5 ms·

Or, flip the argument around. Most cops in the US are fighting against the use of body cams. Why? They don't want to be recorded. Most courts don't allow re

by adekok 10y ago

Or, flip the argument around. Most cops in the US are fighting against the use of body cams. Why? They don't want to be recorded. Most courts don't allow recording equipment in them. Why? They don't want to be recorded. Most government workings are hidden behind bureaucrat walls. It requires other laws such as the FOIA to force government to be open. And FOIA requests are widely ignored, delayed, redacted, etc. If the people enforcing the law refuse to be recorded, why in living hell should you let them record you? You should have as many rights as they do. Including the right to privacy.

hruwigiuwgrhhiu 10y ago
yes, the response to "if you have nothing to hide" should be "you first then". Imagine if the question was: "can I watch you through your window ?" - "no." "why, what have you got to hide ?" - "nothing, I just value my privacy like any normal human. It's my house, so mind your own business" Now you could counter "yes but the web is a public space". But it's not entirely. Some of it is public, some of it is private. Our email conversations with our friends and family, our video chats etc should be private. (They're not of course, they're all intercepted and stored forever, but they should be private).
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  Why do you want to watch me through the window. You can come and look if you want as long as you're not doing it to perv over me I couldn't really care less. To keep the analogy don't we need to add two provisos though: you can't tell anyone about it or you lose your job and face prosecution (unless you can convince the CPS that there's a case against me, then you have your say in court); and you'll need to convince a judge that you have a legal need, that also serves the public interest, to observe me. >Our email conversations with our friends and family, our video chats etc should be private. (They're not of course, they're all intercepted and stored forever, but they should be private). // AIUI the UK Investigatory Powers Act is storing domains visited for a limited time and requires a warrant to enable access, access then only being granted to officers of a particular standing (so they can't pass the details around and the named officer is responsible if the info is leaked). Am I getting the wrong message? I've not had time to read the Act yet. Security services are almost certainly able to access that data, but then that's been true for a long time and is covered by far more generic laws, the IPA isn't addressing that (is it?). tl;dr - if I don't care if you sit and watch me watching Masterchef, or playing on Steam, or if you read my emails to customers, or see what I buy (just like you can if I go to a shop), then ... is there anything left that you can say to convince me I should be hiding what I do online. "I don't hide what I do IRL, why hide online"?
  - detritus 10y ago
    As a postulation, that's fine enough, but is there any human being on Earth who could honestly claim they wouldn't mind some stranger or group of strangers standing at their window, watching them live? I doubt it.
    - matz1 10y ago
      Yes，my initial unconscious reaction is I don't like the idea to be watched but then again if I really think about it, actually I don't have real reason to be against it. Having to keep secret, maintain privacy to me its a burden, significant amount of work, inconvenience. So yes, as long as you are not distrurbing or trying to harm me, I would not mind if you are watching me, If possible I prefer to not have secret.
      - eponeponepon 10y ago
        Sometimes your initial unconscious reaction is the right one to pay attention to. Being watched, in our distant evolutionary past, would often have been a prelude to being hunted - and it still is in this case. The sabre-toothed tiger might decide not to attack you - but you won't know that until it has attacked you. And besides, though you might very well prefer not to have secrets, you should extend that to those watching you.
      - Nadya 10y ago
        The point of privacy is for the times when you need it. You should defend that right even in the times you don't feel you need it. For example, in the US, most people are not afraid to share their political beliefs. This is because, in the US, it isn't common to be harmed or even killed for your beliefs. This is not true in every country or even for every part of the US. So being able to keep your political views a secret is important. In a world where this is not possible it can quickly become dangerous to hold the "wrong beliefs" publicly. Do you believe you only uphold the "right beliefs"? And if so - are you 100% certain those beliefs will never turn into the "wrong beliefs" to have? If you answer "no" to either question then privacy should be important to you.
gambiting 10y ago
Because those people you mentioned are being paid to do their jobs - they are and they should be recorded while doing it, so we, taxpayers, can verify it they are doing their job properly. No one is proposing recording policemen or judges in their private time, just like us, citizens, should not be recorded in our private time. At the end of the day, your employer probably already records your activity at work, and that's perfectly fine because they want to verify you are doing what you are being paid for.
ghostDancer 10y ago
In 1984 , everything was recorded but some of the high members were able to stop it for sometime, looks like capitalist oligarchy has many things in common with the Party.They don't want for them what they ask for others and they think they deserve it

