7 ms·

This. The military has secrets, but should have no privacy. Same with the government. Privacy is the opposite of transparency. We can have secrets while we know

by unabst 9y ago

This. The military has secrets, but should have no privacy. Same with the government. Privacy is the opposite of transparency. We can have secrets while we know exactly what we are keeping secret, such as Private Keys and passwords. Secrets do not hinder transparency.

hammock 9y ago
So the military uses the bathroom with the door open, but... we don't know what they're doing in there?
- matt_wulfeck 9y ago
  Only if you're standing above them and looking down.
  - unabst 9y ago
    Maybe this was meant to be a joke, but an officer's superiors would be the one's looking over the stalls. No secrets no privacy. Privacy is a courtesy. And a right to courtesy. Secrecy should be all that is related to security. It's interesting because the military seems to know exactly what a secret is. It'd make more sense to have secrecy laws alongside privacy laws for citizens. Privacy laws are not secrecy laws. Hence the NSA get's to do what they did, and hence they trampled on everyone's privacy outright violating all courtesy. They then make it a security issue. As it stands, citizens are entitled to no secrets. Hence it's the wild west and we're left encrypting ourselves and standing in direct conflict with the government that would do far better helping us than being rude and insecure. Insecure is what they are. They have no trust or confidence in the people.
    - matt_wulfeck 9y ago
      It was being facetious of course. But as to your second point, I really believe we are entitled to secrets, at least from my own reading of the 4th amendment to our constitution: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches This, to me a layman citizen of our country, means we are emphatically and explicitly granted the right to privacy against our government. Then again, we live in a time where a secret court can grant an order that tramples on our constitution. Apparently our government believes on it is allowed privacy. You ever hear about this secret court orders and ask yourself, "Are we both reading the same constitution??"
- unabst 9y ago
  No. They can tell us exactly. And they can be accountable. We just don't get to see them with their clothes off. It's odd because apparently citizens get to have no secrets. Laws protect government secrets, but as far as I know the law is just as confused about privacy and secrecy as we are when it comes to its people.
  - hammock 9y ago
    Then you misinterpreted the analogy. Bathroom door = privacy. Bathroom activities = secrets.
    - unabst 9y ago
      No. I corrected it. The analogy is wrong. (edit; to be more accurate, bathroom activities are no secret)
    - squeaky-clean 9y ago
      There are no secrets in the bathroom analogy. We all know what you're doing in there (or have a 50% chance at guessing). But you still want privacy.
      - baloneyman 9y ago
        The point they are trying to prove is that there is no way of knowing what happens in the bathroom. It is theoretically equivalent to secrecy
        coldtea 9y ago
        In the real world, though, 99% of the time, we DO know. And even if we don't know exactly, we can narrow it very closely. We either shit, take a bath, masturebate or whatever. We still want privacy of any of those things.
      - hammock 9y ago
        Nobody gets it... He said you can have privacy without secrets. But suppose there exists a room with a door where you don't know what someone is doing behind it. The activity behind the door is the secret. The door is still representing privacy (not secrecy). That was the point of the analogy.
jasonkostempski 9y ago
"We can have secrets while we know exactly what we are keeping secret" I'm not sure that's true. You might think you know what I'm doing in the bathroom. I don't think privacy and secrecy are truly separate things.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- coldtea 9y ago
  >You might think you know what I'm doing in the bathroom. Well, even for the times that I know EXACTLY what are you doing (e.g. because I saw you gulp down 10 big Macs and a box of laxatives before rushing to the bathroom) you still want privacy.
dragonwriter 9y ago
Privacy is required for secrecy, but secrecy may not (per the upthread distinction) always come along with for privacy. (Though I think the second part is dubious; yes, you have an idea of what I might be doing in the bathroom, but you don't actually know and moreover you don't know exactly what I look like doing it, and that is because privacy always requires some measure of secrecy.) > Secrets do not hinder transparency. Sure, they do. Secrets on matters that aren't the subject of concern don't hinder transparency on the subject of concern, but that's not because secrets don't hurt transparency but because the specific secrets at issue are outside of the area where you are looking for transparency.

