5 ms·

What a fantastic last paragraph. Something from the original essay that was left out: "A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to th

What a fantastic last paragraph. Something from the original essay that was left out: "A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call out privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of their being and their cause. Of course being watched in your own home was unreasonable. Watching at all was an act so unseemly as to be inconceivable among gentlemen in their day. You watched convicted criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It's intrinsic to the concept of liberty." Foucault argued that the very act of being watched was dehumanizing. Google shouldn't watch us because it violates our rights, but because it's evil.

csallen 17y ago
Why is being watched evil? EDIT: I hear this claim all the time on the internet: Collecting data is evil. So please, go beyond the claim, and give me an explanation. Why is knowledge about people inherently evil? EDIT 2: I know you're not supposed to complain about downmodding, but this comment has been downmodded four times. If you disagree so vehemently, then try defending your position rather than censoring me :)
- netcan 17y ago
  If something is 'inherent' it cannot be explained further almost by definition. I think this is what that paragraph is claiming. It is claiming that invasion of privacy is evil in the way that hurting people is inherently evil. You do not call on someone to explain why hurting people is evil. It is calling on you to accept that invasion of privacy is just evil.
  - csallen 17y ago
    I think the point of contention here is the definition of "invasion of privacy." (The op didn't mention this term by the way, he just said "watched".) Anyone would agree that having their privacy invaded is bad, but you can talk to 10 different people and get 10 different opinions on what constitutes an invasion. What I want someone to do is justify their claim, point by point, that what Google does with information is an outright invasion of privacy.
    - netcan 17y ago
      You're right. Asking you to accept anything as inherent is a big deal. If you do, you should have privacy pretty well defined. I think that the problem is that private vs public is often a question of expectations. People know that when you sit in your car people can see you & when you site in your house people usually can't. If you become viewable (public) while in your house it feels like an "invasion" whether it is malicious (telescope) or not (neighbour's new attic window). When we talk about privacy in complicated, non obvious & changing circumstances, people constantly feel invaded because they find out that they might be in public when they thought they where in private. I think that invasion of privacy is mostly about knowing where you are at any given time & having private as an option.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    The word Inherent is, I believe, extremely dangerous to use here because it can easily be attacked. (For example in your statement about hurting people it is fairly easy to argue that hurting someone might not be inherently evil in plenty of circumstances). Ultimately, though, your example highlights the main problem: hurt is poorly defined. Hurt could mean anything from dumping them through to outright torture and everything in between. Hence here is my worry in the privacy debate: I think everyone has a huge variation in what they class as privacy and how they feel it is being invaded. As a result we end up with lots of mixed up opinions - and, I worry, the risk that really serious invasions of privacy are passing us by. I feel like we should be talking about it a lot more from a perspective of; ok these guys want to know about us, so can we sit and discuss how they can do that transparently and in ways that make us comfortable. At the moment I get this odd feeling it is turning into a 3 way combat between consumers, companies (who want data to use to make money: either ethically or unethically) and government who want it for a variety of reasons. The government thing is the most worrying aspect. Im slightly biased because I count, really, as a consumer of private information - I "invade" peoples computers daily. I have only seen it ever done ethically but there is always the serious worry that someone could play the system or could be using it for their own ends. In the future that risk is only going to get worse; and when you add in the fact that once beurocrats get involved the data is even more at risk from outside attack it is a worrying problem. How do we fix this? Completely no idea yet. But I do think blaming Google is a bad move; because they have stood up for our data in the past (publicly)... and perhaps it is not too late to get them fully onside?
    - netcan 17y ago
      Just because something is inherently evil (evil isn't the best word for use in utilitarian arguments, Jeremy Bentham uses pleasure & pain) doesn't mean you should never do it. If you take hurt as being inherently bad, you could argue that it is ok to do some bad to prevent other bad or cause good (Bentham again). Besides that, I agree with you on everything else. If we are going to call invasion of privacy evil "just because," we should define it pretty soundly. If we try to define it, I think we find that it's mostly about expectations, so making some clear rules/agreements is important. Se my comment upthread from here.
  - dejb 17y ago
    This is exactly the problem. By saying something is 'inherent' you are essentially saying that there can be no debate on the issue. I believe that the whole notion of 'privacy' is actually a learned social construct, not something inborn like physical pain.
    - zmimon 17y ago
