6 ms·

We care so much about privacy because prior to WWII millions of Jews who were innocently going about their every day business filled out a census that asked the

We care so much about privacy because prior to WWII millions of Jews who were innocently going about their every day business filled out a census that asked them their religion. Their religion was no more illegal than their existence. A few years later they were being exterminated like vermin in an attempt to eradicate them from Europe based entirely on a checkbox on a form. The home address they freely provided sealing their fate. "I'm not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to hide. If you're trying to hide, you must be a criminal." I pray that nothing you do innocently today becomes public knowledge and retroactively treated as a crime that threatens not only your livelihood, but your very life and the lives of those you hold most dear. That. That is why privacy should be in our hands. We should be able to choose the information we divulge to the world about ourselves. Not have the world know every last thing about us. Witch hunts happen. They happen today as often as in the days of the Salem Witch Trials. Black people in the southern States live in an atmosphere of racism, wondering if the cop pulling them over will beat them or kill them... most cops aren't racist. Women everywhere live in an atmosphere of sexism, yet most men aren't sexist misogynists. LGBQT live in an atmosphere of not being accepted and have their lives threatened regularly just because of who they are sexually attracted to. If you don't think you could be on the receiving end of a witch hunt just because your life is "boring", you are as naive as you are ignorant. Privacy matters. That's why attorney client privilege exists. That's why the 5th Amendment exists. That's why the right to remain silent exists. Just because there is a void in public information about you, doesn't mean it needs to be filled.

