4 ms·

> I'd keep defending this principle even in case one of those criminals would exterminate my entire family. I think that's a bit too far... but I get your poin

by sdan 7y ago

> I'd keep defending this principle even in case one of those criminals would exterminate my entire family. I think that's a bit too far... but I get your point. When having a discussion around privacy, I had no response to "you shouldn't have anything to hide" because I know privacy should somewhat be a human right (especially given its commoditization) but didn't know exactly why it's so important given that most Gen Z kids are sharing every aspect of their lives on social media.

kempbellt 7y ago
Maybe you and I have different understandings of what a "right" is. I define a "right" as something that cannot be taken away, and there are very few of these. Your story, your thoughts, and your will, are all you have a right to - while you are alive. Every other nicety in life is due to mutual respect, agreements and the ability to use force should those agreements be broken. If I am using a restroom, I don't have a "right" to privacy. Tell that to a prisoner who has to take a shit in front of their cellmates... Even in comfort of your own home, someone could kick the door open. The fact that they don't kick in the door, is due to mutual respect for boundaries. This is what I would call a privilege, which has been mutually _agreed upon by_ and _granted to_ all parties involved. Privileges make up our freedoms. They are the things that we fight for, and should continue to do so. We should make an effort to not conflate the two, as it tends to blur the lines and give people a false understanding of what they have a right to intrinsically, vs what they must fight for.
- cmroanirgo 7y ago
  Although I agree with what you're saying, I always thought that a right was something the government gave us after taking it away in the first place, proving that a right is a political term, at least now days. I've always used intrinsic right as you suggest to describe what you mention, to differentiate the two. Because the problem lies in the political domain, it's not unexpected that these two ideas (intrinsic rights vs privilege) are deliberately conflated precisely to blur the boundary, making their agenda achievable: the control of people.
cmroanirgo 7y ago
My response to the "I have nothing to hide" argument: i) do you wear clothes? You are hiding yourself! Why not walk naked down the street? You have something to hide. ii) do you have curtains on your house? Why? (The answer is almost never "to keep out there light") Most people walk fully clothed in their own house. You have something to hide. I also liken dragnet surveillance (a major reason on why we need E2EE) to upskirting. People have a basic right to assume some privacy even when in public... Otherwise the objectionable practice of upskirting should be legal too.
- kempbellt 7y ago
  Why not walk down the street naked? I'd love to, but then I'd get arrested. Irony... Cheekiness aside ( Pun ;) ), I second your point. "Having something to hide" is frequently conflated with "not wanting to share something with everyone that I don't need to".
mLuby 7y ago
> > I'd keep defending this principle even in case one of those criminals would exterminate my entire family. >I think that's a bit too far... but I get your point. Another way to say this is "I'd uphold this principle if it were your family, and I'd expect you to do the same if it were my family." It's understandable for principles to break down for individuals in extreme (contrived) circumstances, so long as most people abide by them.

by sdan 7y ago

kempbellt 7y ago

Maybe you and I have different understandings of what a "right" is. I define a "right" as something that cannot be taken away, and there are very few of these. Your story, your thoughts, and your will, are all you have a right to - while you are alive. Every other nicety in life is due to mutual respect, agreements and the ability to use force should those agreements be broken. If I am using a restroom, I don't have a "right" to privacy. Tell that to a prisoner who has to take a shit in front of their cellmates... Even in comfort of your own home, someone could kick the door open. The fact that they don't kick in the door, is due to mutual respect for boundaries. This is what I would call a privilege, which has been mutually _agreed upon by_ and _granted to_ all parties involved. Privileges make up our freedoms. They are the things that we fight for, and should continue to do so. We should make an effort to not conflate the two, as it tends to blur the lines and give people a false understanding of what they have a right to intrinsically, vs what they must fight for.

cmroanirgo 7y ago
Although I agree with what you're saying, I always thought that a right was something the government gave us after taking it away in the first place, proving that a right is a political term, at least now days. I've always used intrinsic right as you suggest to describe what you mention, to differentiate the two. Because the problem lies in the political domain, it's not unexpected that these two ideas (intrinsic rights vs privilege) are deliberately conflated precisely to blur the boundary, making their agenda achievable: the control of people.

cmroanirgo 7y ago

My response to the "I have nothing to hide" argument: i) do you wear clothes? You are hiding yourself! Why not walk naked down the street? You have something to hide. ii) do you have curtains on your house? Why? (The answer is almost never "to keep out there light") Most people walk fully clothed in their own house. You have something to hide. I also liken dragnet surveillance (a major reason on why we need E2EE) to upskirting. People have a basic right to assume some privacy even when in public... Otherwise the objectionable practice of upskirting should be legal too.

kempbellt 7y ago
Why not walk down the street naked? I'd love to, but then I'd get arrested. Irony... Cheekiness aside ( Pun ;) ), I second your point. "Having something to hide" is frequently conflated with "not wanting to share something with everyone that I don't need to".

mLuby 7y ago

> > I'd keep defending this principle even in case one of those criminals would exterminate my entire family. >I think that's a bit too far... but I get your point. Another way to say this is "I'd uphold this principle if it were your family, and I'd expect you to do the same if it were my family." It's understandable for principles to break down for individuals in extreme (contrived) circumstances, so long as most people abide by them.