4 ms·

here is a stupid argument for privacy that i just invented based off of the article's mentioning of 1776: if the british colonists had no privacy, the american

here is a stupid argument for privacy that i just invented based off of the article's mentioning of 1776: if the british colonists had no privacy, the american revolution would never have happened. troublemakers would have been either nipped in the bud, or never even thought that they could successfully challenge the existing power structure. what god-fearing amurican is going to argue against privacy when you frame it as a patriotic issue? sure, there's no logic or graceful rhetoric here, but who needs logic when you have emotional arousal? those of us who have enough brain cells to rub together need to start thinking about how to slam the idiots with arguments they can't get around while maintaining a veneer of nationalism. "you're unamerican if you're against privacy, because we needed privacy to execute the most hallowed event in our civic religion: revolution against the british." that kind of garbage. it's time to discard clean argumentation and jump into the mud-- it's the only way to make people care about an abstract issue that people have been taught to disregard like privacy.

K0SM0S 10y ago
You've just come up with a variation on the theme of "First they came..." [1] by Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984). > First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— > Because I was not a Socialist. > Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— > Because I was not a Trade Unionist. > Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— > Because I was not a Jew. > Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. The deeper reasons for privacy are historical, political, and ultimately may become a matter of life or death. It wouldn't be surprising, history is full of precedents. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
Swizec 10y ago
It's unfortunate that you use such inflammatory language because you are basically correct. Dissent cannot exist in a culture without privacy. Either privacy through obscurity, or privacy through so much being out in the open that finding signal in noise is impossible. Unfortunately modern machine learning tools all but destroy any chance of privacy through noise.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
It's not stupid, it is logic and not just emotional arousal, and it is actually fairly clean argumentation. The issue isn't just the American Revolution. It's the French Resistance. It's protecting the ability to prevent the Federal government from imposing a tyranny today. (The person you're talking to may feel there is no such danger. Ask them how they would feel if Hillary had won.)
noxToken 10y ago
The problem with that argument is with people who argue poorly. The American Revolution required privacy which means we went to war. Ergo, the response is then, "What are you trying to overthrow the government?" They don't fundamentally see the need for privacy. They don't understand the value of privacy until they're having weekly home inspections for health purposes (read: contraband). Then the response is, "You think the government is going to shore up enough manpower to start searching everyone's home on a weekly basis?" Well, no. But as a former servicemember, I lived that life. It's the same thing they're doing with your digital information, but instead of the known inspection where you can hide something, it's everything at all times. Instead of addressing the point, they deflect the argument.
bigbugbag 10y ago
I remember reading a piece showing how with metadata alone it would have been trivial to identify the main actors of the US revolution before they could even start and prevent them. Sort of what the predictive policing does in the US with crime.

K0SM0S 10y ago

You've just come up with a variation on the theme of "First they came..." [1] by Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984). > First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— > Because I was not a Socialist. > Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— > Because I was not a Trade Unionist. > Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— > Because I was not a Jew. > Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. The deeper reasons for privacy are historical, political, and ultimately may become a matter of life or death. It wouldn't be surprising, history is full of precedents. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

Swizec 10y ago

It's unfortunate that you use such inflammatory language because you are basically correct. Dissent cannot exist in a culture without privacy. Either privacy through obscurity, or privacy through so much being out in the open that finding signal in noise is impossible. Unfortunately modern machine learning tools all but destroy any chance of privacy through noise.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

It's not stupid, it is logic and not just emotional arousal, and it is actually fairly clean argumentation. The issue isn't just the American Revolution. It's the French Resistance. It's protecting the ability to prevent the Federal government from imposing a tyranny today. (The person you're talking to may feel there is no such danger. Ask them how they would feel if Hillary had won.)

noxToken 10y ago

The problem with that argument is with people who argue poorly. The American Revolution required privacy which means we went to war. Ergo, the response is then, "What are you trying to overthrow the government?" They don't fundamentally see the need for privacy. They don't understand the value of privacy until they're having weekly home inspections for health purposes (read: contraband). Then the response is, "You think the government is going to shore up enough manpower to start searching everyone's home on a weekly basis?" Well, no. But as a former servicemember, I lived that life. It's the same thing they're doing with your digital information, but instead of the known inspection where you can hide something, it's everything at all times. Instead of addressing the point, they deflect the argument.

bigbugbag 10y ago

I remember reading a piece showing how with metadata alone it would have been trivial to identify the main actors of the US revolution before they could even start and prevent them. Sort of what the predictive policing does in the US with crime.