8 ms·

Strong guarantees of privacy are essential to enable political dissent. Without it, opinions opposed to the prevailing majority view point are not only side-lin

Strong guarantees of privacy are essential to enable political dissent. Without it, opinions opposed to the prevailing majority view point are not only side-lined, but the very expression of an interest in them becomes a cause for controversy and social rebuke. Without privacy individuals are unable to explore, consider and evaluate diverging ideals, and eventually reach new personal convictions which may in time turn the tide against the status quo. Instead, the fermentation of ideas is cut short, as most people are unable to stand the push-back inflicted on them by society at an early stage in their thought-process, leading to self-censorship and group-think. Society incurs much more damage from so many angles, ranging from murders to car accidents to diseases, that it does not need to jump in such abject terror at the thought of political violence - still a comparatively rare occurence in most places on this earth - so as to trample on the very foundation of every democracy: Which is the freedom of the individual in his own thoughts, to form his own personal opinions unimpeded by institutionalised social pressure. The mass-scale erosion of privacy must be stopped before it is too late to reverse the trend.

olefoo 12y ago
I would like to be optimistic, but I fear we are caught in the pull of a stable orbit in the political system. Plutocracy and Surveillance go hand in hand, and the more government falls to those who can afford it; the more surveillance there will be as the oligarchs attempt to defend their theft.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  If the people cared about this it could be stopped, but they don't care. Hell they think it is a swell idea to jail people for offensive tweets.
  - lmorris84 12y ago
    Agreed. I think many people would naturally recoil from "big brother government oversight" but see no issue using similar means to have people found and locked up for calling someone an unpleasant name on twitter.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    I'm not sure. Millions of people cared enough about the wars in Vietnam and Iraq to take to the streets in protest, but the wars couldn't be stopped until the military-industrial complex sated itself. I suspect the same will be true of privacy rights, both online and off. Governments are very, very good at paying lip service to democratic values while doing what they want behind closed doors.
lmorris84 12y ago
Without it, opinions opposed to the prevailing majority view point are not only side-lined, but the very expression of an interest in them becomes a cause for controversy and social rebuke. I think in many ways we're already there, but it's society as a whole causing this rather than government(s) specifically. Heaven forbid you have an opinion on (for example) gay marriage if that opinion is anything BUT full throated support. Look at what happened to Brendan Eich. We definitely need to resist government oversight, but the problem is much bigger than that IMHO.
- diyorgasms 12y ago
  While you should be allowed to express whatever viewpoint you have regarding gay marriage, I have yet to see an argument against which is not rooted in bigotry. Is your argument that people should be allowed to spew bigoted and hateful nonsense without facing any social repercussion whatsoever?
  - lmorris84 12y ago
    Well no, I'm saying society has become hyper-sensitive to anyone expressing a view that isn't fitting with the current trend. spew, bigoted, hateful - emotive words that illustrate my point exactly (as does the downvote). Even a discussion about a discussion about gay marriage is enough to incur wrath from some. My real argument would be that in many cases rational discussions should be possible without social justice warriors trampling all over freedom of speech.
  - alextgordon 12y ago
    Many (non-religious) gay people don't like gay marriage. I agree with the previous comment that the level of social pressure on the issue has reached ridiculous levels. You can't have a conversation about it without one of those awful social disclaimers "now I support gay marriage but..." tacked on to your opinion.
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      I don't like any form of marriage, gay or otherwise, but I like discrimination even less. There should be a heavy social cost associated with wearing certain opinions on one's sleeve... and there is, as Brendan Eich discovered. In short, this is exactly what social behavior is for: moving civilization forward as a whole. If people like Eich insist on being left behind, they have that right, but they don't have the right to drag the rest of us down with them.
nthcolumn 12y ago
Zuck was right. Privacy is dead. There is no such thing anymore. No true democracy without a free vote. In the EU, we have to click 'agree to cookies' on every site whilst every newborn's DNA is stored digitally. They're mocking us. It is irreversible. The genie is out. It's over.
- GunlogAlm 12y ago
  > every newborn's DNA is stored digitally What?
  - desdiv 12y ago
    He probably mixed up several facts: 1. This practice is not done anywhere in the EU AFAIK, only in the US. 2. Only the biological DNA sample is kept, not any digital version of it. It would obviously be cost-prohibitive to fully sequence the gnome of every single newborn baby. But other than that, he's right. DNA samples of every newborn baby in the US is indeed being kept by the government, indefinitely and without parental consent. https://www.aclu.org/free-speech-technology-and-liberty-womens-rights/newborn-dna-banking https://www.aclu.org/free-speech-technology-and-liberty-wome...
    - nthcolumn 12y ago
      Since when was cost a factor? Try storing everyones' phone calls! Each person can fit on a 750M CD. It may be true that they haven't gotten through sequencing them all yet. Genomics England and Illumina (US) are the contractors. PM David Cameron is particularly keen, recently gave them £300 million. He wants everyone tagged 'within a generation'. And yes you can all ignore me and downvote me because it makes no difference. UK, US, Australia all the same. With your DNA on file - you are an open book.
- b6dy 12y ago
  It's easy to hit the apathy button, but I think this is significantly more pessimistic than is warranted. "Zuck" made that statement as a person with significant financial interest, not as some wise Oracle. The statement is a general societal one, not a "will my IP address be logged" statement, which is a prediction that has fallen impressively flat on its face (as time passes much more of society is becoming privacy-aware, not less). And lastly, his purchasing of the houses surrounding his own shows he probably didn't believe it even then. > No true democracy without a free vote Who gives a shit, nothing is "true". Just push for democracy yourself and encourage others to do the same. > In the EU, we have to click 'agree to cookies' on every site whilst every newborn's DNA is stored digitally I wouldn't bet on either of these staying that way in 30 years time. > They're mocking us No they're not. Genuinely, most don't understand the issue, either technologically or socially. The ones you think are mocking you are either scared, looking after their own hind, or ideoligically think they're doing the right thing. No one has time to mock anyone. > It is irreversible. The genie is out. It's over. Completely ridiculous. Awareness will grow. Information is coming. Democracy will win out, even in the UK.
Taek 12y ago
This happens even when people do not realize it is happening to them. Self-censorship is not always a conscious process, and an increased ability to enforce the status quo means a decreased ability for people to even recognize that the status quo can be challenged. Without privacy, marijuana legalization would not be anywhere close to where it is today. Womens suffrage would have taken decades further. The American Revolution would have been stamped out. The ability to harbor unpopular opinions is essential to progress. And privacy is essential for that.
- vegedor 12y ago
  Ironically, your first paragraph applies in a recursive fashion to states and people as well. Sure, people are not at all comparable to states, but the principles are generally the same.
learnstats2 12y ago
> Strong guarantees of privacy are essential to enable political dissent. Sure. The established political class - in particular, the UK House of Lords - might not find political dissent desirable.

