3 ms·

I don't see those views as conflicting. Everyone has a fundamental right to privacy, but one's rights end when stomping on those of others.

by jle17 9y ago

jaredklewis 9y ago
This point gets made a lot. "Person/Group X doesn't believe in the right to privacy/free expression/due process/whatever so we shouldn't extend rights to those people." If it's a right, you have it just by being human; it's not given to you as a reward in exchange for good behavior. And there's a good reason for that, because such loopholes are ripe for abuse. Remarkably, people can label and truly believe ANYONE is a facist. When Bush was president, people compared him to Hitler. When Obama was president, people compared him to Hitler. Now Trump is Hitler. I've heard people non-ironically compare Steve Jobs to Hitler. Comparing an Apple CEO to history's most notorious genocidal dictator, in complete earnestness. Do we want us, a crazy bunch of humans that for the most part seem to be unable to differentiate between an idea we don't like and genocide, deciding who is deserving enough to have rights? Privacy is a complicated issue, and I don't think it would be hard to paint all but the most zealous of advocates as being soft of privacy and therefore undeserving. Not a path I hope we go down.
- adrianN 9y ago
  Everyone has the right to go where they please but occasionally we put people behind bars as a punishment. That's not as contradictory as you make it seem.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  I'm the only person allowed (by me) to be a hypocrite. The legal doctrines collectively called estoppel ensure this in courts of equity. You cannot first argue one thing and then later argue a contradictory position. And in the court of public opinion, you cannot argue that no one has the right to data privacy and then later try to invoke some form of right to data privacy for yourself. Most of the time, that doesn't matter. But when a member of a legislature codifies into law that I don't have privacy, I for danged sure am not going to even grant that guy a sliver of a courtesy of a fig leaf of privacy. I would air his dirty laundry immediately and without hesitation the instant any shred of it landed in my lap. Because rights are a cooperative compact between equals. They are given as a reward for good behavior, but it is the summation of good behavior across hundreds of millions of individuals. It doesn't matter so much what I believe in relation to a right, but what I do. If I, for instance, did not believe that owning and carrying sidearms was a right, I probably would just not own or carry one, and the right would not be affected. If I instead launched a crusade to destroy all pistols, my neighbors would likely be even more unhappy if I did it while carrying for my own protection. You only have those rights you are willing to extend to others. That is tit-for-tat social strategy writ large.

I don't see those views as conflicting. Everyone has a fundamental right to privacy, but one's rights end when stomping on those of others.

by jle17 9y ago

I don't see those views as conflicting. Everyone has a fundamental right to privacy, but one's rights end when stomping on those of others.

jaredklewis 9y ago

This point gets made a lot. "Person/Group X doesn't believe in the right to privacy/free expression/due process/whatever so we shouldn't extend rights to those people." If it's a right, you have it just by being human; it's not given to you as a reward in exchange for good behavior. And there's a good reason for that, because such loopholes are ripe for abuse. Remarkably, people can label and truly believe ANYONE is a facist. When Bush was president, people compared him to Hitler. When Obama was president, people compared him to Hitler. Now Trump is Hitler. I've heard people non-ironically compare Steve Jobs to Hitler. Comparing an Apple CEO to history's most notorious genocidal dictator, in complete earnestness. Do we want us, a crazy bunch of humans that for the most part seem to be unable to differentiate between an idea we don't like and genocide, deciding who is deserving enough to have rights? Privacy is a complicated issue, and I don't think it would be hard to paint all but the most zealous of advocates as being soft of privacy and therefore undeserving. Not a path I hope we go down.

adrianN 9y ago
Everyone has the right to go where they please but occasionally we put people behind bars as a punishment. That's not as contradictory as you make it seem.
logfromblammo 9y ago
I'm the only person allowed (by me) to be a hypocrite. The legal doctrines collectively called estoppel ensure this in courts of equity. You cannot first argue one thing and then later argue a contradictory position. And in the court of public opinion, you cannot argue that no one has the right to data privacy and then later try to invoke some form of right to data privacy for yourself. Most of the time, that doesn't matter. But when a member of a legislature codifies into law that I don't have privacy, I for danged sure am not going to even grant that guy a sliver of a courtesy of a fig leaf of privacy. I would air his dirty laundry immediately and without hesitation the instant any shred of it landed in my lap. Because rights are a cooperative compact between equals. They are given as a reward for good behavior, but it is the summation of good behavior across hundreds of millions of individuals. It doesn't matter so much what I believe in relation to a right, but what I do. If I, for instance, did not believe that owning and carrying sidearms was a right, I probably would just not own or carry one, and the right would not be affected. If I instead launched a crusade to destroy all pistols, my neighbors would likely be even more unhappy if I did it while carrying for my own protection. You only have those rights you are willing to extend to others. That is tit-for-tat social strategy writ large.