3 ms·

Another argument is asymmetry. I would not be opposed to having every bit of my life tracked IF I could also track and datamine every little detail about the p

by athenot 12y ago

Another argument is asymmetry. I would not be opposed to having every bit of my life tracked IF I could also track and datamine every little detail about the people in power, the governors, the local police, the algorithms used in processing my information and the names/dates/places of people who ever see my information or a derivation thereof. It is time to turn that argument back on its proponents: - Dear local police force, if you have nothing to hide, why do you object that people show your location in real time? - Dear Senator, if you have nothing to hide, why do you object we see in real time your phone logs/emails/credit card transactions? - Dear Insurance Company, if you have nothing to hide, why do you object we access you risk model? - etc.

dllthomas 12y ago
Your focus on asymmetry of information ignores asymmetry of power.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Asymmetry of power does not necessitate asymmetry of privacy.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    My point was that - since information magnifies power - symmetrically discarding privacy does not grant symmetric power but strengthens those already in a position of power (able to use the information more effectively). This is an important dynamic that needs to be part of the analysis. I wouldn't say it necessitates anything in particular.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      That makes sense. The reason I like symmetrically discarding privacy is that I don't think retaining privacy is viable. I am not suggesting we discard all privacy, just that whenever we discard privacy, we do so symmetrically. This will still result in a power imbalance, but there will be some accountability.
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        "The reason I like symmetrically discarding privacy is that I don't think retaining privacy is viable." Absolute prevention isn't viable, but the same thing is true of myriad other offenses. Just because we can't absolutely prevent fraud doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it a bad thing and work to reduce the amount of it. I don't really see why invasion of privacy is substantively different - though certainly it could be. "I am not suggesting we discard all privacy, just that whenever we discard privacy, we do so symmetrically. This will still result in a power imbalance, but there will be some accountability." "Symmetrically" might be easiest to sell, but I don't think it has anything else going for it. Really, those with power should be expected to give up more privacy than us if they expect our cooperation. Alternatively, they could give up other power to balance. In any case, we are of course talking rules of thumb; any individual proposal should be considered on its merits.
ranran876 12y ago
I think it's a bit of a false equivalence - but I do agree that , while in office, public servants should have very little privacy. No one is forcing you into the job. If you want to serve the public, be ready for your and your whole family's finances to be open. Where you get your money and who you associate with are all things that are for your constituents to know

by athenot 12y ago

dllthomas 12y ago

Your focus on asymmetry of information ignores asymmetry of power.

seanflyon 12y ago
Asymmetry of power does not necessitate asymmetry of privacy.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  My point was that - since information magnifies power - symmetrically discarding privacy does not grant symmetric power but strengthens those already in a position of power (able to use the information more effectively). This is an important dynamic that needs to be part of the analysis. I wouldn't say it necessitates anything in particular.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    That makes sense. The reason I like symmetrically discarding privacy is that I don't think retaining privacy is viable. I am not suggesting we discard all privacy, just that whenever we discard privacy, we do so symmetrically. This will still result in a power imbalance, but there will be some accountability.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      "The reason I like symmetrically discarding privacy is that I don't think retaining privacy is viable." Absolute prevention isn't viable, but the same thing is true of myriad other offenses. Just because we can't absolutely prevent fraud doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it a bad thing and work to reduce the amount of it. I don't really see why invasion of privacy is substantively different - though certainly it could be. "I am not suggesting we discard all privacy, just that whenever we discard privacy, we do so symmetrically. This will still result in a power imbalance, but there will be some accountability." "Symmetrically" might be easiest to sell, but I don't think it has anything else going for it. Really, those with power should be expected to give up more privacy than us if they expect our cooperation. Alternatively, they could give up other power to balance. In any case, we are of course talking rules of thumb; any individual proposal should be considered on its merits.

ranran876 12y ago

I think it's a bit of a false equivalence - but I do agree that , while in office, public servants should have very little privacy. No one is forcing you into the job. If you want to serve the public, be ready for your and your whole family's finances to be open. Where you get your money and who you associate with are all things that are for your constituents to know