olefoo 12y ago

I would like to be optimistic, but I fear we are caught in the pull of a stable orbit in the political system. Plutocracy and Surveillance go hand in hand, and the more government falls to those who can afford it; the more surveillance there will be as the oligarchs attempt to defend their theft.

happyscrappy 12y ago
If the people cared about this it could be stopped, but they don't care. Hell they think it is a swell idea to jail people for offensive tweets.
- lmorris84 12y ago
  Agreed. I think many people would naturally recoil from "big brother government oversight" but see no issue using similar means to have people found and locked up for calling someone an unpleasant name on twitter.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  I'm not sure. Millions of people cared enough about the wars in Vietnam and Iraq to take to the streets in protest, but the wars couldn't be stopped until the military-industrial complex sated itself. I suspect the same will be true of privacy rights, both online and off. Governments are very, very good at paying lip service to democratic values while doing what they want behind closed doors.

lmorris84 12y ago

Without it, opinions opposed to the prevailing majority view point are not only side-lined, but the very expression of an interest in them becomes a cause for controversy and social rebuke. I think in many ways we're already there, but it's society as a whole causing this rather than government(s) specifically. Heaven forbid you have an opinion on (for example) gay marriage if that opinion is anything BUT full throated support. Look at what happened to Brendan Eich. We definitely need to resist government oversight, but the problem is much bigger than that IMHO.

