study, go nuts! If you want to jerk off to me, I'm flattered, but again, prolly don't want to hear about it (unless you're my type). That's how you can respect me. I can specify it. We all can. There's probably multiple lists of things that large groups of us want in order to feel our shower footage was respected, and I could just click on one of them. I'm sure many of mine fall under the GoNutsButDon'tWantToHearAboutIt and MedicalAndScientificValue lists. So if you decide man, gotta have me some of that shower footage of Dave, by all means, but with this approach, knowledge comes with a measure of responsibility. This is very unlike how it works today. If footage of you in the shower leaks, boy, that's that. Here comes the internets to tell you everything you never wanted to know about your genitalia...
type0 10y ago
> Democracy is about equality. You don't have equality when you don't have equality of information. I'm not sure what you mean by it but in many countries collecting counter-intelligence info on intelligence agency employees would be punishable by law. If anything this sorts of laws will probably become universal with time.
newscracker 10y ago
> The only way to have a level playing field is to have everyone's information publicly available. This is extremely naive, to put it mildly. More people will be oppressed and suffer heavily if this were to happen. All that such a request would result in is a dictatorship where everybody's information is publicly available except for the few who rule. I also don't understand how anyone could bring about "tolerance and respect" while having all information public, considering what history has shown us for thousands of years, and is continuing to show us day by day. The two put together seem like a desire to destroy capitalism, which is not easy to destroy or replace because of innate human characteristics. It does seem like you are dreaming of a Utopia that's far more difficult to achieve than better (not necessarily perfect) privacy through technology, laws and culture. While I do see that privacy erosion happening and increasing, that's not an excuse for saying that nobody should have privacy at all. If you really mean "all of everyone's information" to be public, I can only assume you want everyone's photos, videos, messages, safe locker key codes, banking passwords, credit card numbers, health records and everything else to be publicly available. That sounds utterly ridiculous to me, unless you revise what you mean by "information" and what you mean by "everyone". The moment you start on that revision, you're already talking about privacy controls again.