3 ms·

> "secrets exist to prevent other people from acting as they would if they had complete information" And? I don't understand why the reader must assume it woul

by rabbyte 12y ago

> "secrets exist to prevent other people from acting as they would if they had complete information" And? I don't understand why the reader must assume it would be good for people to act with complete information. Privacy is required where trust is absent because people in the abstract are not responsible or empathetic enough to warrant the risk. Ask any celebrity if privacy is a barrier to equality. This isn't pessimism either; I could see privacy not be needed but only if the protection from harm is replaced by other protections embedded in the culture or environment.

mmalone 12y ago
Eh... I don't get it? Why is privacy required where there is no trust? I see how the two are related but I see it kind of differently... it's hard not to trust someone when you know they're not hiding anything. In a totally utopian sense I believe that privacy is bad. Practically it's probably impossible to implement society without privacy. I wouldn't share my email password because we're not living in a utopia and that information asymmetry would hurt me. However, if privacy went away social norms would have to change -- there would be a lot less hypocrisy -- and the things I'm keeping private right now wouldn't need to be private any longer. Really privacy just facilitates lying.
- Zancarius 12y ago
  In a strange sense, in particular when reading the article, I'm reminded of a certain Orwellian utopia in which there was virtually no extant privacy. Maybe it "facilitates lying," although I think that's a rather extremist view, but if there's information I'm not willing to provide you, I may not necessarily be lying--I just don't feel that it's pertinent or necessary for you to know. Or in particularly pathological cases, I've simply forgotten, so neither of us will be privy to information that has been lost or destroyed. It's just unfortunate that it seems in this case, "lying" has been stretched to mean "lack of information or imperfect information" rather than "a statement which is not factual truth." That's not an argument I agree with. Likewise, I'm not so sure a privacy-less world would be, or bring about, utopia. At least, thusfar, I haven't read anything that has convinced me. Yes, I'm sure part of it is due to my own experiences in our world where privacy is a norm, but I'm not sure I completely buy into the belief that privacy facilitates all of these ills spoken about in TFA (or by yourself or other commenters). For one, there will always be actors with malevolent intentions--eliminating privacy for all individuals is unlikely to change that fact. Groupthink also comes to mind wherein opposing opinions are punished by way of mob justice. I could foresee a world where a lack of privacy encourages homogenous public opinion, either because those who might be inclined to disagree fear embarrassment or punishment.
  - dinkumthinkum 12y ago
    Or it could be that those that eliminate privacy are those malevolent actors ... Just saying ...
    - Zancarius 12y ago
      I inexplicably feel compelled to chant "Big Brother!"
- rabbyte 12y ago
  Privacy is just a cloak. Hypocrites and liars may hide behind privacy but so do journalists and pregnant women. The same is true of hammers which has been used to build dog houses and murder children. Ultimately, I don't think getting rid of privacy will do much to hypocrisy and lies. The sharp edge of embarrassment would be dull, allowing people to behave with less care for what others think. People would still lie and behave hypocritically but they would be better at evading. The comfort afforded by privacy would be transferred to the comfort in knowing that someone would have to sift through the information to find your lies and even if they did? Well, who doesn't lie? The less privacy politicians have the less I'm convinced privacy has an affect on lying. I do agree though that a world constructed so that privacy isn't necessary would be a utopia and I believe it's possible to some extent.
- dinkumthinkum 12y ago
  So what amazing sort of philosophical argument are you using to arrive at the value judgment that "privacy is bad?" I don't think it is good enough to just have this tacit idea "no privacy is inherently good but obviously we don't live in a Utopia;" I think that is a flawed concept entirely. In fact, I think your position is entirely immoral. You want to find some kind of technology to force me to give up my privacy to you, and absent such a technology, you think it is unfortunate because that would be Utopia ... That's just hard to take seriously.
  - mmalone 12y ago
    The argument is that privacy serves no purpose aside from facilitating lies, and lies are bad. One challenge that has been presented is that there's a difference between "lying" and "not telling the whole truth" but I believe both are "moral bads" and I don't really want to get into that regardless (the distinction between passive and active moral decisions has been debated endlessly by philosophers already -- google "killing vs. letting die," for instance). I don't think it's infeasible to find a technology. I think it's infeasible to change our culture to be more accepting of the sorts of things that people choose to keep private. As long as people are persecuted for their completely normal beliefs and actions privacy has a place and keeping things private is justifiable. But if I were designing a utopia I think I'd try one with no privacy at all (everyone has access to the same set of facts about everyone / everything else) and see how things go. Why do you think my position is immoral? How is it a flawed concept? You haven't presented a logical argument for your position -- that privacy is good. I'd love to hear one that doesn't include a clause where "some bad actor does something immoral because of lack of privacy." Maybe P = NP, then we won't have a choice :) Edit: spelling.