triviatise 8y ago
gun owners are going through this right now. This is why gun owners are so sensitive to any registration. They know that gun registries are a precursor to gun confiscation and prosecution. Historically speaking governments have always been the worst perpetrators of violence on their own people.
- mpweiher 8y ago
  "This is what car owners and house owners are going through right now, they know that car and house registries are precursors to confiscation and prosecution." Oh..wait...
  - balabaster 8y ago
    The insurance companies with a "put this device that monitors everything you do in the car, tracking you wherever you go, whatever you do and we'll give you an insurance discount." Um... you could give me an almost 100% discount and I'm still not giving you the very ammunition that you will use against me at the first opportunity I need to make a claim despite never having made an insurance claim in the last 20 years. Not to mention, I'm not having you watch everywhere I go, when I go, building a profile about where I spend my time, who I spend that time with, when I do that, when I'm home, when I'm not home. You can have the mandatory information I must give you in order to be able to drive my car and take care of people in the event of an accident. Beyond that, I'm not giving you anything.
    - netinmate 8y ago
      Of course when you crash into me and it's your fault, you'll just walk away because I doubt that you'll be able to pay for your mistake, and MY insurance and my money will be spent to cover for your inadequacies. Freedom is not free, except you just want others to pay, it's the classic argument against government.
      - balabaster 8y ago
        My insurance is fully comprehensive and is plenty enough to cover taking care of whatever is damaged and whoever is hurt. The wording of your statement makes a lot of assumptions about the kind of person I am and my level of responsibility towards others without you even knowing me.
- Xeoncross 8y ago
  > "Historically speaking governments have always been the worst perpetrators of violence on their own people." Yes, when people talk about deaths and dangers it's amazing to me that just about every other cause of death is so tiny compared to the numbers our own governments have produced.
  - balabaster 8y ago
    and in the case of the Jews as I highlighted, the violence perpetrated by the government underwritten by data freely given by the hand of those in jeopardy, writing their own death warrant. On one hand, I think free access to data could be both fascinating and beneficial to the entire human race if used benevolently. But let's face it. History has shown us that any company with access to this data will eventually share it or sell it to someone less scrupulous and it will end up being used against those who gave it freely in the first place thinking that it was either safe or at least couldn't harm them. I'm looking at you, Cambridge Analytica.
- cgriswald 8y ago
  It's worse than just confiscation. The Journal News created an interactive map of permit holders[0] in New York. It is not hard to see how this information could be misused by criminals looking to acquire a weapon, cop-haters (lots of them are cops or retired cops) or others. [0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/nyregion/newspaper-takes-down-map-of-gun-permit-holders.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/nyregion/newspaper-takes-...
- balabaster 8y ago
  I disagree with gun registries being a precursor to confiscation and prosecution. I think the Government in their wisdom is trying to do the right thing. Having weapons registered means that if a crime occurs with a gun, it can be traced to a legal owner and they can be held accountable for the crime. This in turn means that legal gun owners will be more responsible with the storage and use of their weapons which will reduce the amount of crimes perpetrated by "legal" weapons. It will mean that if a weapon is stolen, it will be reported as such because the registered owner doesn't want to be held accountable for a crime with a stolen weapon. There is much good that can come from registration. It will lead to more responsible gun owners. However, the argument on the other side of the fence is also true - criminals will always be able to get unfettered access to illegal weapons. However, those weapons will have to be smuggled into the country, not stolen from those who purchased them through legal channels. But just like the Jews, if you've got a gun and owning a gun becomes a crime that the government decide to enforce retroactively, then you have effectively signed your arrest warrant by registering them. I don't think this is their intention however. Their intention is merely to hold legal gun owners to a standard of care that I believe they should be held and currently aren't. They're saying "if you own a gun, you're going to be expected to care for it responsibly. If you do not care for it responsibly, you are going to be held accountable for the damage it causes." But you know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The government has a history of making laws that seem to be well intended that end up being exploited because they're overreaching while saying "oh, we don't mean that, we'll never enforce it in that way."
  - balabaster 8y ago
    They also have a history of pushing through unpopular legislation by tacking it onto bills they can force it through with by holding congress over a barrel. "If you want this, you have to agree to this too." I view this as malpractice and a corrupt way of introducing legislation, but this seems to be an accepted way of behaving which leaves me aghast every time I see it.
  - cgriswald 8y ago
    > I disagree with gun registries being a precursor to confiscation and prosecution. I have two friends who openly advocate for this method of removing guns from the US. Regardless, I think this is something gun owners fear. When Canada had a registration list, it seized weapons that were legal when purchased and later made illegal by bureaucratic decision, without compensation.
oconnor663 8y ago