diyorgasms 12y ago
While you should be allowed to express whatever viewpoint you have regarding gay marriage, I have yet to see an argument against which is not rooted in bigotry. Is your argument that people should be allowed to spew bigoted and hateful nonsense without facing any social repercussion whatsoever?
- lmorris84 12y ago
  Well no, I'm saying society has become hyper-sensitive to anyone expressing a view that isn't fitting with the current trend. spew, bigoted, hateful - emotive words that illustrate my point exactly (as does the downvote). Even a discussion about a discussion about gay marriage is enough to incur wrath from some. My real argument would be that in many cases rational discussions should be possible without social justice warriors trampling all over freedom of speech.
- alextgordon 12y ago
  Many (non-religious) gay people don't like gay marriage. I agree with the previous comment that the level of social pressure on the issue has reached ridiculous levels. You can't have a conversation about it without one of those awful social disclaimers "now I support gay marriage but..." tacked on to your opinion.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    I don't like any form of marriage, gay or otherwise, but I like discrimination even less. There should be a heavy social cost associated with wearing certain opinions on one's sleeve... and there is, as Brendan Eich discovered. In short, this is exactly what social behavior is for: moving civilization forward as a whole. If people like Eich insist on being left behind, they have that right, but they don't have the right to drag the rest of us down with them.

nthcolumn 12y ago

Zuck was right. Privacy is dead. There is no such thing anymore. No true democracy without a free vote. In the EU, we have to click 'agree to cookies' on every site whilst every newborn's DNA is stored digitally. They're mocking us. It is irreversible. The genie is out. It's over.

GunlogAlm 12y ago
> every newborn's DNA is stored digitally What?
- desdiv 12y ago
  He probably mixed up several facts: 1. This practice is not done anywhere in the EU AFAIK, only in the US. 2. Only the biological DNA sample is kept, not any digital version of it. It would obviously be cost-prohibitive to fully sequence the gnome of every single newborn baby. But other than that, he's right. DNA samples of every newborn baby in the US is indeed being kept by the government, indefinitely and without parental consent. https://www.aclu.org/free-speech-technology-and-liberty-womens-rights/newborn-dna-banking https://www.aclu.org/free-speech-technology-and-liberty-wome...
  - nthcolumn 12y ago
    Since when was cost a factor? Try storing everyones' phone calls! Each person can fit on a 750M CD. It may be true that they haven't gotten through sequencing them all yet. Genomics England and Illumina (US) are the contractors. PM David Cameron is particularly keen, recently gave them £300 million. He wants everyone tagged 'within a generation'. And yes you can all ignore me and downvote me because it makes no difference. UK, US, Australia all the same. With your DNA on file - you are an open book.
b6dy 12y ago
It's easy to hit the apathy button, but I think this is significantly more pessimistic than is warranted. "Zuck" made that statement as a person with significant financial interest, not as some wise Oracle. The statement is a general societal one, not a "will my IP address be logged" statement, which is a prediction that has fallen impressively flat on its face (as time passes much more of society is becoming privacy-aware, not less). And lastly, his purchasing of the houses surrounding his own shows he probably didn't believe it even then. > No true democracy without a free vote Who gives a shit, nothing is "true". Just push for democracy yourself and encourage others to do the same. > In the EU, we have to click 'agree to cookies' on every site whilst every newborn's DNA is stored digitally I wouldn't bet on either of these staying that way in 30 years time. > They're mocking us No they're not. Genuinely, most don't understand the issue, either technologically or socially. The ones you think are mocking you are either scared, looking after their own hind, or ideoligically think they're doing the right thing. No one has time to mock anyone. > It is irreversible. The genie is out. It's over. Completely ridiculous. Awareness will grow. Information is coming. Democracy will win out, even in the UK.

Taek 12y ago

This happens even when people do not realize it is happening to them. Self-censorship is not always a conscious process, and an increased ability to enforce the status quo means a decreased ability for people to even recognize that the status quo can be challenged. Without privacy, marijuana legalization would not be anywhere close to where it is today. Womens suffrage would have taken decades further. The American Revolution would have been stamped out. The ability to harbor unpopular opinions is essential to progress. And privacy is essential for that.

vegedor 12y ago
Ironically, your first paragraph applies in a recursive fashion to states and people as well. Sure, people are not at all comparable to states, but the principles are generally the same.

learnstats2 12y ago

> Strong guarantees of privacy are essential to enable political dissent. Sure. The established political class - in particular, the UK House of Lords - might not find political dissent desirable.