4 ms·

Privacy is not secrecy. It's not a secret what I do when I go to the toilet. However, I do want my privacy when I'm in there. Understand the difference?

TeMPOraL 12y ago
I do. Though I think it's something curable by rejection therapy, given by the popularity of urinals in public places. Anyway, I keep thinking about a different but related thing. Are you, or were you ever religious? A lot of people are, and probably majority were in the past. Pretty much every mainstream religion teaches that there is an all-seeing god who watches you all the time. And that includes being watched while in toilet. Or while in bed with your spouse. So I wonder - if people were used to be watched by an omnipotent god, how is that different from being watched by omnipotent cloud? For the record, I haven't in any way made my mind about the issue. I am just exploring the concept that maybe we don't need as much privacy as most think we need, and maybe it would be better for the whole mankind to limit those expectations.
- notahacker 12y ago
  > if people were used to be watched by an omnipotent god, how is that different from being watched by omnipotent cloud? That's an interesting meta point which is much wider than this discussion (it also encompasses PRISM etc) But plenty of us don't believe in the omnipotent God, and most of those that do don't expect Him to adversely affect their every day life by forwarding on their browsing history to their spouse, the local newspaper or the police.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    > That's an interesting meta point which is much wider than this discussion (it also encompasses PRISM etc) Fair enough, though I don't think I ever saw that meta point being touched in any of the discussions about recent privacy issues, and I wish it had - it seems to be important for the future of mankind. > most of those that do don't expect Him to adversely affect their every day life To be honest, a lot of the stuff we want to be "private" about probably wouldn't adversely affect our daily lives as well. For instance, if I were to be discriminated by my employer for being a Trekkie (because everyone who cares can know everyone elses fandom affiliations), that employer would be doing himself a big disservice by dismissing potentially good people because of irrelevant criteria and will be outcompeted by one who doesn't discriminate (unless he wants to create a Star Wars-oriented workplace to improve cohesion and morale; let the market decide then if this actually makes sense). The only big objection I can see is with insurance - while on the one hand I'd be totally fine for insurance companies to bill people by their risky behaviour, it would have nasty consequences for health-related policies; having access to medical data makes insurance more expensive for people who need it the most. But I suppose there could be workarounds.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

I do. Though I think it's something curable by rejection therapy, given by the popularity of urinals in public places. Anyway, I keep thinking about a different but related thing. Are you, or were you ever religious? A lot of people are, and probably majority were in the past. Pretty much every mainstream religion teaches that there is an all-seeing god who watches you all the time. And that includes being watched while in toilet. Or while in bed with your spouse. So I wonder - if people were used to be watched by an omnipotent god, how is that different from being watched by omnipotent cloud? For the record, I haven't in any way made my mind about the issue. I am just exploring the concept that maybe we don't need as much privacy as most think we need, and maybe it would be better for the whole mankind to limit those expectations.

notahacker 12y ago
> if people were used to be watched by an omnipotent god, how is that different from being watched by omnipotent cloud? That's an interesting meta point which is much wider than this discussion (it also encompasses PRISM etc) But plenty of us don't believe in the omnipotent God, and most of those that do don't expect Him to adversely affect their every day life by forwarding on their browsing history to their spouse, the local newspaper or the police.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  > That's an interesting meta point which is much wider than this discussion (it also encompasses PRISM etc) Fair enough, though I don't think I ever saw that meta point being touched in any of the discussions about recent privacy issues, and I wish it had - it seems to be important for the future of mankind. > most of those that do don't expect Him to adversely affect their every day life To be honest, a lot of the stuff we want to be "private" about probably wouldn't adversely affect our daily lives as well. For instance, if I were to be discriminated by my employer for being a Trekkie (because everyone who cares can know everyone elses fandom affiliations), that employer would be doing himself a big disservice by dismissing potentially good people because of irrelevant criteria and will be outcompeted by one who doesn't discriminate (unless he wants to create a Star Wars-oriented workplace to improve cohesion and morale; let the market decide then if this actually makes sense). The only big objection I can see is with insurance - while on the one hand I'd be totally fine for insurance companies to bill people by their risky behaviour, it would have nasty consequences for health-related policies; having access to medical data makes insurance more expensive for people who need it the most. But I suppose there could be workarounds.