3 ms·

I read some comments from you and I keep asking myself: What is your alternative? Corporations also want our personal data. Maybe do you imply "no government,

I read some comments from you and I keep asking myself: What is your alternative? Corporations also want our personal data. Maybe do you imply "no government, no corporations"? Even in this scenario, other people want to know relevant bits about you, with any purpose. So, don't you have right to choose what to share publicly with them? This is privacy.

miguelrochefort 13y ago
You don't have a right to information. If you don't protect your brain and it happens to leak brainwaves (or whatever), they now belong to the public sector. If I can capture them, I can do anything I want with the information they contain. All I'm saying is that you can't expect privacy. Technology will reach a point where everything you do will be available publicly. Instead of fighting for privacy, maybe we should eliminate what makes us seek privacy, so that we can live in a more open and free world. My solution is that we stop being hypocrite and blind. A lot of extremely common things are illegal simply because we're too afraid to look at reality. Let's be conservative and say that 25% of the population consumed marijuana illegally at one point or another. If we applied the current laws to all of these people, 25% of the population would have been in jail at some point. This is simply not sustainable. Still, this is what would happen if we applied these laws consistently. By knowing that 25% of the population consumed marijuana illegally, we reach two possibilities. Either we arrest all these people, or either we change the law, since it doesn't make sense in the first place. Until we show society that some laws and social stigma (such as racism, homophoby, etc) don't make sense (as we would hate and jail everybody), people will have to live in fear and obscurity.
- im_dario 13y ago
  Sorry, I consider weak this argument. There is no relation between privacy and your "marijuana argument". Hypocrital laws weren't created because of need for privacy. Neither social stigma has nothing to do with privacy. I agree that there is a need to change a lot of laws and get rid of social stigmas, but... To try to relate privacy with wrong behaviour (unfair laws, stigmatization) is a false equivalence. I won't say a thing about brainwave capturing technology. I guess it is not easily feasible without isolating the target person, because all the "brainiac" background noise in crowded areas.

miguelrochefort 13y ago

You don't have a right to information. If you don't protect your brain and it happens to leak brainwaves (or whatever), they now belong to the public sector. If I can capture them, I can do anything I want with the information they contain. All I'm saying is that you can't expect privacy. Technology will reach a point where everything you do will be available publicly. Instead of fighting for privacy, maybe we should eliminate what makes us seek privacy, so that we can live in a more open and free world. My solution is that we stop being hypocrite and blind. A lot of extremely common things are illegal simply because we're too afraid to look at reality. Let's be conservative and say that 25% of the population consumed marijuana illegally at one point or another. If we applied the current laws to all of these people, 25% of the population would have been in jail at some point. This is simply not sustainable. Still, this is what would happen if we applied these laws consistently. By knowing that 25% of the population consumed marijuana illegally, we reach two possibilities. Either we arrest all these people, or either we change the law, since it doesn't make sense in the first place. Until we show society that some laws and social stigma (such as racism, homophoby, etc) don't make sense (as we would hate and jail everybody), people will have to live in fear and obscurity.

im_dario 13y ago
Sorry, I consider weak this argument. There is no relation between privacy and your "marijuana argument". Hypocrital laws weren't created because of need for privacy. Neither social stigma has nothing to do with privacy. I agree that there is a need to change a lot of laws and get rid of social stigmas, but... To try to relate privacy with wrong behaviour (unfair laws, stigmatization) is a false equivalence. I won't say a thing about brainwave capturing technology. I guess it is not easily feasible without isolating the target person, because all the "brainiac" background noise in crowded areas.