      > I believe that the whole notion of 'privacy' is actually a learned social construct I, and many others, including Schneier think you are wrong. Privacy is a basic human need, a fundamental part of our psychology that is as deeply entrenched as all our other basic needs and emotions. We are not whole, happy, fulfilled human beings without it. I guess one can debate whether this fits the definition of "inherent" or not. But I don't think it's necessary to pursue it beyond this point because it doesn't really matter - once something is a basic human need, taking it away from them is wrong.
      - dejb 17y ago
        > Privacy is a basic human need, a fundamental part of our psychology that is as deeply entrenched as all our other basic needs and emotions. That is an assumption not an argument. Can you reference any studies or data to support your position? The only place to find evidence I can think of would be to look at different cultures with differing level of privacy to see what inherent 'needs' there might be and what the results were in terms of people's mental well being. Totalitarian societies would not be a good example as they actually rely far more of secrecy than more open societies. I would argue (without data I admit) that the desire for privacy is actually caused by the desire to avoid punishment, ridicule and/or social exclusion. If these could be avoided then I don't believe there would be much of a 'need' for privacy.
        zmimon 17y ago
        > I would argue (without data I admit) that the desire for privacy is actually caused by the desire to avoid punishment, ridicule and/or social exclusion. If these could be avoided then I don't believe there would be much of a 'need' for privacy. I think you deconstruct things far too much. If you removed all those things from society right now people would still "need" privacy because we have been programmed by thousands or millions of years of evolution to need it. We don't need it on a rational basis (although there are plenty of rational arguments one can make for needing it), we need it because our brains evolved that way and we're stuck with it. If you find a culture that has no privacy and no compensatory substitute for it then I'll readily grant that people in that society don't need privacy and we can qualify "basic human need" to something slightly more constrained. But it won't change the fact that we are stuck in a situation where the vast majority of human beings DO need privacy and it is wrong to take it away from them.
- mquander 17y ago
  I really object to people collecting data about me without my consent, because I value my ability to lie and misrepresent myself when it serves my purposes. I think that's an important part of human freedom, and taking it away is evil.
  - netcan 17y ago
    You could say that people collect data about you without your consent constantly. When someone says "mquander would hate that!" they are using a mental model of you that was built using data collected without your consent.
    - ismarc 17y ago
      Any behavior or opinions they expressed, true or otherwise, would have built that mental model, and thus with implied consent by providing the information to them. If you provide information to someone, you are giving them consent to collect that data. The retention and use may be implied or explicit. Such as, if I told you "My luggage combination is 12345", I have consented to you collecting that information. There may be an implied expectation of you using, or not using that combination. The key thing to understand about what is being discussed is that this is all with regards to an expectation of privacy. Such as, I buy product X and store Y every Friday. I have a reasonable expectation that store Y will not tell anyone that asks that I buy product X, or that I buy something every Friday, or that I buy product X every Friday. This expectation of privacy is after having entrusted company Y with that information. An employee at company Y could suggest product Z to me, having seen me purchasing product X repeatedly. This is not an invasion of privacy as the information collected was with consent (I provided it to them), however, it may be a misuse of information collected, depending on any standing agreements. However, if served with a subpeona, I should have no expectation of company Y withholding information, just as I have no expectation of preventing a search of my home if I was presented with a search warrant (providing the subpeona and warrant provide in them the necessary scope).
  - csallen 17y ago
    Okay fair enough, let's assume that lying and misrepresentation are good things. So, how can Google be responsible for preventing your ability to lie or misrepresent yourself in a way that's not entirely within your power to prevent?
- neva 17y ago
  Going even further with your question, what's so wrong with Patriot Act when it's there to ultimately protect us? If there is information in one of our gmail accounts that can help to unveil the plans of an imminent terrorist attack that could potentially kill hundreds, would you not compromise 'privacy'? Where do you draw the line?
- Quarrelsome 17y ago
  It's not the knowledge, it's the power. Access to intermate knowledge about people by a radical political party using a hate plank to get into power would be death to those at the other end of the plank. Search queries are pretty intermate knowledge. Who else has searched the anarchist's cookbook or DeCSS?
- altacct 17y ago
  Going even further with your question, what's so wrong with Patriot Act when it's there to ultimately protect us? If there is information in one of our gmail accounts that can help to unveil the plans of an imminent terrorist attack that could potentially kill hundreds, would you not compromise 'privacy'? Where do you draw the line?
- jongraehl 17y ago
  Being watched wouldn't be evil; watching would be.
- simanyay 17y ago
  Because you can't implicitly trust system/people who are watching you. Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?
  - dejb 17y ago
    > Who will watch the watchers? It would certainly be possible to have a situation where everybody is able to watch everybody else. Would that also be evil? Or is it just the asymmetry of access to information that is evil in your view?
