3 ms·

I don't accept that, and I won't accept it for my community. I live in a crime-ridden country. Here, we as honest citizens are building fences, walls, gated-co

by zo1 6y ago

I don't accept that, and I won't accept it for my community. I live in a crime-ridden country. Here, we as honest citizens are building fences, walls, gated-communities, electric fencing, metal bars around our doors and windows, hiring private security, etc to combat the crime that the wider society is tacitly tolerating. People want security, and we're willing to forego things such as "privacy" in return for that. Not all of us put "privacy" on a gigantic pedestal as some others do.

BLKNSLVR 6y ago
The kind of crime that fences, walls, gated communities, electric fencing, and metal bars serve to protect against are the kinds of crimes that are deprioritised by corrupt governments who would rather have their law enforcement look into monitoring and suppressing political dissent because that's more of a direct threat to their power. If a society is willing to give up their privacy then governments can be lazier because they'll be more aware of their direct threats, therefore they need less awareness of actual societal problems, which are indirect threats.
LocalH 6y ago
So what happens if the security is successful, and the level of crime decreases substantially, and now the government uses its newfound powers of surveillance against the law-abiding populace?
- zo1 6y ago
  If we think that is a possibility then I'd say we have bigger problems with government power, democracy and voting in general. And instead of using "privacy" as a proxy for those concerns, we should rather address the actual issue and concerns we have with the power we give to individuals without accountability and oversight. Like why isn't the debate here revolving around the suggestion that we need to have processes, and super-secure, open and cryptographically secure audit of all government actions so that government "privacy" violations are immediately caught and addressed? Instead, we're asking government to solve some arbitrary problem called "privacy" because we think it'll prevent potential government abuse in the future?

by zo1 6y ago

BLKNSLVR 6y ago

The kind of crime that fences, walls, gated communities, electric fencing, and metal bars serve to protect against are the kinds of crimes that are deprioritised by corrupt governments who would rather have their law enforcement look into monitoring and suppressing political dissent because that's more of a direct threat to their power. If a society is willing to give up their privacy then governments can be lazier because they'll be more aware of their direct threats, therefore they need less awareness of actual societal problems, which are indirect threats.

LocalH 6y ago

So what happens if the security is successful, and the level of crime decreases substantially, and now the government uses its newfound powers of surveillance against the law-abiding populace?

zo1 6y ago
If we think that is a possibility then I'd say we have bigger problems with government power, democracy and voting in general. And instead of using "privacy" as a proxy for those concerns, we should rather address the actual issue and concerns we have with the power we give to individuals without accountability and oversight. Like why isn't the debate here revolving around the suggestion that we need to have processes, and super-secure, open and cryptographically secure audit of all government actions so that government "privacy" violations are immediately caught and addressed? Instead, we're asking government to solve some arbitrary problem called "privacy" because we think it'll prevent potential government abuse in the future?