Putting all those examples next to each other highlights a difference: Jews and LGBT people can (sometimes) use privacy to protect themselves from violence. But people with a different skin color can't.
- balabaster 8y ago
  The point you highlight is true, but you miss something that perhaps the way I worded my example didn't make clear. Data doesn't know what colour you are by looking at you. It only knows what colour you are when you or someone you know specifies that. For example - your car insurance company doesn't know that you're black... unless you include that on the form. And it doesn't matter. Black people are no more or less prone to having an accident than Hispanics or Chinese or Whites. It's irrelevant for the purpose of car insurance. But insurance companies will ask whatever they can get away with and claim to use it to provide discounts based on statistics. They then often package up this information and sell it to other companies who now know you are black, just because you provided that information when it seemed advantageous to do so. But they will equally use that information against you if they have the opportunity to deny your claim. I might look at you and know immediately that you're black, but what if I don't know you? What if I've never seen your picture? The only thing I can glean from your data is what data there is to sift through. So just because something may be visible in person, doesn't make it less important when it comes to privacy.
  - oldcynic 8y ago
    It gets more sinister is when it is inferred from name or where you live.
    - balabaster 8y ago
      Or the people with whom you share a social graph. The friend of yours that's also friends with a known local drug dealer who in turn just happens to have cartel connections, even though you had no idea and have never even experimented with legal pharmaceuticals. Or the aunt that was once a part of a political rally that showed real possibility of overthrowing the government. Or the brother that's showing signs of mental instability on social media that everyone has missed - "he was such a good kid, none of us saw it coming." but the data predicted it; and that innocent vacation your family took to Egypt last year, a once in a lifetime opportunity to see the Giza plateau suddenly looks a whole lot more sinister - suddenly your whole family is questioned as being terrorists and the witch hunt has begun. You lose your business, your jobs, the community you loved. Even the most innocent of data can be misconstrued and turned against you.
davidkuhta 8y ago
> It's not that I have something to hide. I have nothing I want you to see. - The Girl (Anon) [Netflix 2018 Movie]
- balabaster 8y ago
  Exactly!
miguelrochefort 8y ago
Do you suggest people should conceal their skin color? Privacy is unfair because it highlights characteristics that are difficult to conceal. If someone wants to discriminate you based on your height, there's not much you can do. Rather than coming up with strategies to help people hide aspects of themselves, such as lying, we should help people to be more tolerant and understanding. A good start is transparency and openness. In a world where everyone can hide their differences, failing to do so exposes one to all the discrimination.
- balabaster 8y ago
  In an ideal world, nobody should have to conceal anything. But we don't live in an ideal world. The data we freely post out into the world via our social channels is tracked, recorded, cataloged. Our social graphs mined for information about whatever can be gleaned about our personalities and things that matter to us. They say it's to our advantage, because we only receive ads for products that are important to us... but it's really just a means for them to be more specific with their advertising, a way to exploit our information to get access to our wallets. It isn't there for our benefit, though it's sold to us that way. If you've never seen the movie "The Circle," watch it. This highlights in very real terms why privacy matters - including your skin colour, sex, sexuality, religion, political affiliation or anything else about yourself. You should be able to divulge your personal information as you see fit, not as a matter of policy.
  - miguelrochefort 8y ago
    > In an ideal world, nobody should have to conceal anything. Why not strive for it? > The data we freely post out into the world via our social channels is tracked, recorded, cataloged. Our social graphs mined for information about whatever can be gleaned about our personalities and things that matter to us. That's great, and I'd be happy to pay to ensure more data is collected about me. I'm sure this will become extremely popular in the future. In the meantime, I'm doing it myself (Quantified Self). > They say it's to our advantage, because we only receive ads for products that are important to us... but it's really just a means for them to be more specific with their advertising, a way to exploit our information to get access to our wallets. It isn't there for our benefit, though it's sold to us that way. Showing me what I'm looking for is great. I'd pay for that. Do you think Company X is evil for providing services and products that are perfectly compatible with my needs? They get access to my wallet because they do something great and I'm happy to encourage them. > If you've never seen the movie "The Circle," watch it. I'm actively trying to make the technology in this movie become reality. However, it wasn't such a great movie, and I disliked the end. Hopefully people realized that the benefits of transparency are well worth the rough adaptation period. > This highlights in very real terms why privacy matters - including your skin colour, sex, sexuality, religion, political affiliation or anything else about yourself. You should be able to divulge your personal information as you see fit, not as a matter of policy. What if I see you crossing the street? Am I supposed to keep that for myself? Should we ban surveillance cameras, drones, sensors, GPS trackers, etc? Should people really own any data that intersects with themselves? None of this seems at all reasonable.