    - simanyay 17y ago
      A situation where everybody is able to watch everybody else is an utopia (or dystopia, depends on your point of view). I don't really think it is possible and I am not sure I would like it if it is. Also let me clarify that I am not saying that Google has an evil plan to become a Big Brother and the aforementioned quote is not about that. My questions are (feel free to replace Google with any other company that collects information or even the government): A. How many googlers have access to my information? B. Am I sure that all those who have access are trustworthy? C. Am I sure that some ex-googler will not leak a big chunk of data just to get back at the company? And answers are always: A. I don't know; B. No; C No.
- maudineormsby 17y ago
  To reply to csallen's question about why being watched is evil - these answers are in part elsewhere in the discussion that's gone on about my comment already, but bear repeating. 1) It's not being watched that's evil. It's watching - my argument is that being watched consistently has negative effects on a person. 2) I haven't said that collecting data is evil - by all means collect data. Data about a specific person or tied to a specific person on the other hand, is a mode of control of a person, whether or not there is intent to control the person with the data. This fact, while not empirical, is reflected in the literature about humanity. Foucault, as I already mentioned, wrote extensively about the modes of security that a nation employs (note that security is a technical term that Foucault has defined to mean the ways that an entity in power may maintain that power, roughly). One such way is surveillance of the citizenry. Another is through spectacle (drawing and quartering). He argues that as a society, we've switched to a disciple/rehabilitation focused system of control. If you want to read more on this, see his work "Discipline and Punish". Even fiction authors have found it fit to point out the control one possesses over another when they know things about someone. In "The Wizard of Earthsea" series, for example, knowing someone or something's name gives you power over it - and not just because of a mystical quality to a name. By the time the series is over, LeGuin has made her point that the name of a thing allows you to control it in part; at least make requests or commands of it, whereas when you did not know it's name you had no such power. I could write a dissertation on this (and in fact, I did), but there's no point. I just figured that a question deserved a response. I'd love to hear if some disagree with me on this and why. Always love a discussion on Foucault.
  - dejb 17y ago
    > This fact, while not empirical, is reflected in the literature about humanity. It seems to me that when you compare what is happening in reality to the 'literature about humanity' they are very different. People are increasingly comfortable with allowing information about them collected and made public online. They are often prepared to give up significant aspects of their privacy for the slightest additional convenience. Check out Google Latitude or Rescuetime for some extreme examples. I fully expect this trend to continue to the point where significant chunks of people's life experience will be stored online. I'm not sure what humanist literature will have to say about this. If you have an interest in where the world is headed with regards to issues like these you would be better to read some good transhumanist literature instead.
karzeem 17y ago
It's a bit facile to say that it's evil for Google to watch us. Yes, a company can abuse the data in its possession, and yes, all that data in one place makes the government lick its lips in anticipation. But don't forget, Google does a lot of wonderful things. Millions (billions?) of people's lives are enriched by Google's products, and most of those people (certainly those of us on HN) know that Google needs some information about us in order to deliver the things it delivers. The startups that will change the world in the next decade or two are likely to be built with the help of things Google makes — and which Google cannot make as well without some personal data about its users. So yes, companies now know more about you than they did 20 years ago, and we should certainly note the dangers of that. But don't ignore the huge value of what you get in return.
dejb 17y ago
> Foucault argued that the very act of being watched was dehumanizing. Was any data involved in his 'studies'? Was 'dehumanising' somehow defined independently? I suspect his arguments are more philosophical musing relying on circular logic, unstated assumptions and social norms, rather like pretty much everything I seem to read from Schneier. I'm sure they sound rather clever but do they really amount to much more than a circle jerk? One could just as easily argue that 'need for privacy' is just a learned social construct.
- maudineormsby 17y ago
  Yes, there was data involved in his studies. It sounds like you don't value philosophical knowledge - to that end I won't endeavor to persuade you of it's merit. I would advise you to read his work before you criticize it.
  - dejb 17y ago
    > It sounds like you don't value philosophical knowledge I value knowledge based on data and where that is not available, philosophical reasoning. I see 'philosophical knowledge' as somewhat of a contradiction in terms. However I don't see how there can be a point in trying to demonstrate that something is 'dehumanizing' without even properly defining what the term means. It seems to be a recipe for pages of word games rather than any useful philosophical reasoning. > to that end I won't endeavor to persuade you of it's merit. I would advise you to read his work before you criticize it. Could you at least provide the name of work that the quote comes from? Despite my pessimism I'm prepared to at least look at some of his work.
    - maudineormsby 17y ago
      I would look at "Discipline and Punish" and "The History of Sexuality".

