3 ms·

Genuinely curious, why must privacy extend to online? Last week’s events have me pondering the real value of online anonymity in a civil society. I understand

Genuinely curious, why must privacy extend to online? Last week’s events have me pondering the real value of online anonymity in a civil society. I understand encryption and privacy aren’t 1:1, but if one goes, so goes the other. At any rate, I want to hear other opinions. While I agree with the right to privacy, I’m wondering if privacy in ALL contexts is a good and healthy thing.

ecshafer 1y ago
Last weeks events were a huge tragedy. But lets assume mass spying and no encryption, how would that have stopped it? A schizophrenic with a knife, or a political extremist with a gun, isn't something that necessitates coordination.
- Tostino 1y ago
  Which school shooting are you talking about?
  - ecshafer 1y ago
    I was referring to Charlie Kirks assassination and the ukrainian girl being murdered on the train. But there was also a beheading in dallas and a school shooting in colorado this week. I dont think any of these wouldve been stopped by spying.
f1shy 1y ago
Genuine question: why not? To start an answer I would say is dangerous territory to say „online must not follow the rules of offline“. My expectantion would be as general principle „onlinity“ is irrelevant. As far as sensible of course.
michaelmrose 1y ago
Having a ready made list of everyone's thoughts on every topic and the ability to sift through every tedious mountain of data with software to classify everyone according to every sort of ideology would certainly be handy if your nation ever became a fascist dystopia. You could end up having to not only not critique your personal Hitler but praise him to get the right score to work in civil service or not only not only not say pro lgbtq talking points but spout pro bigot positions to qualify as a teacher helping to create first the illusion then the reality of the universiality of these positions. Imagine how well the French resistance would have gone if all the trouble makers or likelyoffenders had been shot preemptively!
scotty79 1y ago
You can ask yourself why privacy is beneficial at all? And it's because revealing breaches of social etiquette might lead to conflicts and unrest between serfs. Which lower their economic efficiency in their service to landlords. Online is not unique in any way. It even should have more privacy because people reveal too much voluntarily already leading to all kinds of unrest. How many people's economic activity was disrupted because they couldn't keep their cheering of Charlie Kirk's demise in private for example?
simoncion 1y ago
> ...why must privacy extend to online? Because "online" is just as real as "offline"? It's all people communicating with other people. In the US, I can do business under an alias, just so long as I'm not assuming that alias with the intent to defraud. In the US, I can anonymously drop a letter in a postbox to be sent anywhere in the US. However, government agents can certainly discover my "wallet identity" in both of those situations with the application of some effort. Why would it be important to you that people doing business "online" must do that business in such a way as to make it require zero effort for a government agent to discover their "wallet identity"? Why would it be important to you that people who conduct their business electronically have far, far less privacy than people who conduct their business with paper and in-person appearances?
- sudahtigabulan 1y ago
  Governments are more scared of "online", because their shenanigans could be exposed instantly, and to many more people than with the "tech" available before (speaking in person, or paper letters). Freedom to speak in person is like a fist; freedom to post online is like a gun. They don't want us to have guns, obviously.
sleepybrett 1y ago
Privacy in sealed mail is different than privacy when you are shouting on the street corner. I think an interesting experiment would be to create a social platform where all identities must be verified and public and all messaging must also be public. If you could verify identities well enough, this would create a platform where everyone is saying everything knowing it's traced to their identity. Perhaps the information communicated on such a platform would be considered to have more weight than information spewed on pseudo and fully anonymous platforms.
- KoolKat23 1y ago
  Or it'll have a chilling effect and it'll leave much unsaid. Something artificial like LinkedIn.
  - sleepybrett 1y ago
    I don't disagree. It's just a thought experiment.
- simoncion 1y ago
  > If you could verify identities well enough, this would create a platform where everyone is saying everything knowing it's traced to their identity. Facebook and Google Plus (along with research focused on them and other Internet forums that demand one's Real Name or legal identity) have demonstrated that -at best- you get the same low-quality commentary as you do from pseudonymous or anonymous forums. The typical case is that discussion quality goes down as clever and thoughtful folks who aren't interested in setting themselves up to be the target of future witch hunts by expressing potentially-controversial opinions tied to their Real Name leave those forums for less restrictive ones. Stupid people who are going to spew bilge do it regardless of whether their Real Name is attached to what they say. There are better ways to promote high discussion quality than to demand attachment of one's Real Name to one's forum account.
arcxi 1y ago
I assume you refer to the killing, which was done offline with a physical weapon. do you think less online anonymity would've prevented Lincoln's assassination too?
raxxorraxor 1y ago
> Genuinely curious, why must privacy extend to online? Because governments lack the maturity to judge contents. You would subject private communications to mob justice of populist political discourse. It is not rocket science that it wouldn't work.

ecshafer 1y ago

Last weeks events were a huge tragedy. But lets assume mass spying and no encryption, how would that have stopped it? A schizophrenic with a knife, or a political extremist with a gun, isn't something that necessitates coordination.

