6 ms·
Is the privacy of many more important than the life of few?
by visarga 5y ago
Is the privacy of many more important than the life of few?
- GeneralMayhem 5y agoIs giving up your privacy bringing them back to life? The problem isn't the relative weighting, it's the implication that they're in any way linked.
- textgel 5y agoYes. Obviously. There's plenty of privacy destroying actions a society could take that would "save lives" but we don't do these exactly because of the encroachment on civil liberties they would entail.
- strken 5y agoThat's a false dichotomy between option A), have your students sit exams in person and kill people, and option B), grossly invade your students' privacy with obnoxious spyware. Option C), just trust your students to take exams at home and slightly dilute the signal of your test scores, has always been on the table and is a totally viable alternative.
- greatgib 5y agoJust consider the number of persons that died in the history fighting to earn and preserve your privacy!
- stefan_ 5y agoThere is no fucking connection between the two. We can have privacy and no deaths.
- MikeUt 5y agoIf you answer "no", the same logic can be used to strip you of all your rights. How much domestic violence and murder could be prevented if every home was required to have cameras and microphones installed?
- meowster 5y agoIs it easier to kill people who have no privacy? History shows us the answer to that question is "yes".
- totetsu 5y agoAre there any simple generally understandable comebacks to cheap rhetorical tricks like this?
- dabbledash 5y agoI think the only move is to answer it honestly. It isn’t even a trick really; it gets to the heart of the matter.
- dabbledash 5y agoYes. I said it about the Patriot Act and I say it about this.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- fuzzer37 5y agoUnequivocally, yes.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y agoUnlike other posters, I think this is a valid question. I mean, it's heart rate and temperature, not your porn habits or diary or whatever. If the availability of that data could potentially save many lives, why is it so bad to gather it? I mean, if we're in favor of universal health care where, by some rhetoric, we're forcing people at gunpoint to give their money to save others, why is this so bad?
- dabbledash 5y agoThis is like saying “it’s just metadata, what could it reveal.” As for heart rate and temperature, having this info over time can show: When were you sleeping, active, potentially emotional? When did a woman ovulate? Is she pregnant now? Did she have a miscarriage? Or maybe an abortion?
- textgel 5y agoBecause those who want "just heart rate and temperature" will want more in future. We aren't setting that precedent and opening up the possibility for more.
- adolph 5y ago> Is the privacy of many more important than the life of few? That's a judgement call to which people will have different reactions. One way to look at it is to ask if there are other mechanisms to accomplish the same/similar goal, then ask which of these mechanisms is most aligned with our values. A recent Lex Fridman interview of Po-Shen Loh [0] covered a privacy protecting NPI approach. An interesting aspect of the approach is that it works with people's self-interest of taking steps to stay healthy instead of attempting to work against people's self-interest in not being quarantined. 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z1JwZbX4dQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z1JwZbX4dQ 1. https://www.novid.org/ https://www.novid.org/ 2. https://www.poshenloh.com/ https://www.poshenloh.com/
- aero142 5y agoThese ideas aren't so bad when they are voluntary, but that is never enough. There is inherently a power behind this where a small group needs to force a large group to do what they say.