7 ms·
In the context of coding projects, the author's conclusion seems realistic. Given current events though, I can't help but wonder if there's a subtext about pri
by jarrett 13y ago
In the context of coding projects, the author's conclusion seems realistic.
Given current events though, I can't help but wonder if there's a subtext about privacy and snooping. If so, then I would venture this observation: Your friend's super-secret diary is meaningless to you only because you have no desire to abuse the access you've been given. Suppose instead your friend's devious enemy obtained the diary. Then, he could probably use it to damage your friend's relationships and/or career.
Now imagine a dystopian future when all such diaries are available to a privileged subset of society. Imagine the power that subset would hold, and all the ways it would likely be abused.
Unless we want to ensure our every communication and personal note is fit for public consumption, some things are by definition our secrets.
- B-Con 13y agoWhile searching for the Dilber strip IvyMike mentioned, I came across one relevant to your post: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1994-10-24/ http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1994-10-24/
- jfoutz 13y agoFor me, the information asymmetry is what's upsetting. Everyone's location data being free and public seems, well, ok to me. But no exceptions for any reason.
- jacalata 13y agoReally? You think that, for instance, someone trying to leave an abusive partner doesn't have more reason to want their whereabouts unknown than someone with no psychotic acquaintances? Someone who turned state's witness against their drug dealer friends?
- kisielk 13y agoOn the other hand if they and everybody else knew the whereabouts of their abusive partner, wouldn't that actually contribute to their safety?
- Ygg2 13y agoAssuming such data isn't easily falsified.
- differentView 13y agoHow so? Are you going to stay awake 24/7 to stop those abusers when they get too close to their victims?
- justinlilly 13y agoIf the theoretical data is available on the theoretical abuser, the police could monitor it, or you could have a non-profit service which monitors the proximity and alerts authorities / sends a "get out of the house" message to you.
- gnaffle 13y agoSo, instead of living a life in relative safety, you get to spend the rest of your life on alert and in fear. I really don't see how you can argue that this would be an acceptable solution.
- differentView 13y agoThe most theoretical part of such a scenario is the police force that follows procedures perfectly and aren't ever overworked.
- amirmc 13y agoLet's flip that around. The key point would be "everyone's location ... No exceptions". Then you'd know if that abusive partner was approaching you (and call relevant authorities). The dealers would probably also be known without needing a witness. Of course, we'd also know who was sleeping with whom and when. It's an interesting thought experiment to imagine such a world but for it to be viable, society would have to have very different views on a lot of things.
- BHSPitMonkey 13y agoThe abused wouldn't be able to track their abuser's allies without knowing who they all were.
- TeMPOraL 13y agoBut if any of the abuser's allies did anything to the abused, they could be easily identified and tracked down; this could act as a deterrent.
- mcintyre1994 13y agoIf we're not capping the level of abuse it could easily be too late though. Let's take it to the extreme, somebody wants to kill you and you have no choice but to broadcast your location to everybody. Some people receiving that data, you don't know who, are happy to do the killing for the person who wants to kill you. Afterward they can be identified and tracked down, but at this extremity it's too late.
- matz1 13y agoThe punishment for killing is the deterrent.
- ShirtlessRod 13y agoFor people that have rational minds. What about people who are irrational or have some sort of mental illness? I guess that's just a "too bad" for the person who is now dead?
- lennydizzy 13y agoThe problem is you can not make the judgement, that making everyone's location public is ok, for everyone. People have different preferences towards their privacy. We should respect other's choice.
- blah32497 13y agoThe reasons for privacy are always so contrived. "Dystopian futures", "enemies trying to ruin lives" etc. etc. It never resonates with me. I think what the author is trying to say is that if you live an open life with few secrets, then your life will be less stressful. He's encouraging us to really reevaluate what we keep secret b/c when you sit down to think about it, it's most likely all in your head.
- aaronblohowiak 13y agoLearn more about life in East Germany.
- sivers 13y agoThank you, blah32497. That's exactly what I was trying to say, and wonderfully succinctly put. :-) It could also mean reevaluating what you've made public, and deciding what should be secret.
- dreamfactory 13y agoHats off re good promo and topicality - but I'd expect something a bit more broadly reflective and nuanced. Really don't think you've thought this one through. You seem to have taken a line for a walk and inadvertently reinvented the asinine 'nothing to hide' argument here. The whole thing about say, the Stasi, was that they were interested in all the everyday comings and goings, not the James Bond stuff. That's the depressingly mundane and terrifying reality of mass surveillance. That's why it was referred to as the 'boot in the face of humanity' by a smarter and better informed person than any of us. > It could also mean reevaluating what you've made public, and deciding what should be secret. aka chilling effect - surely you're not seriously advocating for it?
- gnaffle 13y agoI'd love for you to ask the person what she would think about you sharing her diary with everyone she knows (her family, her coworkers, her boss etc). Would it be equally meaningless and uninteresting to them?
- 13y ago
- Toenex 13y agoNow imagine a dystopian future when all such diaries are available to a privileged subset of society. Imagine the power that subset would hold, and all the ways it would likely be abused. Surely that power comes not from the honesty of the words in the diary, but from the fear that those words become widely known. Do most people have something to hide that is so shameful, so damning? In many cases is secrecy a luxury we might quickly be happy not to have? Is this current need for privacy because society is less accepting of us as people? Perhaps our obsession with privacy is the problem, not the solution.
- jarrett 13y ago"Do most people have something to hide that is so shameful, so damning?" Have you ever complained to a friend or family member about your boss? Then the answer is yes. Have you ever said something really embarrassingly politically incorrect? Then the answer is yes. Have you ever possessed an illegal drug, including alcohol while underage? Then the answer is yes.
- Toenex 13y agoThat's your list?!