3 ms·

I’m not sure what your point is by saying that perfect privacy does not exist. > privacy - noun - the state or condition of being free from being observed or d

I’m not sure what your point is by saying that perfect privacy does not exist. > privacy - noun - the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people. We have the right to privacy and this is what privacy means.

rocket_surgeron 4y ago
It is difficult for me to explain because I very rarely deal with in absolutes and have found that most people want online discourse to be in absolute terms. One thing I've done when talking to cryptobros and other privacy extremists is ask them to think back to a time (and we all know they've all done it) when they railed non-stop against the "banksters" and consider how much more power and influence they would have if the rules they themselves want regarding privacy are applied evenly to all circumstances. There are a few people, and I'm inclined to believe them, who say "yeah Capital One and Deutsche Bank have the right to mask their cartel money laundering activities under the concept of absolute anonymity and any attempts at know-your-customer or records-keeping requirements for banks are antithetical to freedom" but they are very rare. Again, I believe those people are being earnest because I know extremists exist for every position. But most people just shout "THAT'S DIFFERENT", get angry, and call me a boot-licker or something like that. edit: another scenario I use is: Privacy-conscious business owner: Hello yes, I would like to start a business selling car seatbelts whose webbing is impregnated with a fire retardant that we know will cause fatal cancer. Evil Government: Ok, please fill out this paperwork to get a business license and provide points of contact so people can sue you when they get cancer from their seatbelts. Privacy-conscious business owner: No. That is a violation of my rights. I have the right to perfect anonymity. Evil Government: I suppose you've got us there! Have a nice day.
- rvz 4y ago
  > It is difficult for me to explain because I very rarely deal with in absolutes and have found that most people want online discourse to be in absolute terms. > Again, I believe those people are being earnest because I know extremists exist for every position. Indeed. I hear a lot of this rhetoric from both crypto maximalists and crypto skeptics and both of them always argue in very absolute terms. I can agree that regulators won't allow privacy coins like Monero and tools like Tornado.cash to succeed and are already de-listing, banning them from exchanges. It also doesn't mean that these cryptocurrency or projects will 'all die in a fire' or 'totally go away' entirely. The same is true for crypto maximalists who also believe that it will 'take over the whole financial system'. I'm already convinced that (some) cryptocurrencies and (some) crypto projects are here to stay.

rocket_surgeron 4y ago

It is difficult for me to explain because I very rarely deal with in absolutes and have found that most people want online discourse to be in absolute terms. One thing I've done when talking to cryptobros and other privacy extremists is ask them to think back to a time (and we all know they've all done it) when they railed non-stop against the "banksters" and consider how much more power and influence they would have if the rules they themselves want regarding privacy are applied evenly to all circumstances. There are a few people, and I'm inclined to believe them, who say "yeah Capital One and Deutsche Bank have the right to mask their cartel money laundering activities under the concept of absolute anonymity and any attempts at know-your-customer or records-keeping requirements for banks are antithetical to freedom" but they are very rare. Again, I believe those people are being earnest because I know extremists exist for every position. But most people just shout "THAT'S DIFFERENT", get angry, and call me a boot-licker or something like that. edit: another scenario I use is: Privacy-conscious business owner: Hello yes, I would like to start a business selling car seatbelts whose webbing is impregnated with a fire retardant that we know will cause fatal cancer. Evil Government: Ok, please fill out this paperwork to get a business license and provide points of contact so people can sue you when they get cancer from their seatbelts. Privacy-conscious business owner: No. That is a violation of my rights. I have the right to perfect anonymity. Evil Government: I suppose you've got us there! Have a nice day.

rvz 4y ago
> It is difficult for me to explain because I very rarely deal with in absolutes and have found that most people want online discourse to be in absolute terms. > Again, I believe those people are being earnest because I know extremists exist for every position. Indeed. I hear a lot of this rhetoric from both crypto maximalists and crypto skeptics and both of them always argue in very absolute terms. I can agree that regulators won't allow privacy coins like Monero and tools like Tornado.cash to succeed and are already de-listing, banning them from exchanges. It also doesn't mean that these cryptocurrency or projects will 'all die in a fire' or 'totally go away' entirely. The same is true for crypto maximalists who also believe that it will 'take over the whole financial system'. I'm already convinced that (some) cryptocurrencies and (some) crypto projects are here to stay.