5 ms·

I have a feeling that everyone having this tool is a better situation than only few-at-the-top having it. Older people who sit at the top tend to elicit a diffe

I have a feeling that everyone having this tool is a better situation than only few-at-the-top having it. Older people who sit at the top tend to elicit a different and often machine-like behaviour [1] on emotional or privacy matters. Their decisions are likely to be blind to what people in their privacy want - that is emotional freedom. And their micro-decisions could be worse. Rather I'd suggest that the PRISM search tool be made available to every individual on the planet. Perhaps in competition to Google (If we don't get rid of snooping in its entirety that is.). At least we can weed out Weiners which are on one end of porn-spectrum to Camerons who say they are on the other end of porn-spectrum. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677442/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677442/

northwest 13y ago
> Rather I'd suggest that the PRISM search tool be made available to every citizen on the planet. Of course you are joking. But if you think about it: If humanity is forced to give up privacy, the only way we could achieve this would be by giving it up symmetrically: If everybody is naked, it's normal and not a problem anymore, provided we can then evolve our culture to completely drop the "judging".
- mtgx 13y ago
  Governments should have to give up "privacy" first, since they're supposed to be public, and everything they do should be public. Then maybe we can talk about giving up some of the privacy for citizens, too - as long as it's compatible with the Constitution (and I think this program is not even close to being compatible).
  - northwest 13y ago
    Absolutely.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- manmal 13y ago
  That's what Zuckerberg had in mind, originally (reportedly).
  - northwest 13y ago
    I'm not convinced somebody thinks for humanity when they say things like: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg
  - 3327 13y ago
    Not that I am pro him or not but if everyone was held accountable for the dumb stuff they said in their early 20's everyone would have a sick of shit hanging around their necks.
    - rhizome 13y ago
      It's not meaningless, though. I would say that the reason is not that it betrays what they really think, but that older people learn not to say it out loud. In this sense you would essentially be saying, "don't judge him until he learns to hide his true thoughts." I'm not saying this is what you truly feel, but you relate a cultural convention that perpetuates a stereotype that young people are stupid.
      - 3327 13y ago
        I think your comment is a correct assessment. Adults do learn this but in addition to learning to hold back your thoughts maturity brings many changes in view and ideology, and I suspect that as many of us might have, Zuck's ideas and views most likely changed dramatically from his early years in college to adulthood - or not. But I think the safer assumption would be it has, for the better or worse that we cannot know but personally I prefer to give people the benefit prior to the doubt.
    - northwest 13y ago
      Sure, we say and do dumb things when we're young. But that was not my point. I don't hold him accountable for that per se. What I was saying is: I doubt that, at the time Zuckerberg launched FB, he was thinking "privacy is already dead, so let's see how we can make things better again for everybody" when at that same time he, being 20, said those stupid things.
- marquis 13y ago
  The core issue for me in the privacy debate is not about our personal life choices - we as humans are becoming more and more tolerant every day, witness the rise of gay marriage rights and marijuana acceptance. For me it's about needing privacy between you and the power structure - restrictive laws are constantly being proposed and overturned thanks to our ability to organize in private. To go back to gay marriage as an example: there was a time when homosexuality was illegal. We'd never have gay marriage if we had the ability to shuffle through everyone's innuendo and crosstalk in the last decades and put restrictions on that activity, or know that a group of people regularly gathered at certain locations. Take civil rights: imagine Rosa Parks calls MLK while she's waiting to get on the bus (she was a community leader, not a random instant-activist). If she made and communicated that decision to sit at the front before she got on she could have been arrested, significantly delaying historical change. We need privacy from the power structures to maintain those rights to organize and protest and change laws, and I honestly don't see why those who are yelling about not giving up their guns because of the right to keep arms against government overrule aren't applying exactly the same concept to their right to privacy.
  - sanderjd 13y ago
    I think many gun rights activists are applying the same concept to privacy. One of the most encouraging things I've experienced in this debate is that while it certainly seems divisive, the divisions don't seem to be along party lines, or even particularly obvious ideological lines. I've argued with people I almost always agree with and agreed with people I almost always argue with. It is actually refreshing that there is actually a debate happening and that the debate seems to involve more individual opinions and less of the usual blocs.
- MaysonL 13y ago
  Every average citizen's privacy is gone, to whatever extent somebody powerful wishes it to be. The question is how much privacy and secrecy will the powerful be able to enforce for themselves.

