27 ms·

While I agree with their aim and their reasoning on this bill with regard to the fact that it has been unacceptably weakened, I take issue with this quote: "th

• MisterBastahrd 2y ago
  They're the exact same thing. There's no point to privacy if there's no reason for having it. Simply declaring it a human right is worthless if you can't justify why it is one.
  • marshray 2y ago
    Must we justify the right to a speedy trial by the argument that indefinite detention would unfairly limit our ability to obtain an auto loan?
    • MisterBastahrd 2y ago
      If you can't figure out why indefinite detainment after an arrest is bad, I'm afraid that nobody is going to be able to help you.
      • marshray 2y ago
        Great. Now substitute "the absence of privacy" and listen to how it sounds.
        • monitorlizard 2y ago
          Your rhetoric is clever, but I see a hole in it. Indefinite detainment is a logical consequence of lacking a right to a speedy trial, but is not identical to it. I think it is in fact quite apt to say that the right to a speedy trial is to indefinite detainment as the right to privacy is to your information being used against you. Both are material consequences of lacking those rights.
          • marshray 2y ago
            The point is that 'rights' do not have to be justified on an economic basis.
            • MisterBastahrd 2y ago
              We aren't talking about other rights. We're talking about this one. And THIS particular right is rooted in the fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments but isn't actually found in the constitution as a singular entity and wouldn't be codified until the 1960s. Guess which court case created that right in the first place? Griswold v Connecticut. Guess which one was overturned along with Roe v Wade because there's no explicit mention of a right to privacy in the Constitution? Same one. The basis for the right which was, in part, ABSOLUTELY rooted in the idea that the because people and governments have a tendency to discriminate against you based on what you believe, then as long as you do not disclose your interests publicly, there should be no basis for discrimination. And why is this discrimination so important when NOT dealing with the government (which are nothing but glorified property protection rackets)? Economics. Specifically, trade. That thing that mankind has been doing since before we've actually had recorded history? Whether it's bartering or seashells or labor or whatever, it's an essential part of being human, because it's how you get things you need to survive. Again, we do not assign rights for which we cannot find a real purpose. You cannot be a functioning human being in a society without economic activity, whether you perform it or someone performs it on behalf of you. You're flat out wrong.
              • LocalH 2y ago
                The ability to violate people's privacy in the time of the Founders was much, much smaller than it is now. The Founders never could have envisioned such an all-encompassing surveillance machine as the one driving the world now. Of course they didn't codify a right to privacy. They didn't have to worry about every single group of people they interacted with to want to vacuum up every single piece of data they can.
              • marshray 2y ago
                Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not against statements of the form "this right is valuable because...". But I don't like this idea that fundamental human rights must have practical justifications. For example, I like how the Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There's no attempt to justify them, just a plain statement that "GFY, obviously we have these rights". As to privacy in particular, I don't think it's a stretch to interpret (4th am) the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" as articulating support for our modern concept of privacy. Sure, today's corrupt politicized SCOTUS could decide to interpret it otherwise. But it seems naive to think that justification based on fear of discrimination is going to prevent that disreputable politicized SCOTUS from interpreting it to some ends (i.e. outcomes favored by the parties lavishing upon them tangible gifts), no matter how well you argue it. So, sure, go ahead, argue for our rights on any basis you can find. I hope you succeed.
    • tzs 2y ago
      > Must we justify the right to a speedy trial Yes. > by the argument that indefinite detention would unfairly limit our ability to obtain an auto loan? No. It is justified by arguments like without it the state could delay your trial indefinitely keeping you in legal limbo (and possibly incarcerated) for as long as they want which would effectively negate your right to trial. They exact justifications used vary by country.
      • marshray 2y ago
        In the US constitution it's just stated plainly, without justification.
  • LocalH 2y ago
    Respectfully disagree. Having to demand "justification" for basic human rights allows a wedge to be placed to remove basic human rights that aren't "justified" to the satisfaction of the person deciding whether or not a basic human right is "justified".
• digging 2y ago
  How is that an economic justification? It's about safety and consent as much as economics.
  • hedora 2y ago
    It’s changing the subject in order to narrow the discussion. Statement: I support the right to wear pants. Response: The core purpose of pants are economic, safety and consent. You can use this necklace to wear your wallet, phone and keys around your neck. We promise to keep the thermostat at 72F, and that we will not do anything without your consent. No pants for you.
    • digging 2y ago
      This left me much more confused.
• throwway120385 2y ago
  Yeah -- if I don't want to be known to another person I shouldn't have to be regardless of whether that person derives a benefit from knowing me. This is what it means to innately have a right like liberty or privacy. There is no grounds whatsoever for taking it away, and nobody has granted it to you on any grounds whether economic or moral.
  • Aloisius 2y ago
    > if I don't want to be known to another person I shouldn't have to be This sounds like you want the right to prevent people from talking about you at all.
• pessimizer 2y ago
  > "the core purpose of privacy: to ensure that who we are cannot be used against us unfairly." I don't see even the vaguest mention of economics in this quote. Copy-paste fail?
• Terr_ 2y ago
  [dead]
• glitchc 2y ago
  Agree. This does seem like authors have confused privacy (the right to control one's own data) with anonymity (the right to remain unknown). I wonder where their interpretation of privacy comes from.
• gessha 2y ago
  Isn’t it an extension of the fifth amendment? > no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”