Tostino 1y ago
Which school shooting are you talking about?
- ecshafer 1y ago
  I was referring to Charlie Kirks assassination and the ukrainian girl being murdered on the train. But there was also a beheading in dallas and a school shooting in colorado this week. I dont think any of these wouldve been stopped by spying.

f1shy 1y ago

Genuine question: why not? To start an answer I would say is dangerous territory to say „online must not follow the rules of offline“. My expectantion would be as general principle „onlinity“ is irrelevant. As far as sensible of course.

michaelmrose 1y ago

Having a ready made list of everyone's thoughts on every topic and the ability to sift through every tedious mountain of data with software to classify everyone according to every sort of ideology would certainly be handy if your nation ever became a fascist dystopia. You could end up having to not only not critique your personal Hitler but praise him to get the right score to work in civil service or not only not only not say pro lgbtq talking points but spout pro bigot positions to qualify as a teacher helping to create first the illusion then the reality of the universiality of these positions. Imagine how well the French resistance would have gone if all the trouble makers or likelyoffenders had been shot preemptively!

scotty79 1y ago

You can ask yourself why privacy is beneficial at all? And it's because revealing breaches of social etiquette might lead to conflicts and unrest between serfs. Which lower their economic efficiency in their service to landlords. Online is not unique in any way. It even should have more privacy because people reveal too much voluntarily already leading to all kinds of unrest. How many people's economic activity was disrupted because they couldn't keep their cheering of Charlie Kirk's demise in private for example?

simoncion 1y ago

> ...why must privacy extend to online? Because "online" is just as real as "offline"? It's all people communicating with other people. In the US, I can do business under an alias, just so long as I'm not assuming that alias with the intent to defraud. In the US, I can anonymously drop a letter in a postbox to be sent anywhere in the US. However, government agents can certainly discover my "wallet identity" in both of those situations with the application of some effort. Why would it be important to you that people doing business "online" must do that business in such a way as to make it require zero effort for a government agent to discover their "wallet identity"? Why would it be important to you that people who conduct their business electronically have far, far less privacy than people who conduct their business with paper and in-person appearances?

sudahtigabulan 1y ago
Governments are more scared of "online", because their shenanigans could be exposed instantly, and to many more people than with the "tech" available before (speaking in person, or paper letters). Freedom to speak in person is like a fist; freedom to post online is like a gun. They don't want us to have guns, obviously.

sleepybrett 1y ago

Privacy in sealed mail is different than privacy when you are shouting on the street corner. I think an interesting experiment would be to create a social platform where all identities must be verified and public and all messaging must also be public. If you could verify identities well enough, this would create a platform where everyone is saying everything knowing it's traced to their identity. Perhaps the information communicated on such a platform would be considered to have more weight than information spewed on pseudo and fully anonymous platforms.

KoolKat23 1y ago
Or it'll have a chilling effect and it'll leave much unsaid. Something artificial like LinkedIn.
- sleepybrett 1y ago
  I don't disagree. It's just a thought experiment.
simoncion 1y ago
> If you could verify identities well enough, this would create a platform where everyone is saying everything knowing it's traced to their identity. Facebook and Google Plus (along with research focused on them and other Internet forums that demand one's Real Name or legal identity) have demonstrated that -at best- you get the same low-quality commentary as you do from pseudonymous or anonymous forums. The typical case is that discussion quality goes down as clever and thoughtful folks who aren't interested in setting themselves up to be the target of future witch hunts by expressing potentially-controversial opinions tied to their Real Name leave those forums for less restrictive ones. Stupid people who are going to spew bilge do it regardless of whether their Real Name is attached to what they say. There are better ways to promote high discussion quality than to demand attachment of one's Real Name to one's forum account.

arcxi 1y ago

I assume you refer to the killing, which was done offline with a physical weapon. do you think less online anonymity would've prevented Lincoln's assassination too?

raxxorraxor 1y ago

> Genuinely curious, why must privacy extend to online? Because governments lack the maturity to judge contents. You would subject private communications to mob justice of populist political discourse. It is not rocket science that it wouldn't work.