csallen 17y ago

Why is being watched evil? EDIT: I hear this claim all the time on the internet: Collecting data is evil. So please, go beyond the claim, and give me an explanation. Why is knowledge about people inherently evil? EDIT 2: I know you're not supposed to complain about downmodding, but this comment has been downmodded four times. If you disagree so vehemently, then try defending your position rather than censoring me :)

netcan 17y ago
If something is 'inherent' it cannot be explained further almost by definition. I think this is what that paragraph is claiming. It is claiming that invasion of privacy is evil in the way that hurting people is inherently evil. You do not call on someone to explain why hurting people is evil. It is calling on you to accept that invasion of privacy is just evil.
- csallen 17y ago
  I think the point of contention here is the definition of "invasion of privacy." (The op didn't mention this term by the way, he just said "watched".) Anyone would agree that having their privacy invaded is bad, but you can talk to 10 different people and get 10 different opinions on what constitutes an invasion. What I want someone to do is justify their claim, point by point, that what Google does with information is an outright invasion of privacy.
  - netcan 17y ago
    You're right. Asking you to accept anything as inherent is a big deal. If you do, you should have privacy pretty well defined. I think that the problem is that private vs public is often a question of expectations. People know that when you sit in your car people can see you & when you site in your house people usually can't. If you become viewable (public) while in your house it feels like an "invasion" whether it is malicious (telescope) or not (neighbour's new attic window). When we talk about privacy in complicated, non obvious & changing circumstances, people constantly feel invaded because they find out that they might be in public when they thought they where in private. I think that invasion of privacy is mostly about knowing where you are at any given time & having private as an option.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  The word Inherent is, I believe, extremely dangerous to use here because it can easily be attacked. (For example in your statement about hurting people it is fairly easy to argue that hurting someone might not be inherently evil in plenty of circumstances). Ultimately, though, your example highlights the main problem: hurt is poorly defined. Hurt could mean anything from dumping them through to outright torture and everything in between. Hence here is my worry in the privacy debate: I think everyone has a huge variation in what they class as privacy and how they feel it is being invaded. As a result we end up with lots of mixed up opinions - and, I worry, the risk that really serious invasions of privacy are passing us by. I feel like we should be talking about it a lot more from a perspective of; ok these guys want to know about us, so can we sit and discuss how they can do that transparently and in ways that make us comfortable. At the moment I get this odd feeling it is turning into a 3 way combat between consumers, companies (who want data to use to make money: either ethically or unethically) and government who want it for a variety of reasons. The government thing is the most worrying aspect. Im slightly biased because I count, really, as a consumer of private information - I "invade" peoples computers daily. I have only seen it ever done ethically but there is always the serious worry that someone could play the system or could be using it for their own ends. In the future that risk is only going to get worse; and when you add in the fact that once beurocrats get involved the data is even more at risk from outside attack it is a worrying problem. How do we fix this? Completely no idea yet. But I do think blaming Google is a bad move; because they have stood up for our data in the past (publicly)... and perhaps it is not too late to get them fully onside?
  - netcan 17y ago
    Just because something is inherently evil (evil isn't the best word for use in utilitarian arguments, Jeremy Bentham uses pleasure & pain) doesn't mean you should never do it. If you take hurt as being inherently bad, you could argue that it is ok to do some bad to prevent other bad or cause good (Bentham again). Besides that, I agree with you on everything else. If we are going to call invasion of privacy evil "just because," we should define it pretty soundly. If we try to define it, I think we find that it's mostly about expectations, so making some clear rules/agreements is important. Se my comment upthread from here.
- dejb 17y ago
  This is exactly the problem. By saying something is 'inherent' you are essentially saying that there can be no debate on the issue. I believe that the whole notion of 'privacy' is actually a learned social construct, not something inborn like physical pain.
  - zmimon 17y ago
    > I believe that the whole notion of 'privacy' is actually a learned social construct I, and many others, including Schneier think you are wrong. Privacy is a basic human need, a fundamental part of our psychology that is as deeply entrenched as all our other basic needs and emotions. We are not whole, happy, fulfilled human beings without it. I guess one can debate whether this fits the definition of "inherent" or not. But I don't think it's necessary to pursue it beyond this point because it doesn't really matter - once something is a basic human need, taking it away from them is wrong.
