3 ms·
This is the "I've nothing to hide" fallacy. The question will become: who gets to decide? Who will watch the watchers? If everything you say and do is captured,
by snarf21 7y ago
This is the "I've nothing to hide" fallacy. The question will become: who gets to decide? Who will watch the watchers? If everything you say and do is captured, it won't be societal norms but some singular point of view based on who is in power. Governments have shown an inability to protect citizen's rights when give this kind of power. Look at China and North Korea and Russia for proof. We don't have to conjecture about this, we know. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I prefer freedom with consequences.
Honest question: do you know your neighbors are doing today, pre EARN IT passing?
- tptacek 7y agoWell, the courts, of course. That's the idea.
- supernova87a 7y agoWell, I'm certainly not advocating for the "you've got nothing to hide" position. I'm not even actually engaging on the specific topic of this thread, the journalistic vs. anti-crime etc aspect of privacy. What I'm talking about is that the technologically-driven, everyone-of-course-wants-more-privacy natural inclination will produce certain side effects that you may not realize. And at some point governments (or social networks, down to the neighbor-level) will be powerless to counter -- and again I'm not even talking about those anti-terrorist/anti-crime points. I mean the gradual degradation of a sense of community. There's a bunch of writings on this topic.
- suizi 7y agoThe fall of close knit communities could be attributed to the rise of urbanisation, rather than privacy.
- suizi 7y agoYou don't have to look far. The NSA used their limitless power to spy on their lovers. The U.K. uses their powers to spy on political groups.