3 ms·

we're still asking a question we've had since times immemorial: where to draw the line between protection and privacy? it is, in my opinion, an inevitable trade

we're still asking a question we've had since times immemorial: where to draw the line between protection and privacy? it is, in my opinion, an inevitable tradeoff and you cannot have either in absolute without the other disintegrating. the stakes seem higher now because of the scale of the systems in question, but the philosophical arguments are probably the same. i should read more.

sigstoat 8y ago
> we're still asking a question we've had since times immemorial: where to draw the line between protection and privacy? i've got a cookie which says you can't find anyone writing seriously about that question before the advent of photography.
- kevinventullo 8y ago
  Only a few decades prior, but the Fourth Amendment seems to be attempting to strike a balance between the two.
- trynewideas 8y ago
  In 1621, Geneva faced a syphilis outbreak. Geneva's council demanded that apothecaries and physicians report every treatment to the council, in the name of controlling the outbreak. The apothecaries and physicians immediately protested in writing, claiming that violating their patients' privacy would exacerbate the outbreak by making them less likely to seek treatment. A summary of these writings in French, by Leon Gautier: https://archive.org/stream/b2475674x/b2475674x_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/b2475674x/b2475674x_djvu.txt Relevant excerpt fed through Google Translate for convenience: > The Council, according to its custom, did not wish to be wrong, but practically justified the faculty. From that date, the authority does not seem to have required the medical profession to make the mandatory declaration of all cases of venereal disease. And even today (1906) the problem of reconciling the public interest and the honor of families remains before the legislator and the public.
CryptoPunk 8y ago
You can have an absolute right to privacy technology, and a highly functional society, in my opinion. The government could still search any records you have with a warrant, but if you left no records, and you encrypted your communications, they would remain private. I think this strikes the right balance because the advantage is always with the government given its resources. The government can still search physical property, compel your friends, associates and accomplices to testify against you, use various tools to physically monitor your communication output pre-encryption, etc. Erring on the side of giving people as much privacy as technologically possible will very likely not even be enough to restrain governments from over-reaching, so let's at least do that.

sigstoat 8y ago

> we're still asking a question we've had since times immemorial: where to draw the line between protection and privacy? i've got a cookie which says you can't find anyone writing seriously about that question before the advent of photography.

kevinventullo 8y ago
Only a few decades prior, but the Fourth Amendment seems to be attempting to strike a balance between the two.
trynewideas 8y ago
In 1621, Geneva faced a syphilis outbreak. Geneva's council demanded that apothecaries and physicians report every treatment to the council, in the name of controlling the outbreak. The apothecaries and physicians immediately protested in writing, claiming that violating their patients' privacy would exacerbate the outbreak by making them less likely to seek treatment. A summary of these writings in French, by Leon Gautier: https://archive.org/stream/b2475674x/b2475674x_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/b2475674x/b2475674x_djvu.txt Relevant excerpt fed through Google Translate for convenience: > The Council, according to its custom, did not wish to be wrong, but practically justified the faculty. From that date, the authority does not seem to have required the medical profession to make the mandatory declaration of all cases of venereal disease. And even today (1906) the problem of reconciling the public interest and the honor of families remains before the legislator and the public.

CryptoPunk 8y ago

You can have an absolute right to privacy technology, and a highly functional society, in my opinion. The government could still search any records you have with a warrant, but if you left no records, and you encrypted your communications, they would remain private. I think this strikes the right balance because the advantage is always with the government given its resources. The government can still search physical property, compel your friends, associates and accomplices to testify against you, use various tools to physically monitor your communication output pre-encryption, etc. Erring on the side of giving people as much privacy as technologically possible will very likely not even be enough to restrain governments from over-reaching, so let's at least do that.