    - dejb 17y ago
      > Privacy is a basic human need, a fundamental part of our psychology that is as deeply entrenched as all our other basic needs and emotions. That is an assumption not an argument. Can you reference any studies or data to support your position? The only place to find evidence I can think of would be to look at different cultures with differing level of privacy to see what inherent 'needs' there might be and what the results were in terms of people's mental well being. Totalitarian societies would not be a good example as they actually rely far more of secrecy than more open societies. I would argue (without data I admit) that the desire for privacy is actually caused by the desire to avoid punishment, ridicule and/or social exclusion. If these could be avoided then I don't believe there would be much of a 'need' for privacy.
      - zmimon 17y ago
        > I would argue (without data I admit) that the desire for privacy is actually caused by the desire to avoid punishment, ridicule and/or social exclusion. If these could be avoided then I don't believe there would be much of a 'need' for privacy. I think you deconstruct things far too much. If you removed all those things from society right now people would still "need" privacy because we have been programmed by thousands or millions of years of evolution to need it. We don't need it on a rational basis (although there are plenty of rational arguments one can make for needing it), we need it because our brains evolved that way and we're stuck with it. If you find a culture that has no privacy and no compensatory substitute for it then I'll readily grant that people in that society don't need privacy and we can qualify "basic human need" to something slightly more constrained. But it won't change the fact that we are stuck in a situation where the vast majority of human beings DO need privacy and it is wrong to take it away from them.
mquander 17y ago
I really object to people collecting data about me without my consent, because I value my ability to lie and misrepresent myself when it serves my purposes. I think that's an important part of human freedom, and taking it away is evil.
- netcan 17y ago
  You could say that people collect data about you without your consent constantly. When someone says "mquander would hate that!" they are using a mental model of you that was built using data collected without your consent.
  - ismarc 17y ago
    Any behavior or opinions they expressed, true or otherwise, would have built that mental model, and thus with implied consent by providing the information to them. If you provide information to someone, you are giving them consent to collect that data. The retention and use may be implied or explicit. Such as, if I told you "My luggage combination is 12345", I have consented to you collecting that information. There may be an implied expectation of you using, or not using that combination. The key thing to understand about what is being discussed is that this is all with regards to an expectation of privacy. Such as, I buy product X and store Y every Friday. I have a reasonable expectation that store Y will not tell anyone that asks that I buy product X, or that I buy something every Friday, or that I buy product X every Friday. This expectation of privacy is after having entrusted company Y with that information. An employee at company Y could suggest product Z to me, having seen me purchasing product X repeatedly. This is not an invasion of privacy as the information collected was with consent (I provided it to them), however, it may be a misuse of information collected, depending on any standing agreements. However, if served with a subpeona, I should have no expectation of company Y withholding information, just as I have no expectation of preventing a search of my home if I was presented with a search warrant (providing the subpeona and warrant provide in them the necessary scope).
- csallen 17y ago
  Okay fair enough, let's assume that lying and misrepresentation are good things. So, how can Google be responsible for preventing your ability to lie or misrepresent yourself in a way that's not entirely within your power to prevent?
neva 17y ago
Going even further with your question, what's so wrong with Patriot Act when it's there to ultimately protect us? If there is information in one of our gmail accounts that can help to unveil the plans of an imminent terrorist attack that could potentially kill hundreds, would you not compromise 'privacy'? Where do you draw the line?
Quarrelsome 17y ago
It's not the knowledge, it's the power. Access to intermate knowledge about people by a radical political party using a hate plank to get into power would be death to those at the other end of the plank. Search queries are pretty intermate knowledge. Who else has searched the anarchist's cookbook or DeCSS?
altacct 17y ago
Going even further with your question, what's so wrong with Patriot Act when it's there to ultimately protect us? If there is information in one of our gmail accounts that can help to unveil the plans of an imminent terrorist attack that could potentially kill hundreds, would you not compromise 'privacy'? Where do you draw the line?
jongraehl 17y ago
Being watched wouldn't be evil; watching would be.
