6 ms·

What is the value? Honestly I view all of this (digging into someone's personal correspondence from the past) as extremely overly voyeuristic, rather than havi

What is the value? Honestly I view all of this (digging into someone's personal correspondence from the past) as extremely overly voyeuristic, rather than having actual value. If it wasn't meant to be public originally, I don't want it to be public. It does not respect the original author's intention. (Not trying to be hostile - but I just wanted to say this.)

avar 7y ago
It's a good question. The reason we know how devastating and inhumane wars like say the Eastern front in WWII is in no small due to these sorts of records, otherwise we'd mostly just have contemporary state propaganda, statistics and the like. Reading about what a meat grinder war is for the grunt on the ground helps future generations a lot more in not repeating those mistakes than so-and-so many millions died. I think past a given point we shouldn't respect the author's privacy. Everybody's got records they'd like to keep private, and perhaps they'd even like to keep it private past their death to avoid some harm among their surviving immediate relatives. But past a certain point everyone who could be harmed by such disclosures is long dead.
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  Good point - and very potent. Thank you for your thoughts.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  Living people are harmed by such disclosures if the idea that this might happen to their communications in the future makes them less willing to communicate openly and honestly with their loved ones.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Does the idea of a future historian poring over your e-mails make you less willing to send those e-mails today?
    - daveFNbuck 7y ago
      No, but I don't think this will happen and I don't send emails that I'm particularly concerned about others reading. WWII letters were used as an example here. My grandfather was alive during WWII. I think it's reasonable to expect that there are people sending emails they'd much rather not have their grandchildren learn about after their death.
      - avar 7y ago
        The question isn't whether or not they'd prefer it when they were alive, it's whether we should care now that they're dead. I'm willing to bet you agree with this notion in principle, and would just like to quibble about the time scale. Or do you think that if we unearthed something that's clearly private correspondence on a clay tablet from ancient Sumer that it should be kept private? In this specific case, I'm willing to bet that if someone were to say "this secret should be kept from my grandchildren after I'm dead" it's exactly the sort of thing their living grandchildren would have an interest in knowing about, and that interest should outweigh a dead person's privacy.
        daveFNbuck 7y ago
        If we don't respect dead peoples' privacy, then living people won't expect their privacy to be respected when they die. This can cause people distress and result in changed behavior, which are real negative outcomes on living people. Currently living people care about their legacies and don't want embarrassing communications to become public after their deaths. If you're really not concerned about the privacy of the dead and think that time scale is just a quibble, would you be ok with a policy that nude photos and 3d models of all dead bodies, together with personal identifying information, be uploaded to a public searchable website as soon as possible after death? After all, some people might be interested in seeing that. Not many people are upset about the privacy implications of reading an ancient clay tablet, so this is not as big a concern. The time scale thing isn't just a quibble, it's central to how living people are affected.
boneitis 7y ago
I don't think this directly addresses your question, but I do have a thought I just wanted to share. And from a super rough skim of the article, the writer seems to be motivated by his and family members' own experiences, not to make a comment on the amount of overreach, if any, they call for in the means to achieve the ends. But, if one seeks a consensual compilation by one person, here is a superb one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17032891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17032891 I only bust it out on a super chill, lazy day off and read but a few letters at a time, and I'm still only a fraction of the way through it. Voyeuristic? Probably. I find it a very rare, direct, and valuable transmission of an external being's perspective and senses, though. Candid but consensual.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> If it wasn't meant to be public originally, I don't want it to be public. It does not respect the original author's intention. People die. Humanity lives on. At some point, the author dies, then their relatives die, and when they're all dead twice over, this stuff becomes relevant as a way for the future generations to have a glimpse at the realities of life of their ancestors. I.e. history. If we were to respect what you wrote, we wouldn't have history.

avar 7y ago

It's a good question. The reason we know how devastating and inhumane wars like say the Eastern front in WWII is in no small due to these sorts of records, otherwise we'd mostly just have contemporary state propaganda, statistics and the like. Reading about what a meat grinder war is for the grunt on the ground helps future generations a lot more in not repeating those mistakes than so-and-so many millions died. I think past a given point we shouldn't respect the author's privacy. Everybody's got records they'd like to keep private, and perhaps they'd even like to keep it private past their death to avoid some harm among their surviving immediate relatives. But past a certain point everyone who could be harmed by such disclosures is long dead.

GhettoMaestro 7y ago
Good point - and very potent. Thank you for your thoughts.
daveFNbuck 7y ago
Living people are harmed by such disclosures if the idea that this might happen to their communications in the future makes them less willing to communicate openly and honestly with their loved ones.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Does the idea of a future historian poring over your e-mails make you less willing to send those e-mails today?
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    No, but I don't think this will happen and I don't send emails that I'm particularly concerned about others reading. WWII letters were used as an example here. My grandfather was alive during WWII. I think it's reasonable to expect that there are people sending emails they'd much rather not have their grandchildren learn about after their death.
    - avar 7y ago
      The question isn't whether or not they'd prefer it when they were alive, it's whether we should care now that they're dead. I'm willing to bet you agree with this notion in principle, and would just like to quibble about the time scale. Or do you think that if we unearthed something that's clearly private correspondence on a clay tablet from ancient Sumer that it should be kept private? In this specific case, I'm willing to bet that if someone were to say "this secret should be kept from my grandchildren after I'm dead" it's exactly the sort of thing their living grandchildren would have an interest in knowing about, and that interest should outweigh a dead person's privacy.
      - daveFNbuck 7y ago
        If we don't respect dead peoples' privacy, then living people won't expect their privacy to be respected when they die. This can cause people distress and result in changed behavior, which are real negative outcomes on living people. Currently living people care about their legacies and don't want embarrassing communications to become public after their deaths. If you're really not concerned about the privacy of the dead and think that time scale is just a quibble, would you be ok with a policy that nude photos and 3d models of all dead bodies, together with personal identifying information, be uploaded to a public searchable website as soon as possible after death? After all, some people might be interested in seeing that. Not many people are upset about the privacy implications of reading an ancient clay tablet, so this is not as big a concern. The time scale thing isn't just a quibble, it's central to how living people are affected.

boneitis 7y ago

I don't think this directly addresses your question, but I do have a thought I just wanted to share. And from a super rough skim of the article, the writer seems to be motivated by his and family members' own experiences, not to make a comment on the amount of overreach, if any, they call for in the means to achieve the ends. But, if one seeks a consensual compilation by one person, here is a superb one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17032891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17032891 I only bust it out on a super chill, lazy day off and read but a few letters at a time, and I'm still only a fraction of the way through it. Voyeuristic? Probably. I find it a very rare, direct, and valuable transmission of an external being's perspective and senses, though. Candid but consensual.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> If it wasn't meant to be public originally, I don't want it to be public. It does not respect the original author's intention. People die. Humanity lives on. At some point, the author dies, then their relatives die, and when they're all dead twice over, this stuff becomes relevant as a way for the future generations to have a glimpse at the realities of life of their ancestors. I.e. history. If we were to respect what you wrote, we wouldn't have history.