5 ms·

We all have stuff to hide, but shouldn't we agree that we shouldn't?

jasonkostempski 9y ago
That might work if no one was allowed to punish anyone for doing something simply because they consider it wrong. I don't want you, or anyone else, making that decision for me. Privacy is more about protection from people with power than it is for protection from direct harm.
krick 9y ago
Well, don't, if you wish so. I personally don't mind people walking naked on the street, jumping from the roofs, putting their fingers into meat grinder. But don't ask me to do any of these things.
mirimir 9y ago
The powerful ought to be have no privacy, because with power there's the need for public oversight. Ditto for corporations, government, and so on. And conversely, the weak ought to have total privacy, because they're so vulnerable. In reality, we have pretty much the opposite. Because wealth and power protect themselves. So it goes.
- paulryanrogers 9y ago
  Perhaps the powerful should have less professional privacy. But personal privacy is not far from dignity for many. So let's not make their personal lives any more of an industry than it already is. Still, the idea that the weak should have more privacy sounds about right.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    I get what you say about personal privacy. But with extreme power, there's not much that's legitimately private. Consider what people must reveal to get the highest security ratings, for example.
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      On the other hand, with enough power privacy is replaced by immunity. The importance of privacy is heavily distorted by one's level of vulnerability to state or social coercion. As an example - it's not clear whether J. Edgar Hoover was gay, but it's quite clear that he threatened and even blackmailed people who raised the question too publicly. Meanwhile, employees lower in the national security apparat were surveilled and dismissed based on even rumors of homosexuality. Privacy remains desirable, but becomes less essential with that sort of rising power.
      - mirimir 9y ago
        I disagree with "with enough power privacy is replaced by immunity". With few exceptions, the truly powerful now have both privacy and immunity. Both, because of their power. But I'm not talking about current systems. I believe that the powerful ought to have neither privacy nor immunity. That ought to be the trade-off for having substantive power. There's the old adage about power coming with responsibility. So I'm rather expanding on the basis for responsibility.
prophesi 9y ago
It's impossible not to have things to hide, as a normal human being. We don't live in glass homes, and are responsible for keeping a lot of information hidden (SSN, passwords, credit card number, credit reports, etc).
- miguelrochefort 9y ago
  That's why we should get rid of SSNs, credit card numbers, passwords, etc.
  - prophesi 9y ago
    You're missing the point. Receipts, work-related files, birth certificates, passports. There will always be information we have to safeguard. It's not feasible to switch all authentication from what-you-know (passwords) and what-you-have (certificates) to what-you-are (biometrics), which is the only way I can see us getting rid of SSNs, passwords, and credit card numbers.
    - miguelrochefort 9y ago
      Why is it not feasible?
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        Because all easily measurable biometrics are also easy to reproduce, you leak "true values" all the time as you move around the world, and once leaked, they're nigh impossible for you to change. This makes biometrics a very bad proxy for identifying you as you. And auth is all about ways to provably identify you and only you as you.
Moru 9y ago
The things worth hiding might not be the same things in 20 years. It's not illegal to be a Jew right now but look back a few years and see what could happen when there are registers of peoples beliefs.
- miguelrochefort 9y ago
  But people only seek to hide what's worth hiding today, which defeats the purpose.
  - otakucode 9y ago
    Except for the people who talk about taking away the ability to spy completely - they're not just trying to hide what's worth hiding today. In the 1960s if you advocated for racial equality and interracial marriage, you were a social radical, a destabilizer, an insurgent in the popular culture. You were an offensive deviant, actively promoting the destruction of the race, opposed to the church, to the law, to the government, everything. Would social acceptance of racial equality even have been possible to develop without the government and status quo NOT being able to know their undoing was festering right under their noses? We should never be so sure we're right that we destroy the mere possibility of change.
zaroth 9y ago
If the universe had somehow formed to create humans who shared a single consciousness, sure that would work. But as long as we are individuals, we need the space to have a self.
- miguelrochefort 9y ago
  Individuality is an illusion. We're all one. I plan to make it known.
  - NoGravitas 9y ago
    Setec Astronomy.
  - otakucode 9y ago
    If we were, it already would be, obviously.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
II2II 9y ago
In many cases, it has nothing to do with what is being hidden. It is much easier to find peace in the world if you keep your nose out of other people's affairs and vice versa.
aidanjbauer 9y ago
In principle, yes, but that's all that is, principle.