triviatise 8y ago

gun owners are going through this right now. This is why gun owners are so sensitive to any registration. They know that gun registries are a precursor to gun confiscation and prosecution. Historically speaking governments have always been the worst perpetrators of violence on their own people.

mpweiher 8y ago
"This is what car owners and house owners are going through right now, they know that car and house registries are precursors to confiscation and prosecution." Oh..wait...
- balabaster 8y ago
  The insurance companies with a "put this device that monitors everything you do in the car, tracking you wherever you go, whatever you do and we'll give you an insurance discount." Um... you could give me an almost 100% discount and I'm still not giving you the very ammunition that you will use against me at the first opportunity I need to make a claim despite never having made an insurance claim in the last 20 years. Not to mention, I'm not having you watch everywhere I go, when I go, building a profile about where I spend my time, who I spend that time with, when I do that, when I'm home, when I'm not home. You can have the mandatory information I must give you in order to be able to drive my car and take care of people in the event of an accident. Beyond that, I'm not giving you anything.
  - netinmate 8y ago
    Of course when you crash into me and it's your fault, you'll just walk away because I doubt that you'll be able to pay for your mistake, and MY insurance and my money will be spent to cover for your inadequacies. Freedom is not free, except you just want others to pay, it's the classic argument against government.
    - balabaster 8y ago
      My insurance is fully comprehensive and is plenty enough to cover taking care of whatever is damaged and whoever is hurt. The wording of your statement makes a lot of assumptions about the kind of person I am and my level of responsibility towards others without you even knowing me.
Xeoncross 8y ago
> "Historically speaking governments have always been the worst perpetrators of violence on their own people." Yes, when people talk about deaths and dangers it's amazing to me that just about every other cause of death is so tiny compared to the numbers our own governments have produced.
- balabaster 8y ago
  and in the case of the Jews as I highlighted, the violence perpetrated by the government underwritten by data freely given by the hand of those in jeopardy, writing their own death warrant. On one hand, I think free access to data could be both fascinating and beneficial to the entire human race if used benevolently. But let's face it. History has shown us that any company with access to this data will eventually share it or sell it to someone less scrupulous and it will end up being used against those who gave it freely in the first place thinking that it was either safe or at least couldn't harm them. I'm looking at you, Cambridge Analytica.
cgriswald 8y ago
It's worse than just confiscation. The Journal News created an interactive map of permit holders[0] in New York. It is not hard to see how this information could be misused by criminals looking to acquire a weapon, cop-haters (lots of them are cops or retired cops) or others. [0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/nyregion/newspaper-takes-down-map-of-gun-permit-holders.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/nyregion/newspaper-takes-...
balabaster 8y ago
I disagree with gun registries being a precursor to confiscation and prosecution. I think the Government in their wisdom is trying to do the right thing. Having weapons registered means that if a crime occurs with a gun, it can be traced to a legal owner and they can be held accountable for the crime. This in turn means that legal gun owners will be more responsible with the storage and use of their weapons which will reduce the amount of crimes perpetrated by "legal" weapons. It will mean that if a weapon is stolen, it will be reported as such because the registered owner doesn't want to be held accountable for a crime with a stolen weapon. There is much good that can come from registration. It will lead to more responsible gun owners. However, the argument on the other side of the fence is also true - criminals will always be able to get unfettered access to illegal weapons. However, those weapons will have to be smuggled into the country, not stolen from those who purchased them through legal channels. But just like the Jews, if you've got a gun and owning a gun becomes a crime that the government decide to enforce retroactively, then you have effectively signed your arrest warrant by registering them. I don't think this is their intention however. Their intention is merely to hold legal gun owners to a standard of care that I believe they should be held and currently aren't. They're saying "if you own a gun, you're going to be expected to care for it responsibly. If you do not care for it responsibly, you are going to be held accountable for the damage it causes." But you know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The government has a history of making laws that seem to be well intended that end up being exploited because they're overreaching while saying "oh, we don't mean that, we'll never enforce it in that way."
- balabaster 8y ago
  They also have a history of pushing through unpopular legislation by tacking it onto bills they can force it through with by holding congress over a barrel. "If you want this, you have to agree to this too." I view this as malpractice and a corrupt way of introducing legislation, but this seems to be an accepted way of behaving which leaves me aghast every time I see it.
- cgriswald 8y ago
  > I disagree with gun registries being a precursor to confiscation and prosecution. I have two friends who openly advocate for this method of removing guns from the US. Regardless, I think this is something gun owners fear. When Canada had a registration list, it seized weapons that were legal when purchased and later made illegal by bureaucratic decision, without compensation.

oconnor663 8y ago

Putting all those examples next to each other highlights a difference: Jews and LGBT people can (sometimes) use privacy to protect themselves from violence. But people with a different skin color can't.