by adekok 10y ago

hruwigiuwgrhhiu 10y ago

yes, the response to "if you have nothing to hide" should be "you first then". Imagine if the question was: "can I watch you through your window ?" - "no." "why, what have you got to hide ?" - "nothing, I just value my privacy like any normal human. It's my house, so mind your own business" Now you could counter "yes but the web is a public space". But it's not entirely. Some of it is public, some of it is private. Our email conversations with our friends and family, our video chats etc should be private. (They're not of course, they're all intercepted and stored forever, but they should be private).

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
Why do you want to watch me through the window. You can come and look if you want as long as you're not doing it to perv over me I couldn't really care less. To keep the analogy don't we need to add two provisos though: you can't tell anyone about it or you lose your job and face prosecution (unless you can convince the CPS that there's a case against me, then you have your say in court); and you'll need to convince a judge that you have a legal need, that also serves the public interest, to observe me. >Our email conversations with our friends and family, our video chats etc should be private. (They're not of course, they're all intercepted and stored forever, but they should be private). // AIUI the UK Investigatory Powers Act is storing domains visited for a limited time and requires a warrant to enable access, access then only being granted to officers of a particular standing (so they can't pass the details around and the named officer is responsible if the info is leaked). Am I getting the wrong message? I've not had time to read the Act yet. Security services are almost certainly able to access that data, but then that's been true for a long time and is covered by far more generic laws, the IPA isn't addressing that (is it?). tl;dr - if I don't care if you sit and watch me watching Masterchef, or playing on Steam, or if you read my emails to customers, or see what I buy (just like you can if I go to a shop), then ... is there anything left that you can say to convince me I should be hiding what I do online. "I don't hide what I do IRL, why hide online"?
- detritus 10y ago
  As a postulation, that's fine enough, but is there any human being on Earth who could honestly claim they wouldn't mind some stranger or group of strangers standing at their window, watching them live? I doubt it.
  - matz1 10y ago
    Yes，my initial unconscious reaction is I don't like the idea to be watched but then again if I really think about it, actually I don't have real reason to be against it. Having to keep secret, maintain privacy to me its a burden, significant amount of work, inconvenience. So yes, as long as you are not distrurbing or trying to harm me, I would not mind if you are watching me, If possible I prefer to not have secret.
    - eponeponepon 10y ago
      Sometimes your initial unconscious reaction is the right one to pay attention to. Being watched, in our distant evolutionary past, would often have been a prelude to being hunted - and it still is in this case. The sabre-toothed tiger might decide not to attack you - but you won't know that until it has attacked you. And besides, though you might very well prefer not to have secrets, you should extend that to those watching you.
    - Nadya 10y ago
      The point of privacy is for the times when you need it. You should defend that right even in the times you don't feel you need it. For example, in the US, most people are not afraid to share their political beliefs. This is because, in the US, it isn't common to be harmed or even killed for your beliefs. This is not true in every country or even for every part of the US. So being able to keep your political views a secret is important. In a world where this is not possible it can quickly become dangerous to hold the "wrong beliefs" publicly. Do you believe you only uphold the "right beliefs"? And if so - are you 100% certain those beliefs will never turn into the "wrong beliefs" to have? If you answer "no" to either question then privacy should be important to you.

gambiting 10y ago

Because those people you mentioned are being paid to do their jobs - they are and they should be recorded while doing it, so we, taxpayers, can verify it they are doing their job properly. No one is proposing recording policemen or judges in their private time, just like us, citizens, should not be recorded in our private time. At the end of the day, your employer probably already records your activity at work, and that's perfectly fine because they want to verify you are doing what you are being paid for.

ghostDancer 10y ago

In 1984 , everything was recorded but some of the high members were able to stop it for sometime, looks like capitalist oligarchy has many things in common with the Party.They don't want for them what they ask for others and they think they deserve it