4 ms·

I don't live in a heavily fortified home only accessible through a drawbridge but still give a fuck about the privacy of my little city flat that you could prob

I don't live in a heavily fortified home only accessible through a drawbridge but still give a fuck about the privacy of my little city flat that you could probably enter with a heavy kick. Modern society enables miracles.

ActorNightly 3y ago
A more applicable analogy is that you want to have locks on your door to prevent unwanted visitors, but the people that built the building have a master key that they can come in whenever they want, take pictures, install cameras/microphones. But thats ok, because they are the only ones that are collecting data, and they say they are "privacy-first". But thanks for proving the part of "not understanding what privacy is" part of my post.
- germanier 3y ago
  I have given my landlord a key recently so that he can check the smoke alarm and take the water meter reading while I'm at work. I trust that he didn't install a hidden camera even though nothing could have stopped him apart from "being a decent human being" and "not wanting to commit a crime". Not every protection needs to on a technological level. I'd rather live in a society where we have other tools available than one where I have to take each and every matter into my own hand. This is what my analogy showed.
  - ActorNightly 3y ago
    Your analogies are really poor. Not only do you not you understand the level to which Apple or Google or your carrier can read the things you do on your devices, and how little control you have over that, but you are ignoring things like the big celebrity iCloud hacks. For the sake of not playing an analogy war, let me just say this: if you use a modern device with OS made by Microsoft, Google or Apple (or derivative of), you are implicitly consenting to very large amount of personal data collection, which you have no control over. If you choose to trust those entities for whatever reason, thats totally fine, but your particular selection of trust isn't "correct" in the sense that it should apply to everyone, because it has no concrete objective basis. And therefore, you shouldn't base what you think the law should be on it.
    - germanier 3y ago
      I do understand. That's why I also understand that the only solution to that is on a political and not on an individual level.
nonethewiser 3y ago
Privacy or security?
- germanier 3y ago
  One necessitates the other. Anyway, arguing that anyone who cares about security can trust society to protect them but those who care about privacy should not, is a really poor argument.

ActorNightly 3y ago

A more applicable analogy is that you want to have locks on your door to prevent unwanted visitors, but the people that built the building have a master key that they can come in whenever they want, take pictures, install cameras/microphones. But thats ok, because they are the only ones that are collecting data, and they say they are "privacy-first". But thanks for proving the part of "not understanding what privacy is" part of my post.

germanier 3y ago
I have given my landlord a key recently so that he can check the smoke alarm and take the water meter reading while I'm at work. I trust that he didn't install a hidden camera even though nothing could have stopped him apart from "being a decent human being" and "not wanting to commit a crime". Not every protection needs to on a technological level. I'd rather live in a society where we have other tools available than one where I have to take each and every matter into my own hand. This is what my analogy showed.
- ActorNightly 3y ago
  Your analogies are really poor. Not only do you not you understand the level to which Apple or Google or your carrier can read the things you do on your devices, and how little control you have over that, but you are ignoring things like the big celebrity iCloud hacks. For the sake of not playing an analogy war, let me just say this: if you use a modern device with OS made by Microsoft, Google or Apple (or derivative of), you are implicitly consenting to very large amount of personal data collection, which you have no control over. If you choose to trust those entities for whatever reason, thats totally fine, but your particular selection of trust isn't "correct" in the sense that it should apply to everyone, because it has no concrete objective basis. And therefore, you shouldn't base what you think the law should be on it.
  - germanier 3y ago
    I do understand. That's why I also understand that the only solution to that is on a political and not on an individual level.

nonethewiser 3y ago

Privacy or security?

germanier 3y ago
One necessitates the other. Anyway, arguing that anyone who cares about security can trust society to protect them but those who care about privacy should not, is a really poor argument.