4 ms·

Screw it, I'll bite. Got a weird feeling you just didn't phrase what you were trying to say as well as you could, and would appreciate clarification. Is your a

Screw it, I'll bite. Got a weird feeling you just didn't phrase what you were trying to say as well as you could, and would appreciate clarification. Is your assertion accurately represented by the following prepositions: A) The poster you're replying to, is desirous of the purported safety of guaranteed informational asymmetry from those in power B) the poster in being so desirous, in all likelihood, is mistaken in the perception that codified informational asymmetry is a protection to them, because the same protection covers the person in power, except arguably moreso Or... C) the only reason to be desirous of such asymmetry in the first place is that one harbors the possibility of criminal intent. Which from your phrasing of your original comment, came off with an unsaid part of "which I (referring to yourself) don't have or care about). I'd like to think C doesn't enter the equation; and I'm fairly sure others have probably reacted thinking that was where you were going with it. If that was the case, fine... However, even C) is rebuffed by "the definition of criminal is fluid and changes over time; and there is little guarantee in the stickyness or aggreeableness of said change". Material examples resonant with said rebuff can be found in the Roe v. Wade overturn, among other things. But if B) is more in line with your thinking, I'd be quite interested in further expanding on it. I'd also be interested in where you fall eith regards to the statement "everyone is criminal at some point, no exceptions". I've always entertained the hunch that one of the best disinfectants for a serving public official would be the complete dissolution of any right to privacy for the term of service. Coincidentally, there'd be problems in that most potential candidates for such work would be few and far between, and there could be pathological effects/selection pressures on the candidate pool, but I've never really had anyone to rubber duck the theory off of before.

charcircuit 3y ago
I would say that my view is closer to C, but instead of having criminal intent someone would have intent to do something regardless of the legality. >However, even C) is rebuffed by "the definition of criminal is fluid and changes over time; and there is little guarantee in the stickyness or aggreeableness of said change" Which is why I believe it to be important for laws to not be retroactive. If someone is living somewhere which allows retroactive laws and wanted to do something then trying to find ways to hide your potentially criminal behavior could be desirable. I believe people should just be honest that they want to have their crimes be hidden to reduce their legal liability than to pretend that they just really like privacy as a concept or because they think privacy in a human right.
- dijit 3y ago
  Interesting thoughts; I think on a fundamental level there is something you misunderstand about privacy though. I genuinely do not engage in any criminal activities (that I am aware are criminal at least) - so I dont fully understand where the criminality angle comes from. However, consider the toilet: everyone basically knows whats going on in the toilet, some people do criminal things in the toilet, yet we give toilets doors & special stalls. This is what privacy is, a little comfort that you are not being watched while doing intimate or personal things. With the understanding that, yes, sometimes this comfort can lead to some people abusing it.
- DropInIn 3y ago
  Heres the blatant problem with the law changing without true justification: people plan around the laws and if a right is lost suddenly it would have life altering ramifications for more than a negligible volume of people.

charcircuit 3y ago

I would say that my view is closer to C, but instead of having criminal intent someone would have intent to do something regardless of the legality. >However, even C) is rebuffed by "the definition of criminal is fluid and changes over time; and there is little guarantee in the stickyness or aggreeableness of said change" Which is why I believe it to be important for laws to not be retroactive. If someone is living somewhere which allows retroactive laws and wanted to do something then trying to find ways to hide your potentially criminal behavior could be desirable. I believe people should just be honest that they want to have their crimes be hidden to reduce their legal liability than to pretend that they just really like privacy as a concept or because they think privacy in a human right.

dijit 3y ago
Interesting thoughts; I think on a fundamental level there is something you misunderstand about privacy though. I genuinely do not engage in any criminal activities (that I am aware are criminal at least) - so I dont fully understand where the criminality angle comes from. However, consider the toilet: everyone basically knows whats going on in the toilet, some people do criminal things in the toilet, yet we give toilets doors & special stalls. This is what privacy is, a little comfort that you are not being watched while doing intimate or personal things. With the understanding that, yes, sometimes this comfort can lead to some people abusing it.
DropInIn 3y ago
Heres the blatant problem with the law changing without true justification: people plan around the laws and if a right is lost suddenly it would have life altering ramifications for more than a negligible volume of people.