5 ms·

We just don't have all the answers yet. We are at a strange era in human history. We have had privacy for eons, and now we may not. We can't even answer the

We just don't have all the answers yet. We are at a strange era in human history. We have had privacy for eons, and now we may not. We can't even answer the question "do we need privacy?" If you were raised with no privacy, you wouldn't know the difference. Imagine living your whole life with cameras on you. You know if something bad happens, you have video evidence. Now imagine all those cameras are taken away. You would probably feel very scared to the point of mania. We don't have the answers yet. We are lucky the internet is still open, so we can try out all these new things and share ideas.

ameasure 12y ago
Privacy, as it exists today, is entirely a modern invention. For most of human history people lived in small groups where everyone knew everyone else very well. It was not until industrialisation that we had mega cities where no one knows anyone.
- oconnore 12y ago
  You are selecting facts that are convenient for you. You are correct that small groups were often tightly knit. But you are ignoring the persistence of modern surveillance: Your neighbor or clan-mate never followed you everywhere. Since the invention of shelter you always had privacy in your home with your family. You could always have a confidential conversation with a friend. All of those things are more difficult now than they were ten years ago, or hundreds of years ago, or thousands of years ago. Furthermore, you never had a statistical profile built on your behavior, where members of your society could predict your movements and desires.
- pyre 12y ago
  > For most of human history people lived in small groups where everyone knew everyone else very well. Someone already mentioned issues with your statement, but I will add on another issue. Even when living in small, tight-knit communities, if you screwed up your social standing (for whatever reason), you had the option to leave the group, possibly to another group, without your entire life-history following you.
- tomaskafka 12y ago
  But this 'surveillance' was: 1) voluntary 2) symmetrical 3) done by humans with understanding and compassion
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  I don't think everyone knew everyone else very well in ancient cities like Rome, Athens and many others. Certainly more people historically lived in villages, but cities have been around for millenia and even in villages people were more intimate with their family than everyone else.
i0a 12y ago
1. The hypothetical situation you mention-- a world without privacy, where everyone is already used to it-- doesn't provide any substantial defense of the present violation of our existing privacy. Similarly, one could posit a scenario where everyone has lived their whole lives under a totalitarian regime, and felt scared if it was taken away. Such a scenario would not provide an argument for totalitarianism. (One could conceive of such hypothetical situations for any arbitrary state of events: e.g. racist societies, societies that have genital mutilation rituals, etc.) 2. "Do we need privacy?" is a more generalized question, which, in the current state of much of the first world, presupposes "should our privacy be stripped away?", before "Do we need privacy?" can even be fully answered. I personally have no desire to test it out. 3. To further critique and rephrase your statement: the real issue is not "Do we need privacy?", but "should we have privacy?", or, "should we continue to lose privacy?", or, finally, "Do we want to continue to give up our privacy?"
oconnore 12y ago
If you were raised with no privacy, you may not be aware that it could get better, but you would still suffer from the power dynamic that the total lack of privacy creates. Information is power, and even if that power is distributed evenly (which it isn't now, and likely will never be), it changes things.

ameasure 12y ago

Privacy, as it exists today, is entirely a modern invention. For most of human history people lived in small groups where everyone knew everyone else very well. It was not until industrialisation that we had mega cities where no one knows anyone.

oconnore 12y ago
You are selecting facts that are convenient for you. You are correct that small groups were often tightly knit. But you are ignoring the persistence of modern surveillance: Your neighbor or clan-mate never followed you everywhere. Since the invention of shelter you always had privacy in your home with your family. You could always have a confidential conversation with a friend. All of those things are more difficult now than they were ten years ago, or hundreds of years ago, or thousands of years ago. Furthermore, you never had a statistical profile built on your behavior, where members of your society could predict your movements and desires.
pyre 12y ago
> For most of human history people lived in small groups where everyone knew everyone else very well. Someone already mentioned issues with your statement, but I will add on another issue. Even when living in small, tight-knit communities, if you screwed up your social standing (for whatever reason), you had the option to leave the group, possibly to another group, without your entire life-history following you.
tomaskafka 12y ago
But this 'surveillance' was: 1) voluntary 2) symmetrical 3) done by humans with understanding and compassion
anigbrowl 12y ago
I don't think everyone knew everyone else very well in ancient cities like Rome, Athens and many others. Certainly more people historically lived in villages, but cities have been around for millenia and even in villages people were more intimate with their family than everyone else.

i0a 12y ago

1. The hypothetical situation you mention-- a world without privacy, where everyone is already used to it-- doesn't provide any substantial defense of the present violation of our existing privacy. Similarly, one could posit a scenario where everyone has lived their whole lives under a totalitarian regime, and felt scared if it was taken away. Such a scenario would not provide an argument for totalitarianism. (One could conceive of such hypothetical situations for any arbitrary state of events: e.g. racist societies, societies that have genital mutilation rituals, etc.) 2. "Do we need privacy?" is a more generalized question, which, in the current state of much of the first world, presupposes "should our privacy be stripped away?", before "Do we need privacy?" can even be fully answered. I personally have no desire to test it out. 3. To further critique and rephrase your statement: the real issue is not "Do we need privacy?", but "should we have privacy?", or, "should we continue to lose privacy?", or, finally, "Do we want to continue to give up our privacy?"

oconnore 12y ago

If you were raised with no privacy, you may not be aware that it could get better, but you would still suffer from the power dynamic that the total lack of privacy creates. Information is power, and even if that power is distributed evenly (which it isn't now, and likely will never be), it changes things.