4 ms·

Is privacy in all our interests? (Opinion)

3 points by fallat 5y ago

raxxorrax 5y ago
> [...] No privacy means no one can hide anything, and pressure to change things can be focused. People can vote for the correct politicians [...] Large assumption. Privacy is in my interest. There is a reason why it is often brought up as a human right. That there is little appreciation for it is an educational deficit and naivete in my opinion. People call for accountability for internet comments. I don't want to share anything with those with such proclivities, not even the name of my pet. I have enough problems on my own I don't need those of third parties on my shoulders and it wouldn't be a good fit anyway. As you said, they mostly inhibit free dialogue. It isn't reasonable to have the same level of privacy for strangers or family, friends and lovers. Trust is of course important. Some people give that away relatively freely, something we call oversharing. So what if we banished all privacy while living in a theocratic society? You might argue that we do not as of today but I would argue that the inclination for prosecutions did not change at all and they may never change and we probably did not reach the end of societal development. No privacy would mean stasis. I think it is interesting to look at the extreme case of having no privacy. You can make good cases against privacy for people in official capacity. Here transparency is a boon and essential for democratic checks. But even here we need limits for anything personal. > when people have no power, no privacy for everyone should be preferred Highly depends. That might be true in a very contemporary cultural context where pop-sympathy is with "victims" and we are all knight against oppressors, although if you look closer you can identify that as a lie. These "victims" are just delegates for peoples fears, hence the sympathy. Not in all cases and this isn't an indictment of humans, at most of pop culture perhaps. But in reality minorities are the largest benefactors of privacy and certainly would face the most amount of scrutiny if they had none. Their freedom would be extremely restricted by expectations alone, completely irrelevant if people smile at you or scold you. Again, lack of privacy redefined as transparency of institutions and not people, that would again switch the argument around.
- fallat 5y ago
  Nicely said. > No privacy would mean stasis. Could you expand? I found this particularly interesting.

3 points by fallat 5y ago

> [...] No privacy means no one can hide anything, and pressure to change things can be focused. People can vote for the correct politicians [...] Large assumption. Privacy is in my interest. There is a reason why it is often brought up as a human right. That there is little appreciation for it is an educational deficit and naivete in my opinion. People call for accountability for internet comments. I don't want to share anything with those with such proclivities, not even the name of my pet. I have enough problems on my own I don't need those of third parties on my shoulders and it wouldn't be a good fit anyway. As you said, they mostly inhibit free dialogue. It isn't reasonable to have the same level of privacy for strangers or family, friends and lovers. Trust is of course important. Some people give that away relatively freely, something we call oversharing. So what if we banished all privacy while living in a theocratic society? You might argue that we do not as of today but I would argue that the inclination for prosecutions did not change at all and they may never change and we probably did not reach the end of societal development. No privacy would mean stasis. I think it is interesting to look at the extreme case of having no privacy. You can make good cases against privacy for people in official capacity. Here transparency is a boon and essential for democratic checks. But even here we need limits for anything personal. > when people have no power, no privacy for everyone should be preferred Highly depends. That might be true in a very contemporary cultural context where pop-sympathy is with "victims" and we are all knight against oppressors, although if you look closer you can identify that as a lie. These "victims" are just delegates for peoples fears, hence the sympathy. Not in all cases and this isn't an indictment of humans, at most of pop culture perhaps. But in reality minorities are the largest benefactors of privacy and certainly would face the most amount of scrutiny if they had none. Their freedom would be extremely restricted by expectations alone, completely irrelevant if people smile at you or scold you. Again, lack of privacy redefined as transparency of institutions and not people, that would again switch the argument around.

fallat 5y ago
Nicely said. > No privacy would mean stasis. Could you expand? I found this particularly interesting.