4 ms·

This question is entirely irrelevant, yet you seem fixated on it.

• mcculley 5y ago
  Maybe I am not spelling it out enough. We have certain freedoms (e.g., speech) combined with a (relatively) free market. This opens opportunities for capitalists to monetize data they collect. Even without monetization, some data is made public that some would prefer to keep private (e.g., a journalist can publish a photo of a politician on a boat with his mistress). I don't see how we can put the genie back in the bottle so long as we have free speech and free markets. I think the PRC could, for example, restrict distribution of DNA data if it wanted to. I would prefer not to live under such an authoritarian regime. I am asking if executing people to get more privacy is a desired outcome over adapting to a world where things we formerly thought of as private are just well known.
  • gilrain 5y ago
    It’s not so much the loss of privacy, as the inevitable, violent exploitation of the weak that it does, will, and is meant to enable.
    • mcculley 5y ago
      I think we are in agreement that corporations, governments, religions, etc. will use personal data to harm people. I am less convinced that DNA is the most "sensitive" personal data.
  • gilrain 5y ago
    Also, sure, one can debate whether the masses were right to execute the aristocracy… but surely we can all agree that the aristocracy were lethally wrong that the masses didn’t matter. I hope for their sake that the capitalists realize this before it’s too late for everyone.