3 ms·

Just to play devil's advocate: does democracy require privacy? It's not like the early 20th century where if you're were a part of the communist party you were

Just to play devil's advocate: does democracy require privacy? It's not like the early 20th century where if you're were a part of the communist party you were suspect. We can pretty much say whatever we want (and we do) without fear unless we are actually criminals. I know the "if you have nothing to fear" argument doesn't hold up, but privacy is actually a relatively new thing in the human experience. And I'm not sure why democracy would fall apart without it. But boy do I like privacy / hope it sticks around.

sitharus 9y ago
I guess technically democracy doesn’t _require_ privacy, but a central tenant of most western democracies is the secret ballot. The government shouldn’t know who anyone voted for. Losing privacy will allow the connections to be made even if the vote itself is secret. That can easily lead to voter intimidation etc, if not by the government then by third parties.
aethertap 9y ago
Alternative history, if perfect surveillance existed in 1950: The first private conversation that Martin Luther King, Jr. had about the injustice of his time was captured and automatically analyzed, and as a result he was identified as a disturber of the peace and arrested for unrelated violations long before his message ever reached an audience. Rosa Parks was detained for disorderly conduct long before she made her stand, and as a result her stand never happened. There was never a zeitgeist of change in the oppressed community, because there were never any stories of people resisting. They were all prevented from acting in any significant way, or from getting together to share their stories and find support. The issue of racial discrimination never made it to court because all of the people who could have brought it there were stopped before they could get started. Perfect surveillance can stop any threat to the status quo while it's in its infancy, long before it amounts to anything. It can probably do it without introducing any new, draconian laws by simply looking through recent history for "questionable" actions and harassing people over them. The argument that it's okay now basically amounts to saying that there is no longer any injustice and that today's system is a perfect example of virtue and fair play, and that anyone who disagrees is a malcontent who really does deserve to be silenced. Sometimes the majority is wrong, and it takes brave people willing to break the rules in order to point it out and change things. I'd say that democracy does depend on privacy for this reason.
- ragequitta 9y ago
  The argument I have against this is we now have near perfect surveillance and this isn't happening. I can be a part of a far left socialist movement and spread my ideas as easily as I can be part of this crazy new nazi movement. And both of those ideologies are rampant on the internet, but nobody is being arrested for it (at least not until they do something stupid). I understand in the past this wasn't the case, but as of now it's pretty difficult to stop ideas. And when/if you do stop them the internet history is right there for martyrs to be made. I'd argue with little to no privacy the government actually has less power in situations like this. Because the lack of privacy extends to what the government is doing also. Cameras/microphones/eyes everywhere means it's much more difficult to get away with a lot of the covert insanity that was happening before. I would say things like Snowden/Panama Papers/Wiki leaks/many other examples are showing that having privacy can actually benefit the people in power more than the average Joe. Joe Blow doesn't want his dildo collection known about, the government doesn't want (insert insane things like funding drug cartels/terrorist organizations) to be known. All in all I'd say sacrifice knowledge your dildo collection for the greater good. That said I do believe privacy still needs to be a thing. I hope it is a thing again in the future. But I actually don't know how horrible it is that it's gone away. People might just have to tell the truth for a while, which might benefit society in its current corrupt state?
pdkl95 9y ago
> does democracy require privacy? Yes, it absolutely does. The most effective way to fight a political ideology is not meeting it fairly on the marketplace of ideas to fight it directly. If the opponent is allowed to an opportunity to fight, you might lose. To guarantee a win, you have to stop the opposing political ideas before the organize into an ideology that people can support and fight for. Political movements need time to mature. It's easy to disrupt proto-ideologies if you can identify the people that might bring together separate parts of the social graph before they knit together into a self-sustaining political movement. This is what the FBI did to disrupt civil rights groups under COINTELPRO[1]. This is what GCHQ's JTRIG[2] group is probably doing today. While the Freedom of Assembly doesn't get as much discussion compared to speech/religion/etc, it's one of the most important rights. Assembling with people in public is how an idea moves into public view. Ideas you only discussed cautiously in private ("in the closet"?) are a lot easier to discuss openly in public when you realize other people have the same beliefs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO [2] https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
fjsolwmv 9y ago
Follow your own argument. The government has spent its entire history, from 1801 (president John Adams) til today, persecuting people for suspicion of disagreement with the government.