by unabst 9y ago

hammock 9y ago

So the military uses the bathroom with the door open, but... we don't know what they're doing in there?

matt_wulfeck 9y ago
Only if you're standing above them and looking down.
- unabst 9y ago
  Maybe this was meant to be a joke, but an officer's superiors would be the one's looking over the stalls. No secrets no privacy. Privacy is a courtesy. And a right to courtesy. Secrecy should be all that is related to security. It's interesting because the military seems to know exactly what a secret is. It'd make more sense to have secrecy laws alongside privacy laws for citizens. Privacy laws are not secrecy laws. Hence the NSA get's to do what they did, and hence they trampled on everyone's privacy outright violating all courtesy. They then make it a security issue. As it stands, citizens are entitled to no secrets. Hence it's the wild west and we're left encrypting ourselves and standing in direct conflict with the government that would do far better helping us than being rude and insecure. Insecure is what they are. They have no trust or confidence in the people.
  - matt_wulfeck 9y ago
    It was being facetious of course. But as to your second point, I really believe we are entitled to secrets, at least from my own reading of the 4th amendment to our constitution: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches This, to me a layman citizen of our country, means we are emphatically and explicitly granted the right to privacy against our government. Then again, we live in a time where a secret court can grant an order that tramples on our constitution. Apparently our government believes on it is allowed privacy. You ever hear about this secret court orders and ask yourself, "Are we both reading the same constitution??"
unabst 9y ago
No. They can tell us exactly. And they can be accountable. We just don't get to see them with their clothes off. It's odd because apparently citizens get to have no secrets. Laws protect government secrets, but as far as I know the law is just as confused about privacy and secrecy as we are when it comes to its people.
- hammock 9y ago
  Then you misinterpreted the analogy. Bathroom door = privacy. Bathroom activities = secrets.
  - unabst 9y ago
    No. I corrected it. The analogy is wrong. (edit; to be more accurate, bathroom activities are no secret)
  - squeaky-clean 9y ago
    There are no secrets in the bathroom analogy. We all know what you're doing in there (or have a 50% chance at guessing). But you still want privacy.
    - baloneyman 9y ago
      The point they are trying to prove is that there is no way of knowing what happens in the bathroom. It is theoretically equivalent to secrecy
      - coldtea 9y ago
        In the real world, though, 99% of the time, we DO know. And even if we don't know exactly, we can narrow it very closely. We either shit, take a bath, masturebate or whatever. We still want privacy of any of those things.
    - hammock 9y ago
      Nobody gets it... He said you can have privacy without secrets. But suppose there exists a room with a door where you don't know what someone is doing behind it. The activity behind the door is the secret. The door is still representing privacy (not secrecy). That was the point of the analogy.

jasonkostempski 9y ago

"We can have secrets while we know exactly what we are keeping secret" I'm not sure that's true. You might think you know what I'm doing in the bathroom. I don't think privacy and secrecy are truly separate things.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 9y ago
>You might think you know what I'm doing in the bathroom. Well, even for the times that I know EXACTLY what are you doing (e.g. because I saw you gulp down 10 big Macs and a box of laxatives before rushing to the bathroom) you still want privacy.

dragonwriter 9y ago

Privacy is required for secrecy, but secrecy may not (per the upthread distinction) always come along with for privacy. (Though I think the second part is dubious; yes, you have an idea of what I might be doing in the bathroom, but you don't actually know and moreover you don't know exactly what I look like doing it, and that is because privacy always requires some measure of secrecy.) > Secrets do not hinder transparency. Sure, they do. Secrets on matters that aren't the subject of concern don't hinder transparency on the subject of concern, but that's not because secrets don't hurt transparency but because the specific secrets at issue are outside of the area where you are looking for transparency.