That might work if no one was allowed to punish anyone for doing something simply because they consider it wrong. I don't want you, or anyone else, making that decision for me. Privacy is more about protection from people with power than it is for protection from direct harm.

krick 9y ago

Well, don't, if you wish so. I personally don't mind people walking naked on the street, jumping from the roofs, putting their fingers into meat grinder. But don't ask me to do any of these things.

mirimir 9y ago

The powerful ought to be have no privacy, because with power there's the need for public oversight. Ditto for corporations, government, and so on. And conversely, the weak ought to have total privacy, because they're so vulnerable. In reality, we have pretty much the opposite. Because wealth and power protect themselves. So it goes.

paulryanrogers 9y ago
Perhaps the powerful should have less professional privacy. But personal privacy is not far from dignity for many. So let's not make their personal lives any more of an industry than it already is. Still, the idea that the weak should have more privacy sounds about right.
- mirimir 9y ago
  I get what you say about personal privacy. But with extreme power, there's not much that's legitimately private. Consider what people must reveal to get the highest security ratings, for example.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    On the other hand, with enough power privacy is replaced by immunity. The importance of privacy is heavily distorted by one's level of vulnerability to state or social coercion. As an example - it's not clear whether J. Edgar Hoover was gay, but it's quite clear that he threatened and even blackmailed people who raised the question too publicly. Meanwhile, employees lower in the national security apparat were surveilled and dismissed based on even rumors of homosexuality. Privacy remains desirable, but becomes less essential with that sort of rising power.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      I disagree with "with enough power privacy is replaced by immunity". With few exceptions, the truly powerful now have both privacy and immunity. Both, because of their power. But I'm not talking about current systems. I believe that the powerful ought to have neither privacy nor immunity. That ought to be the trade-off for having substantive power. There's the old adage about power coming with responsibility. So I'm rather expanding on the basis for responsibility.

prophesi 9y ago

It's impossible not to have things to hide, as a normal human being. We don't live in glass homes, and are responsible for keeping a lot of information hidden (SSN, passwords, credit card number, credit reports, etc).

miguelrochefort 9y ago
That's why we should get rid of SSNs, credit card numbers, passwords, etc.
- prophesi 9y ago
  You're missing the point. Receipts, work-related files, birth certificates, passports. There will always be information we have to safeguard. It's not feasible to switch all authentication from what-you-know (passwords) and what-you-have (certificates) to what-you-are (biometrics), which is the only way I can see us getting rid of SSNs, passwords, and credit card numbers.
  - miguelrochefort 9y ago
    Why is it not feasible?
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Because all easily measurable biometrics are also easy to reproduce, you leak "true values" all the time as you move around the world, and once leaked, they're nigh impossible for you to change. This makes biometrics a very bad proxy for identifying you as you. And auth is all about ways to provably identify you and only you as you.

Moru 9y ago

The things worth hiding might not be the same things in 20 years. It's not illegal to be a Jew right now but look back a few years and see what could happen when there are registers of peoples beliefs.

miguelrochefort 9y ago
But people only seek to hide what's worth hiding today, which defeats the purpose.
- otakucode 9y ago
  Except for the people who talk about taking away the ability to spy completely - they're not just trying to hide what's worth hiding today. In the 1960s if you advocated for racial equality and interracial marriage, you were a social radical, a destabilizer, an insurgent in the popular culture. You were an offensive deviant, actively promoting the destruction of the race, opposed to the church, to the law, to the government, everything. Would social acceptance of racial equality even have been possible to develop without the government and status quo NOT being able to know their undoing was festering right under their noses? We should never be so sure we're right that we destroy the mere possibility of change.

zaroth 9y ago

If the universe had somehow formed to create humans who shared a single consciousness, sure that would work. But as long as we are individuals, we need the space to have a self.

miguelrochefort 9y ago
Individuality is an illusion. We're all one. I plan to make it known.
- NoGravitas 9y ago
  Setec Astronomy.
- otakucode 9y ago
  If we were, it already would be, obviously.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

II2II 9y ago

In many cases, it has nothing to do with what is being hidden. It is much easier to find peace in the world if you keep your nose out of other people's affairs and vice versa.

aidanjbauer 9y ago

In principle, yes, but that's all that is, principle.