sitharus 9y ago

I guess technically democracy doesn’t _require_ privacy, but a central tenant of most western democracies is the secret ballot. The government shouldn’t know who anyone voted for. Losing privacy will allow the connections to be made even if the vote itself is secret. That can easily lead to voter intimidation etc, if not by the government then by third parties.

aethertap 9y ago

Alternative history, if perfect surveillance existed in 1950: The first private conversation that Martin Luther King, Jr. had about the injustice of his time was captured and automatically analyzed, and as a result he was identified as a disturber of the peace and arrested for unrelated violations long before his message ever reached an audience. Rosa Parks was detained for disorderly conduct long before she made her stand, and as a result her stand never happened. There was never a zeitgeist of change in the oppressed community, because there were never any stories of people resisting. They were all prevented from acting in any significant way, or from getting together to share their stories and find support. The issue of racial discrimination never made it to court because all of the people who could have brought it there were stopped before they could get started. Perfect surveillance can stop any threat to the status quo while it's in its infancy, long before it amounts to anything. It can probably do it without introducing any new, draconian laws by simply looking through recent history for "questionable" actions and harassing people over them. The argument that it's okay now basically amounts to saying that there is no longer any injustice and that today's system is a perfect example of virtue and fair play, and that anyone who disagrees is a malcontent who really does deserve to be silenced. Sometimes the majority is wrong, and it takes brave people willing to break the rules in order to point it out and change things. I'd say that democracy does depend on privacy for this reason.

ragequitta 9y ago
The argument I have against this is we now have near perfect surveillance and this isn't happening. I can be a part of a far left socialist movement and spread my ideas as easily as I can be part of this crazy new nazi movement. And both of those ideologies are rampant on the internet, but nobody is being arrested for it (at least not until they do something stupid). I understand in the past this wasn't the case, but as of now it's pretty difficult to stop ideas. And when/if you do stop them the internet history is right there for martyrs to be made. I'd argue with little to no privacy the government actually has less power in situations like this. Because the lack of privacy extends to what the government is doing also. Cameras/microphones/eyes everywhere means it's much more difficult to get away with a lot of the covert insanity that was happening before. I would say things like Snowden/Panama Papers/Wiki leaks/many other examples are showing that having privacy can actually benefit the people in power more than the average Joe. Joe Blow doesn't want his dildo collection known about, the government doesn't want (insert insane things like funding drug cartels/terrorist organizations) to be known. All in all I'd say sacrifice knowledge your dildo collection for the greater good. That said I do believe privacy still needs to be a thing. I hope it is a thing again in the future. But I actually don't know how horrible it is that it's gone away. People might just have to tell the truth for a while, which might benefit society in its current corrupt state?

pdkl95 9y ago

> does democracy require privacy? Yes, it absolutely does. The most effective way to fight a political ideology is not meeting it fairly on the marketplace of ideas to fight it directly. If the opponent is allowed to an opportunity to fight, you might lose. To guarantee a win, you have to stop the opposing political ideas before the organize into an ideology that people can support and fight for. Political movements need time to mature. It's easy to disrupt proto-ideologies if you can identify the people that might bring together separate parts of the social graph before they knit together into a self-sustaining political movement. This is what the FBI did to disrupt civil rights groups under COINTELPRO[1]. This is what GCHQ's JTRIG[2] group is probably doing today. While the Freedom of Assembly doesn't get as much discussion compared to speech/religion/etc, it's one of the most important rights. Assembling with people in public is how an idea moves into public view. Ideas you only discussed cautiously in private ("in the closet"?) are a lot easier to discuss openly in public when you realize other people have the same beliefs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO [2] https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

fjsolwmv 9y ago

Follow your own argument. The government has spent its entire history, from 1801 (president John Adams) til today, persecuting people for suspicion of disagreement with the government.