4 ms·

In my view privacy has more layers. It has layers of personal data (name, social security, medical records), user-produced data (your family photos), communicat

In my view privacy has more layers. It has layers of personal data (name, social security, medical records), user-produced data (your family photos), communication (chat) and metadata (ad tracking). Lately I have seen ad tracking put in the same group as personal data. I don't think they deserve the same level of protection. I think total privacy is fools' gold. We always ask for total transparency from our governments, yet if they ask even a little of it from us, it's bad. Why? Also, in our society, wanting too much of anything makes you a weirdo and an outcast. Why has advocating for total privacy become normal(ized)?

yrgulation 6y ago
But who are “they” to “ask even a little of it from us”. With all due respect but this sounds as if “they” are not the people we send there to manage _our_ countries, but rather a cast of all loving all watching overloads that we should feed a bit of our freedoms now and then to keep us fed, safe and well. And we all know how that worked in history.
- ricardobayes 6y ago
  Well we just saw with covid how it works out if everyone gets to do what they want. Too much freedom is just as harmful as too little. I would argue the only working model was the ancient Romans', having two leaders, a wartime leader and a 'fair-weather one'. It also requires the population to be grown-up enough to know their freedoms can and should be limited at times for their own good. No wonder why 'full citizenship' was rather limited in Rome.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    >Too much freedom is just as harmful as too little. Covid killed what, 0.1% of the population at most, and the average age of death was over 80. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot killed well over an order of magnitude more than that.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      It killed 0.185% of the UK with restrictions in place that limited the infections to 6.28% of the population. Unconstrained spread would’ve been a bit over one order of magnitude worse, even if that hypothetical somehow managed to avoid overwhelming the NHS with exponential growth making half of all cases happen in the final doubling period.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
"We always ask for total transparency from our governments" Since time immemorial governments have used the seal of secrecy to hide their daily embarrasments, failures, and corruption. UK government has ordered a report into whether Sauidi is promoting Jihadism in Uk, and then decraled it secret. Same for Russia report. Recently the government has been sued for handing out multi-billion contracts to pals without challenge, and obviously they immediately reached out for the secrets act. We are sensitive about private data, because if you believe in a right to remain silent, well, now you can't stay silent. Evem if you are innocent, spurrious charges can ruin you financially.

yrgulation 6y ago

But who are “they” to “ask even a little of it from us”. With all due respect but this sounds as if “they” are not the people we send there to manage _our_ countries, but rather a cast of all loving all watching overloads that we should feed a bit of our freedoms now and then to keep us fed, safe and well. And we all know how that worked in history.

ricardobayes 6y ago
Well we just saw with covid how it works out if everyone gets to do what they want. Too much freedom is just as harmful as too little. I would argue the only working model was the ancient Romans', having two leaders, a wartime leader and a 'fair-weather one'. It also requires the population to be grown-up enough to know their freedoms can and should be limited at times for their own good. No wonder why 'full citizenship' was rather limited in Rome.
- logicchains 6y ago
  >Too much freedom is just as harmful as too little. Covid killed what, 0.1% of the population at most, and the average age of death was over 80. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot killed well over an order of magnitude more than that.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    It killed 0.185% of the UK with restrictions in place that limited the infections to 6.28% of the population. Unconstrained spread would’ve been a bit over one order of magnitude worse, even if that hypothetical somehow managed to avoid overwhelming the NHS with exponential growth making half of all cases happen in the final doubling period.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

"We always ask for total transparency from our governments" Since time immemorial governments have used the seal of secrecy to hide their daily embarrasments, failures, and corruption. UK government has ordered a report into whether Sauidi is promoting Jihadism in Uk, and then decraled it secret. Same for Russia report. Recently the government has been sued for handing out multi-billion contracts to pals without challenge, and obviously they immediately reached out for the secrets act. We are sensitive about private data, because if you believe in a right to remain silent, well, now you can't stay silent. Evem if you are innocent, spurrious charges can ruin you financially.