northwest 13y ago

> Rather I'd suggest that the PRISM search tool be made available to every citizen on the planet. Of course you are joking. But if you think about it: If humanity is forced to give up privacy, the only way we could achieve this would be by giving it up symmetrically: If everybody is naked, it's normal and not a problem anymore, provided we can then evolve our culture to completely drop the "judging".

mtgx 13y ago
Governments should have to give up "privacy" first, since they're supposed to be public, and everything they do should be public. Then maybe we can talk about giving up some of the privacy for citizens, too - as long as it's compatible with the Constitution (and I think this program is not even close to being compatible).
- northwest 13y ago
  Absolutely.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
manmal 13y ago
That's what Zuckerberg had in mind, originally (reportedly).
- northwest 13y ago
  I'm not convinced somebody thinks for humanity when they say things like: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg
- 3327 13y ago
  Not that I am pro him or not but if everyone was held accountable for the dumb stuff they said in their early 20's everyone would have a sick of shit hanging around their necks.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    It's not meaningless, though. I would say that the reason is not that it betrays what they really think, but that older people learn not to say it out loud. In this sense you would essentially be saying, "don't judge him until he learns to hide his true thoughts." I'm not saying this is what you truly feel, but you relate a cultural convention that perpetuates a stereotype that young people are stupid.
    - 3327 13y ago
      I think your comment is a correct assessment. Adults do learn this but in addition to learning to hold back your thoughts maturity brings many changes in view and ideology, and I suspect that as many of us might have, Zuck's ideas and views most likely changed dramatically from his early years in college to adulthood - or not. But I think the safer assumption would be it has, for the better or worse that we cannot know but personally I prefer to give people the benefit prior to the doubt.
  - northwest 13y ago
    Sure, we say and do dumb things when we're young. But that was not my point. I don't hold him accountable for that per se. What I was saying is: I doubt that, at the time Zuckerberg launched FB, he was thinking "privacy is already dead, so let's see how we can make things better again for everybody" when at that same time he, being 20, said those stupid things.
marquis 13y ago
The core issue for me in the privacy debate is not about our personal life choices - we as humans are becoming more and more tolerant every day, witness the rise of gay marriage rights and marijuana acceptance. For me it's about needing privacy between you and the power structure - restrictive laws are constantly being proposed and overturned thanks to our ability to organize in private. To go back to gay marriage as an example: there was a time when homosexuality was illegal. We'd never have gay marriage if we had the ability to shuffle through everyone's innuendo and crosstalk in the last decades and put restrictions on that activity, or know that a group of people regularly gathered at certain locations. Take civil rights: imagine Rosa Parks calls MLK while she's waiting to get on the bus (she was a community leader, not a random instant-activist). If she made and communicated that decision to sit at the front before she got on she could have been arrested, significantly delaying historical change. We need privacy from the power structures to maintain those rights to organize and protest and change laws, and I honestly don't see why those who are yelling about not giving up their guns because of the right to keep arms against government overrule aren't applying exactly the same concept to their right to privacy.
- sanderjd 13y ago
  I think many gun rights activists are applying the same concept to privacy. One of the most encouraging things I've experienced in this debate is that while it certainly seems divisive, the divisions don't seem to be along party lines, or even particularly obvious ideological lines. I've argued with people I almost always agree with and agreed with people I almost always argue with. It is actually refreshing that there is actually a debate happening and that the debate seems to involve more individual opinions and less of the usual blocs.
MaysonL 13y ago
Every average citizen's privacy is gone, to whatever extent somebody powerful wishes it to be. The question is how much privacy and secrecy will the powerful be able to enforce for themselves.