by rabbyte 12y ago

mmalone 12y ago

Eh... I don't get it? Why is privacy required where there is no trust? I see how the two are related but I see it kind of differently... it's hard not to trust someone when you know they're not hiding anything. In a totally utopian sense I believe that privacy is bad. Practically it's probably impossible to implement society without privacy. I wouldn't share my email password because we're not living in a utopia and that information asymmetry would hurt me. However, if privacy went away social norms would have to change -- there would be a lot less hypocrisy -- and the things I'm keeping private right now wouldn't need to be private any longer. Really privacy just facilitates lying.

Zancarius 12y ago
In a strange sense, in particular when reading the article, I'm reminded of a certain Orwellian utopia in which there was virtually no extant privacy. Maybe it "facilitates lying," although I think that's a rather extremist view, but if there's information I'm not willing to provide you, I may not necessarily be lying--I just don't feel that it's pertinent or necessary for you to know. Or in particularly pathological cases, I've simply forgotten, so neither of us will be privy to information that has been lost or destroyed. It's just unfortunate that it seems in this case, "lying" has been stretched to mean "lack of information or imperfect information" rather than "a statement which is not factual truth." That's not an argument I agree with. Likewise, I'm not so sure a privacy-less world would be, or bring about, utopia. At least, thusfar, I haven't read anything that has convinced me. Yes, I'm sure part of it is due to my own experiences in our world where privacy is a norm, but I'm not sure I completely buy into the belief that privacy facilitates all of these ills spoken about in TFA (or by yourself or other commenters). For one, there will always be actors with malevolent intentions--eliminating privacy for all individuals is unlikely to change that fact. Groupthink also comes to mind wherein opposing opinions are punished by way of mob justice. I could foresee a world where a lack of privacy encourages homogenous public opinion, either because those who might be inclined to disagree fear embarrassment or punishment.
- dinkumthinkum 12y ago
  Or it could be that those that eliminate privacy are those malevolent actors ... Just saying ...
  - Zancarius 12y ago
    I inexplicably feel compelled to chant "Big Brother!"
rabbyte 12y ago
Privacy is just a cloak. Hypocrites and liars may hide behind privacy but so do journalists and pregnant women. The same is true of hammers which has been used to build dog houses and murder children. Ultimately, I don't think getting rid of privacy will do much to hypocrisy and lies. The sharp edge of embarrassment would be dull, allowing people to behave with less care for what others think. People would still lie and behave hypocritically but they would be better at evading. The comfort afforded by privacy would be transferred to the comfort in knowing that someone would have to sift through the information to find your lies and even if they did? Well, who doesn't lie? The less privacy politicians have the less I'm convinced privacy has an affect on lying. I do agree though that a world constructed so that privacy isn't necessary would be a utopia and I believe it's possible to some extent.
dinkumthinkum 12y ago
So what amazing sort of philosophical argument are you using to arrive at the value judgment that "privacy is bad?" I don't think it is good enough to just have this tacit idea "no privacy is inherently good but obviously we don't live in a Utopia;" I think that is a flawed concept entirely. In fact, I think your position is entirely immoral. You want to find some kind of technology to force me to give up my privacy to you, and absent such a technology, you think it is unfortunate because that would be Utopia ... That's just hard to take seriously.
- mmalone 12y ago
  The argument is that privacy serves no purpose aside from facilitating lies, and lies are bad. One challenge that has been presented is that there's a difference between "lying" and "not telling the whole truth" but I believe both are "moral bads" and I don't really want to get into that regardless (the distinction between passive and active moral decisions has been debated endlessly by philosophers already -- google "killing vs. letting die," for instance). I don't think it's infeasible to find a technology. I think it's infeasible to change our culture to be more accepting of the sorts of things that people choose to keep private. As long as people are persecuted for their completely normal beliefs and actions privacy has a place and keeping things private is justifiable. But if I were designing a utopia I think I'd try one with no privacy at all (everyone has access to the same set of facts about everyone / everything else) and see how things go. Why do you think my position is immoral? How is it a flawed concept? You haven't presented a logical argument for your position -- that privacy is good. I'd love to hear one that doesn't include a clause where "some bad actor does something immoral because of lack of privacy." Maybe P = NP, then we won't have a choice :) Edit: spelling.