4 ms·
> I personally don't really care if the NSA gets to look at my private documents, This isn't about you. Do you have a preference of living in a society where t
by cryptoz 12y ago
> I personally don't really care if the NSA gets to look at my private documents,
This isn't about you. Do you have a preference of living in a society where the people in power have nearly total thought-level-control over the population? Allowing the state into your privacy may not bother you as an individual, that's fine - but you have to understand that your attitude allows them into all of our thoughts and minds, not just yours if you extrapolate this out into the decades you're talking about.
The total surveillance society is much worse when discussed at a real scale, a societal scale. Not caring about your own privacy means you don't care about others, and that's a dangerous line of thinking.
We form our society and laws around privacy - we're creating new standards and new expectations of rules for the next generations, and I'd rather not create rules that set baseline population control as normal.
- rtpg 12y ago> the people in power have nearly total thought-level-control over the population Thought-control? That's a bit much. Mind-reading might be a better analogy
- cryptoz 12y agoI disagree that it's "a bit much". Maybe in 2014, but we're also talking about the world in 2024... and even today in 2014 I don't think it's a bit much. I think it's normal, day-to-day interactions between populations and those in power. Facebook is already experienced in controlling the emotions and moods of large populations: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-emotion-study-breached-ethical-guidelines-researchers-say http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-e... And that study we know about because they published it. There are many ways for this to happen without us knowing, and clearly the technology and the science is knocking on the door.
- gknoy 12y agoThere are already things I won't post (or even take!) digital pictures of: my kids in the bathtub. Growing up, all my friends' families had photos of the kids in the bathroom, etc, but now .... I am fearful that such things would be taken out of context as part of a witch-hunt. The surveillance state, coupled with the Justice Machine (which has no empathy or accountability, it sometimes seems), makes me very fearful to post anything political. We've seen how J. Edgar Hoover persecuted people __because he could__. Imagine if the keepers of secrets were not just patriotic, but actively villainous? There's no way we would know, or be able to hold them accountable for it.
- c0nsumer 12y agoRemember, the panopticon works... People grow to fear even considering certain actions when -- right or wrong -- they feel them hopeless. That's thought control right there.
- natch 12y agoThought-control was not the phrase that was used. Why bother replying if you're going to do this kind of stuff.
- rtpg 12y agoHow else am I supposed to read thought-level-control? Am I missing some nuance?
- natch 12y agoI can't speak to what the poster meant, I just want to emphasize the point that misquoting simply isn't a good practice when people desire a healthy discussion. And yes I do not doubt that you are missing some nuance.
- vlunkr 12y agoYes. Lots of people seem to miss this point. It's not about your individual privacy, it's about one entity having access to massive amounts of private data. Big Brother has never been more real than it is now. Maybe so far they haven't done anything really malicious with this data, but they could.
- the_rosentotter 12y ago> so far they haven't done anything really malicious with this data ... that we know of. Remember J. Edgar Hoover's FBI? He controlled the most powerful politicians in the country, because he knew intimate details about their lives. And that was based mostly on tapping phones. Who knows what kind of control these government agencies are able to exert on representatives with the surveillance apparatus they command today.