balabaster 8y ago
The point you highlight is true, but you miss something that perhaps the way I worded my example didn't make clear. Data doesn't know what colour you are by looking at you. It only knows what colour you are when you or someone you know specifies that. For example - your car insurance company doesn't know that you're black... unless you include that on the form. And it doesn't matter. Black people are no more or less prone to having an accident than Hispanics or Chinese or Whites. It's irrelevant for the purpose of car insurance. But insurance companies will ask whatever they can get away with and claim to use it to provide discounts based on statistics. They then often package up this information and sell it to other companies who now know you are black, just because you provided that information when it seemed advantageous to do so. But they will equally use that information against you if they have the opportunity to deny your claim. I might look at you and know immediately that you're black, but what if I don't know you? What if I've never seen your picture? The only thing I can glean from your data is what data there is to sift through. So just because something may be visible in person, doesn't make it less important when it comes to privacy.
- oldcynic 8y ago
  It gets more sinister is when it is inferred from name or where you live.
  - balabaster 8y ago
    Or the people with whom you share a social graph. The friend of yours that's also friends with a known local drug dealer who in turn just happens to have cartel connections, even though you had no idea and have never even experimented with legal pharmaceuticals. Or the aunt that was once a part of a political rally that showed real possibility of overthrowing the government. Or the brother that's showing signs of mental instability on social media that everyone has missed - "he was such a good kid, none of us saw it coming." but the data predicted it; and that innocent vacation your family took to Egypt last year, a once in a lifetime opportunity to see the Giza plateau suddenly looks a whole lot more sinister - suddenly your whole family is questioned as being terrorists and the witch hunt has begun. You lose your business, your jobs, the community you loved. Even the most innocent of data can be misconstrued and turned against you.

davidkuhta 8y ago

> It's not that I have something to hide. I have nothing I want you to see. - The Girl (Anon) [Netflix 2018 Movie]

balabaster 8y ago
Exactly!

miguelrochefort 8y ago

Do you suggest people should conceal their skin color? Privacy is unfair because it highlights characteristics that are difficult to conceal. If someone wants to discriminate you based on your height, there's not much you can do. Rather than coming up with strategies to help people hide aspects of themselves, such as lying, we should help people to be more tolerant and understanding. A good start is transparency and openness. In a world where everyone can hide their differences, failing to do so exposes one to all the discrimination.

balabaster 8y ago
In an ideal world, nobody should have to conceal anything. But we don't live in an ideal world. The data we freely post out into the world via our social channels is tracked, recorded, cataloged. Our social graphs mined for information about whatever can be gleaned about our personalities and things that matter to us. They say it's to our advantage, because we only receive ads for products that are important to us... but it's really just a means for them to be more specific with their advertising, a way to exploit our information to get access to our wallets. It isn't there for our benefit, though it's sold to us that way. If you've never seen the movie "The Circle," watch it. This highlights in very real terms why privacy matters - including your skin colour, sex, sexuality, religion, political affiliation or anything else about yourself. You should be able to divulge your personal information as you see fit, not as a matter of policy.
- miguelrochefort 8y ago
  > In an ideal world, nobody should have to conceal anything. Why not strive for it? > The data we freely post out into the world via our social channels is tracked, recorded, cataloged. Our social graphs mined for information about whatever can be gleaned about our personalities and things that matter to us. That's great, and I'd be happy to pay to ensure more data is collected about me. I'm sure this will become extremely popular in the future. In the meantime, I'm doing it myself (Quantified Self). > They say it's to our advantage, because we only receive ads for products that are important to us... but it's really just a means for them to be more specific with their advertising, a way to exploit our information to get access to our wallets. It isn't there for our benefit, though it's sold to us that way. Showing me what I'm looking for is great. I'd pay for that. Do you think Company X is evil for providing services and products that are perfectly compatible with my needs? They get access to my wallet because they do something great and I'm happy to encourage them. > If you've never seen the movie "The Circle," watch it. I'm actively trying to make the technology in this movie become reality. However, it wasn't such a great movie, and I disliked the end. Hopefully people realized that the benefits of transparency are well worth the rough adaptation period. > This highlights in very real terms why privacy matters - including your skin colour, sex, sexuality, religion, political affiliation or anything else about yourself. You should be able to divulge your personal information as you see fit, not as a matter of policy. What if I see you crossing the street? Am I supposed to keep that for myself? Should we ban surveillance cameras, drones, sensors, GPS trackers, etc? Should people really own any data that intersects with themselves? None of this seems at all reasonable.