4 ms·

NYT: Government should protect the privacy of its citizens Also NYT: Everyone's income taxes should be public What a bizarre half-baked (obviously political)

by bko 8y ago

NYT: Government should protect the privacy of its citizens Also NYT: Everyone's income taxes should be public What a bizarre half-baked (obviously political) response to something in the news. It's really sad that the bar for what gets published in a major newspaper is so low.

maxerickson 8y ago
They intentionally seek to publish a range of opinions in the opinion section. That some of them are contradictory is consistent with that goal.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  I do agree, and while this is an independent opinion piece, is worth noting that the author is a member of the NYT editorial board.
  - thirdsun 8y ago
    And that prohibits him from expressing his individual perspective? I don't see any reason why a newspaper should have to talk with a singular, homogeneous voice.
    - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
      Not at all, and I didn't make that argument. But as a member of the editorial staff, he has put his name behind numerous editorials railing against Facebook and their impact on personal privacy (just google "New York times editorial Facebook privacy" for many examples). Given that, I found the author's brushing aside of privacy concerns in this article ("it's government information, not personal information" - yeah, that the government requires everyone to provide or else they put you in jail) extremely weak.
- bko 8y ago
  Not all opinions are equal. Much like a newspaper doesn't (and shouldn't) give an equal platform to an anti-vaccine advocate as they do a scientist, I think these kinds of opinions are so vile that they do not deserve publication, at least not in NYT. The bar should be higher. It's essentially a piece promoting a policy that would be probably the single largest attack on the right to privacy in the history of the US. Why? Because a president the author doesn't like refused to release his tax returns. Very measured response. I'm sure there would be no unintended consequences.
  - javagram 8y ago
    > so vile that they do not deserve publication It’s a policy that’s standard in several Northern European nations generally recognized as civilized and a good place to live. You may consider it vile but from the perspective of the NY editorial board I don’t see why they would.
  - distances 8y ago
    > I think these kinds of opinions are so vile that they do not deserve publication, at least not in NYT. This is ridiculous. I'm from a country with public tax records, and wholeheartedly support it. It definitely needs to be part of discussion when deciding how to tackle tax avoidance, corruption, and wealth disparity. I've never checked my friends' or colleagues' taxes, even if I could. It's quite important that the tax records of the notable figures are public though.
    - akimball 8y ago
      And people get killed by extortionists, or live in cages, as a result of destroying privacy rights. You can't have freedom without privacy
paulpauper 8y ago
Yeah, the NYTs puts out tons of articles about Facebook and other social networks vioilatinig user privacy
boron1006 8y ago
The term "privacy" has become a hollow word that people use to criticise anything they don't like. Generally, I see the concept of "you shouldn't be able to know anything about me, but I should be able to know everything about you" everywhere. Notably in tech circles, this is prevalent in how we see hacking. People who hack into other people's computers, IT people who snoop onto employee accounts, and people who support personal data breaches like the Fappening (saying stuff like "if they don't want to have their images become public, they shouldn't have taken them"), and publishing of personal emails (e.g. Wikileaks), all have had conversations with me complaining that Facebook is violating their privacy rights. None have recognized that what they are involved in is way, way worse than anything that Facebook has done.

by bko 8y ago

maxerickson 8y ago

They intentionally seek to publish a range of opinions in the opinion section. That some of them are contradictory is consistent with that goal.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
I do agree, and while this is an independent opinion piece, is worth noting that the author is a member of the NYT editorial board.
- thirdsun 8y ago
  And that prohibits him from expressing his individual perspective? I don't see any reason why a newspaper should have to talk with a singular, homogeneous voice.
  - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
    Not at all, and I didn't make that argument. But as a member of the editorial staff, he has put his name behind numerous editorials railing against Facebook and their impact on personal privacy (just google "New York times editorial Facebook privacy" for many examples). Given that, I found the author's brushing aside of privacy concerns in this article ("it's government information, not personal information" - yeah, that the government requires everyone to provide or else they put you in jail) extremely weak.
bko 8y ago
Not all opinions are equal. Much like a newspaper doesn't (and shouldn't) give an equal platform to an anti-vaccine advocate as they do a scientist, I think these kinds of opinions are so vile that they do not deserve publication, at least not in NYT. The bar should be higher. It's essentially a piece promoting a policy that would be probably the single largest attack on the right to privacy in the history of the US. Why? Because a president the author doesn't like refused to release his tax returns. Very measured response. I'm sure there would be no unintended consequences.
- javagram 8y ago
  > so vile that they do not deserve publication It’s a policy that’s standard in several Northern European nations generally recognized as civilized and a good place to live. You may consider it vile but from the perspective of the NY editorial board I don’t see why they would.
- distances 8y ago
  > I think these kinds of opinions are so vile that they do not deserve publication, at least not in NYT. This is ridiculous. I'm from a country with public tax records, and wholeheartedly support it. It definitely needs to be part of discussion when deciding how to tackle tax avoidance, corruption, and wealth disparity. I've never checked my friends' or colleagues' taxes, even if I could. It's quite important that the tax records of the notable figures are public though.
  - akimball 8y ago
    And people get killed by extortionists, or live in cages, as a result of destroying privacy rights. You can't have freedom without privacy

paulpauper 8y ago

Yeah, the NYTs puts out tons of articles about Facebook and other social networks vioilatinig user privacy

boron1006 8y ago

The term "privacy" has become a hollow word that people use to criticise anything they don't like. Generally, I see the concept of "you shouldn't be able to know anything about me, but I should be able to know everything about you" everywhere. Notably in tech circles, this is prevalent in how we see hacking. People who hack into other people's computers, IT people who snoop onto employee accounts, and people who support personal data breaches like the Fappening (saying stuff like "if they don't want to have their images become public, they shouldn't have taken them"), and publishing of personal emails (e.g. Wikileaks), all have had conversations with me complaining that Facebook is violating their privacy rights. None have recognized that what they are involved in is way, way worse than anything that Facebook has done.