13 ms·

Why is it bad? I'm interesting in hearing you defend a specific freedom, after seeing you completely disregard the importance of privacy.

by noarchy 15y ago

dennisgorelik 15y ago
If I'm not able to do what I want then I cannot accomplish what I want. That makes my life worse. Another reason: certain people's actions keep government in check (e.g. speech). If government punish for delivering speech then it removes checks that prevent government from turning into dictatorship. Privacy works in the opposite direction. Privacy adds barriers to the information flow and decreases our awareness, which causes less informed and less efficient decisions.
- dpark 15y ago
  This only makes sense if information flows both ways. When one party has significant information about another party, and the second party doesn't have similar information about the first, an imbalance is created that gives the first party power over the second. When I know your secrets, I have power over you. You fear my knowledge, perhaps rightfully so, because your secrets might be enough to destroy your life, or at least cause you significant embarrassment. When the government engages in widespread privacy violations, they are creating this same kind of power imbalance. You know nothing new about the government, but the government may know many things about you. They may have information tha could greatly embarrass you. They might have information they could use to arrest you, even if you've done nothing wrong or illegal. This is not an increase in awareness or information flow or efficiency. It is merely an increase in government power.
  - dennisgorelik 15y ago
    That's a valid argument. The solution - making government more open. Including being open about what kind of information government does collect. Including creating another government agencies that oversee government agencies that collect information about citizens. As usual there are budget constraints on that system, so even though government would not be limited legally too much about the amount of information it can collect, it still would be pretty limited by the budget, because it's expensive to maintain red tape and keep collected information secure. In any case, legal system should mostly limit government in how much it can restrict citizens, not in how much information government can collect.
    - dpark 15y ago
      > Including creating another government agencies that oversee government agencies that collect information about citizens. Because the solution to government overstepping is government oversight? > In any case, legal system should mostly limit government in how much it can restrict citizens, not in how much information government can collect. I don't understand how you can hold this belief. Do you believe that information holds no value, or that it doesn't give the government power to hold the secrets of its populace? Or do you believe that the government cannot be too strong? I'm seriously confused how you can believe that government snooping has no downside.
      - dennisgorelik 15y ago
        > Because the solution to government overstepping is government oversight? Yes. + Budget limitations. + Oversight from the press. Every action has downside (including watching), but relatively to restricting freedom to act, downside of watching is small. In addition to that there are significant benefits of efficient watching. Imagine that there is watching device that clearly identifies people who are planning terrorist attack. That significantly simplifies security check in airports and saves everyone time and effort in the process.
        noarchy 15y ago
        I think that you grossly overestimate both journalism and government, where it regards their respective ethics. Mainstream journalists, the ones most likely to have access to government officials and processes, are also the ones most co-opted by that system. It is all about access, and the ones who rock the boat too much risk losing it. As for government, there is a reason why surveillance has always featured prominently in dystopian novels: it is understood by those who have studied the way governments work that they will almost always abuse their power. The power to put a population under surveillance is a kind of control, proportional to the amount it is being done; people understand that when a government is watching them, it is also monitoring potential dissidents and related opinions, organizing, etc. In short, I'm surprised that anyone would be so willing to trust any government with complete and unhindered powers of surveillance. I wouldn't trust a single non-government entity with that, as it happens.

Why is it bad? I'm interesting in hearing you defend a specific freedom, after seeing you completely disregard the importance of privacy.

by noarchy 15y ago

Why is it bad? I'm interesting in hearing you defend a specific freedom, after seeing you completely disregard the importance of privacy.

dennisgorelik 15y ago

If I'm not able to do what I want then I cannot accomplish what I want. That makes my life worse. Another reason: certain people's actions keep government in check (e.g. speech). If government punish for delivering speech then it removes checks that prevent government from turning into dictatorship. Privacy works in the opposite direction. Privacy adds barriers to the information flow and decreases our awareness, which causes less informed and less efficient decisions.

dpark 15y ago
This only makes sense if information flows both ways. When one party has significant information about another party, and the second party doesn't have similar information about the first, an imbalance is created that gives the first party power over the second. When I know your secrets, I have power over you. You fear my knowledge, perhaps rightfully so, because your secrets might be enough to destroy your life, or at least cause you significant embarrassment. When the government engages in widespread privacy violations, they are creating this same kind of power imbalance. You know nothing new about the government, but the government may know many things about you. They may have information tha could greatly embarrass you. They might have information they could use to arrest you, even if you've done nothing wrong or illegal. This is not an increase in awareness or information flow or efficiency. It is merely an increase in government power.
- dennisgorelik 15y ago
  That's a valid argument. The solution - making government more open. Including being open about what kind of information government does collect. Including creating another government agencies that oversee government agencies that collect information about citizens. As usual there are budget constraints on that system, so even though government would not be limited legally too much about the amount of information it can collect, it still would be pretty limited by the budget, because it's expensive to maintain red tape and keep collected information secure. In any case, legal system should mostly limit government in how much it can restrict citizens, not in how much information government can collect.
  - dpark 15y ago
    > Including creating another government agencies that oversee government agencies that collect information about citizens. Because the solution to government overstepping is government oversight? > In any case, legal system should mostly limit government in how much it can restrict citizens, not in how much information government can collect. I don't understand how you can hold this belief. Do you believe that information holds no value, or that it doesn't give the government power to hold the secrets of its populace? Or do you believe that the government cannot be too strong? I'm seriously confused how you can believe that government snooping has no downside.
    - dennisgorelik 15y ago
      > Because the solution to government overstepping is government oversight? Yes. + Budget limitations. + Oversight from the press. Every action has downside (including watching), but relatively to restricting freedom to act, downside of watching is small. In addition to that there are significant benefits of efficient watching. Imagine that there is watching device that clearly identifies people who are planning terrorist attack. That significantly simplifies security check in airports and saves everyone time and effort in the process.
      - noarchy 15y ago
        I think that you grossly overestimate both journalism and government, where it regards their respective ethics. Mainstream journalists, the ones most likely to have access to government officials and processes, are also the ones most co-opted by that system. It is all about access, and the ones who rock the boat too much risk losing it. As for government, there is a reason why surveillance has always featured prominently in dystopian novels: it is understood by those who have studied the way governments work that they will almost always abuse their power. The power to put a population under surveillance is a kind of control, proportional to the amount it is being done; people understand that when a government is watching them, it is also monitoring potential dissidents and related opinions, organizing, etc. In short, I'm surprised that anyone would be so willing to trust any government with complete and unhindered powers of surveillance. I wouldn't trust a single non-government entity with that, as it happens.