4 ms·

Dead people don't need privacy or most other human rights. The living ones need them. And we need to separate between public interest and mining information abo

by ls15 4y ago

Dead people don't need privacy or most other human rights. The living ones need them. And we need to separate between public interest and mining information about every individual. It is fine to show the Rajapaksa's bedroom on TV, because it was paid for with stolen money that was taken from the people.

charcircuit 4y ago
>And we need to separate between public interest and mining information about every individual It's the same thing. One man's junk information is another man's treasure. The interest of the public is very wide since different people can have widely different interests.
- ls15 4y ago
  > One man's junk information is another man's treasure. Just because someone wants to know the color of my underwear (even if they regard that knowledge as a treasure), there is no valid public interest in that. Preemptively and forcibly opening up all personal information is a very dystopian thought.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    >there is no valid public interest in that and how is a valid public interest defined? To me I would consider it to mean a piece of information that a person may be curious about or may want in order to make a decision. If someone is making an underwear recommendation system then I can see how they can be interested in collecting the color of everyone in order to offer this service. >opening up all personal information is a very dystopian thought I don't think it needs to be like that. Freedom of information will allow things to be made more efficient and for better decisions to be made and their impact measured. Anything you are curious about you are able to find out.
    - ls15 4y ago
      > and how is a valid public interest defined? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest : > The public interest is "the welfare or well-being of the general public" and society. So unless someone can prove that the knowledge about the color of my underwear is crucial for ensuring "the welfare or well-being of the general public", I would say that I should have the right to keep that secret.
swores 4y ago
> Dead people don't need privacy or most other human rights. Dead people obviously don't need the exact same rights as live people, but I guess many (most?) people would rather their most intimate secrets, nude photos, etc etc not get uploaded and publicly shared 5 minutes after death even if we won't be around to witness it ourselves. And if you go to a graveyard and unilaterally start digging up bodies you'd find a lot of relatives (and people generally) not happy on behalf of those dead people. But I do agree those rights are less important compared to those of the living, if there's a conflict between them.
- chefandy 4y ago
  Famous people who donate their stuff to archives often disallow access— even to the archivists themselves— for multiple-decades. Dead folks’ possession could have serious privacy implications. PII aside, people might have letters discussing quietly miscarried children, other people’s non-public embarrassing financial mistakes, or any number of other things that would be unethical to expose any other people while it could be consequential. It’s not like everybody they interacted with is dead, too.
  - techdragon 4y ago
    The census laws in many countries protect access to the actual raw data until at least a few years and usually a few decades after the people in question are dead and sometimes there’s even blanket rules on accessing anything more recent than 75 to a hundred years ago. So even the governments with extensive historical records tend to follow similar rules to the ones you mention about archives access.

by ls15 4y ago

charcircuit 4y ago

>And we need to separate between public interest and mining information about every individual It's the same thing. One man's junk information is another man's treasure. The interest of the public is very wide since different people can have widely different interests.

ls15 4y ago
> One man's junk information is another man's treasure. Just because someone wants to know the color of my underwear (even if they regard that knowledge as a treasure), there is no valid public interest in that. Preemptively and forcibly opening up all personal information is a very dystopian thought.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  >there is no valid public interest in that and how is a valid public interest defined? To me I would consider it to mean a piece of information that a person may be curious about or may want in order to make a decision. If someone is making an underwear recommendation system then I can see how they can be interested in collecting the color of everyone in order to offer this service. >opening up all personal information is a very dystopian thought I don't think it needs to be like that. Freedom of information will allow things to be made more efficient and for better decisions to be made and their impact measured. Anything you are curious about you are able to find out.
  - ls15 4y ago
    > and how is a valid public interest defined? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest : > The public interest is "the welfare or well-being of the general public" and society. So unless someone can prove that the knowledge about the color of my underwear is crucial for ensuring "the welfare or well-being of the general public", I would say that I should have the right to keep that secret.

swores 4y ago

> Dead people don't need privacy or most other human rights. Dead people obviously don't need the exact same rights as live people, but I guess many (most?) people would rather their most intimate secrets, nude photos, etc etc not get uploaded and publicly shared 5 minutes after death even if we won't be around to witness it ourselves. And if you go to a graveyard and unilaterally start digging up bodies you'd find a lot of relatives (and people generally) not happy on behalf of those dead people. But I do agree those rights are less important compared to those of the living, if there's a conflict between them.

chefandy 4y ago
Famous people who donate their stuff to archives often disallow access— even to the archivists themselves— for multiple-decades. Dead folks’ possession could have serious privacy implications. PII aside, people might have letters discussing quietly miscarried children, other people’s non-public embarrassing financial mistakes, or any number of other things that would be unethical to expose any other people while it could be consequential. It’s not like everybody they interacted with is dead, too.
- techdragon 4y ago
  The census laws in many countries protect access to the actual raw data until at least a few years and usually a few decades after the people in question are dead and sometimes there’s even blanket rules on accessing anything more recent than 75 to a hundred years ago. So even the governments with extensive historical records tend to follow similar rules to the ones you mention about archives access.