5 ms·

> I never heard any convincing argument about why privacy has value. You have either _never_ had to keep a secret (which I highly doubt, unless you happen to b

> I never heard any convincing argument about why privacy has value. You have either _never_ had to keep a secret (which I highly doubt, unless you happen to be a literal child) or you simply aren't arguing in good faith. Assuming that you are arguing in good faith, let's consider a potential reason why someone might value their privacy: Some people are born attracted to the same-sex (gay, lesbian, bi, pan, etc.). There are some countries where being gay is a criminal offense; there are even some countries where you can face the death penalty for this. [1] If a gay person lives in one of those countries, don't they have a right to keep this fact about themselves private simply in order to protect themselves? Or does their life have less value than the profit that can be generated by the "Data Economy"? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_homosexuality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_homosex...

TchoBeer 5y ago
Obviously the problem is laws that outlaw homosexuality and not a lack of privacy.
- path2power 5y ago
  To the people whose lives are at stake, what difference does it make?
  - TchoBeer 5y ago
    None, but if we're looking at this situation (where the government is finding secret homosexuals and prosecuting them) and asking "what policies ought we enact to fix this" if your answer is "better privacy" that seems like it's looking at the wrong problem.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      You are assuming that perfect and fair governance is a reasonably achievable state. Reality begs to differ. In reality, there are people in the USA who are in the closet or of fear of persecution by their communities. Privacy provides a fundemental protection from persecution by your government. This is precisely why the constitution includes specific privacy protections. So while we should fight governments that persecute homosexuality, we also need to protect at least some aspects of privacy to keep protections for the next persecuted group.
    - fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
      And what if it's a domestic company that is destroying those people's privacy and a foreign government that is using this to prosecute them? Should we avoid preventing further damage that the domestic company is doing? Or should we limit ourselves to dealing with the issue diplomatically, and not do anything else for fear of "looking at the wrong problem"? I don't understand why you'd seriously suggest that reducing the likelihood of known harm (by ensuring some level of privacy) is the wrong thing to think about when it doesn't prevent other actions from being taken too. It's possible for groups of people to do different things at the same time, after all. Ultimately, your argument will never result in a situation where privacy is taken seriously because you could substitute in any issue and your conclusion could just as easily be that "better privacy is looking at the wrong problem."
matz1 5y ago
>There are some countries where being gay is a criminal offense; So that is the actual problem, not the privacy.
- fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
  Without some expectation of privacy it would have been impossible for people to gather together with others who had been similarly criminalized. Without those gatherings, organizing against anti-gay propaganda (equating it to pedophilia, claiming it would be the downfall of civilization, etc.) would have been impossible and it's unlikely that the laws criminalizing homosexuality would have ever been changed. If you kill privacy then you'll also kill the ability of marginalized groups to organize against any future oppression. I doubt you actually believe that privacy doesn't matter however, because you're posting here under a pseudonym and haven't linked any social media accounts or anything which could reveal "private" details like your full legal name, place of residence/work, etc.
  - matz1 5y ago
    >Without some expectation of privacy it would have been impossible for people to gather together with others who had been similarly criminalized.. Impossible is a really strong word. I'm not saying that its going to be easy but I doubt that its impossible. That's my point lets spend the effort to figure out/solve this problem instead of trying to hide information. >I doubt you actually believe that privacy doesn't matter however, because you're posting here under a pseudonym and haven't linked any social media accounts or anything which could reveal "private" details like your full legal name, place of residence/work, etc. I would love to have everything for everyone to be public so that I don't have to worry about hiding those information. The problem is right now I can't. That's why I'm advocating we spent the effort on solving the problem that arise when the information is public rather than trying to hide information. Likewise, if I'm gay I would much much prefer to have gay to be decriminalized rather than hiding my sexual orientation.
    - fuckyouriotshit 5y ago

TchoBeer 5y ago

Obviously the problem is laws that outlaw homosexuality and not a lack of privacy.

path2power 5y ago
To the people whose lives are at stake, what difference does it make?
- TchoBeer 5y ago
  None, but if we're looking at this situation (where the government is finding secret homosexuals and prosecuting them) and asking "what policies ought we enact to fix this" if your answer is "better privacy" that seems like it's looking at the wrong problem.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    You are assuming that perfect and fair governance is a reasonably achievable state. Reality begs to differ. In reality, there are people in the USA who are in the closet or of fear of persecution by their communities. Privacy provides a fundemental protection from persecution by your government. This is precisely why the constitution includes specific privacy protections. So while we should fight governments that persecute homosexuality, we also need to protect at least some aspects of privacy to keep protections for the next persecuted group.
  - fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
    And what if it's a domestic company that is destroying those people's privacy and a foreign government that is using this to prosecute them? Should we avoid preventing further damage that the domestic company is doing? Or should we limit ourselves to dealing with the issue diplomatically, and not do anything else for fear of "looking at the wrong problem"? I don't understand why you'd seriously suggest that reducing the likelihood of known harm (by ensuring some level of privacy) is the wrong thing to think about when it doesn't prevent other actions from being taken too. It's possible for groups of people to do different things at the same time, after all. Ultimately, your argument will never result in a situation where privacy is taken seriously because you could substitute in any issue and your conclusion could just as easily be that "better privacy is looking at the wrong problem."

matz1 5y ago

>There are some countries where being gay is a criminal offense; So that is the actual problem, not the privacy.

fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
Without some expectation of privacy it would have been impossible for people to gather together with others who had been similarly criminalized. Without those gatherings, organizing against anti-gay propaganda (equating it to pedophilia, claiming it would be the downfall of civilization, etc.) would have been impossible and it's unlikely that the laws criminalizing homosexuality would have ever been changed. If you kill privacy then you'll also kill the ability of marginalized groups to organize against any future oppression. I doubt you actually believe that privacy doesn't matter however, because you're posting here under a pseudonym and haven't linked any social media accounts or anything which could reveal "private" details like your full legal name, place of residence/work, etc.
- matz1 5y ago
  >Without some expectation of privacy it would have been impossible for people to gather together with others who had been similarly criminalized.. Impossible is a really strong word. I'm not saying that its going to be easy but I doubt that its impossible. That's my point lets spend the effort to figure out/solve this problem instead of trying to hide information. >I doubt you actually believe that privacy doesn't matter however, because you're posting here under a pseudonym and haven't linked any social media accounts or anything which could reveal "private" details like your full legal name, place of residence/work, etc. I would love to have everything for everyone to be public so that I don't have to worry about hiding those information. The problem is right now I can't. That's why I'm advocating we spent the effort on solving the problem that arise when the information is public rather than trying to hide information. Likewise, if I'm gay I would much much prefer to have gay to be decriminalized rather than hiding my sexual orientation.
  - fuckyouriotshit 5y ago