3 ms·

Thanks for being candid but kind. I didn't mean to address US law or the US Constitution, but I'm curious what part struck you as wrong. That there is no right

• loteck 7y ago
  1) Privacy in Public is impossible This is a tautology not inherently, but because of how you're defining it. Privacy is not so simple as whether you can be surveilled in public or not. Technology opens the door to many complex ethical and legal nuances. You offer a caricature of the future to start off this point, & then point out your own absurdity as a victory. Your examples of China are apt only to oppose your point. The technology in China is the best example we have of how surveillance tech enables specific uses and specific abuses. It is not the presence of the tech, but rather the state's monopoly over control over how the technology is used and abused, where the problem firmly lies. 2) Privacy in Public is economic sabotage Your use of extreme theories and insulting language in this point doesn't deserve a response. 3) Privacy in private is overrated Fortunately wiser and more experienced people than you wrote the US Constitution. They had found the elimination of privacy did not eliminate crime, but rather created more of it, concentrated in the hands of power. The elimination of privacy doesn't work how it ideally would in your fantasy. 3) Privacy is going to be lost. The war is waging right now, and in the USA we're going to win. Laws, good people, and oversight do stop government abuses. Having multiple layers of competing governments does wonders for breaking monopolies of control, like what our friends in China have.