simanyay 17y ago
Because you can't implicitly trust system/people who are watching you. Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?
- dejb 17y ago
  > Who will watch the watchers? It would certainly be possible to have a situation where everybody is able to watch everybody else. Would that also be evil? Or is it just the asymmetry of access to information that is evil in your view?
  - simanyay 17y ago
    A situation where everybody is able to watch everybody else is an utopia (or dystopia, depends on your point of view). I don't really think it is possible and I am not sure I would like it if it is. Also let me clarify that I am not saying that Google has an evil plan to become a Big Brother and the aforementioned quote is not about that. My questions are (feel free to replace Google with any other company that collects information or even the government): A. How many googlers have access to my information? B. Am I sure that all those who have access are trustworthy? C. Am I sure that some ex-googler will not leak a big chunk of data just to get back at the company? And answers are always: A. I don't know; B. No; C No.
maudineormsby 17y ago
To reply to csallen's question about why being watched is evil - these answers are in part elsewhere in the discussion that's gone on about my comment already, but bear repeating. 1) It's not being watched that's evil. It's watching - my argument is that being watched consistently has negative effects on a person. 2) I haven't said that collecting data is evil - by all means collect data. Data about a specific person or tied to a specific person on the other hand, is a mode of control of a person, whether or not there is intent to control the person with the data. This fact, while not empirical, is reflected in the literature about humanity. Foucault, as I already mentioned, wrote extensively about the modes of security that a nation employs (note that security is a technical term that Foucault has defined to mean the ways that an entity in power may maintain that power, roughly). One such way is surveillance of the citizenry. Another is through spectacle (drawing and quartering). He argues that as a society, we've switched to a disciple/rehabilitation focused system of control. If you want to read more on this, see his work "Discipline and Punish". Even fiction authors have found it fit to point out the control one possesses over another when they know things about someone. In "The Wizard of Earthsea" series, for example, knowing someone or something's name gives you power over it - and not just because of a mystical quality to a name. By the time the series is over, LeGuin has made her point that the name of a thing allows you to control it in part; at least make requests or commands of it, whereas when you did not know it's name you had no such power. I could write a dissertation on this (and in fact, I did), but there's no point. I just figured that a question deserved a response. I'd love to hear if some disagree with me on this and why. Always love a discussion on Foucault.
- dejb 17y ago
  > This fact, while not empirical, is reflected in the literature about humanity. It seems to me that when you compare what is happening in reality to the 'literature about humanity' they are very different. People are increasingly comfortable with allowing information about them collected and made public online. They are often prepared to give up significant aspects of their privacy for the slightest additional convenience. Check out Google Latitude or Rescuetime for some extreme examples. I fully expect this trend to continue to the point where significant chunks of people's life experience will be stored online. I'm not sure what humanist literature will have to say about this. If you have an interest in where the world is headed with regards to issues like these you would be better to read some good transhumanist literature instead.

karzeem 17y ago

It's a bit facile to say that it's evil for Google to watch us. Yes, a company can abuse the data in its possession, and yes, all that data in one place makes the government lick its lips in anticipation. But don't forget, Google does a lot of wonderful things. Millions (billions?) of people's lives are enriched by Google's products, and most of those people (certainly those of us on HN) know that Google needs some information about us in order to deliver the things it delivers. The startups that will change the world in the next decade or two are likely to be built with the help of things Google makes — and which Google cannot make as well without some personal data about its users. So yes, companies now know more about you than they did 20 years ago, and we should certainly note the dangers of that. But don't ignore the huge value of what you get in return.

dejb 17y ago

> Foucault argued that the very act of being watched was dehumanizing. Was any data involved in his 'studies'? Was 'dehumanising' somehow defined independently? I suspect his arguments are more philosophical musing relying on circular logic, unstated assumptions and social norms, rather like pretty much everything I seem to read from Schneier. I'm sure they sound rather clever but do they really amount to much more than a circle jerk? One could just as easily argue that 'need for privacy' is just a learned social construct.

maudineormsby 17y ago
Yes, there was data involved in his studies. It sounds like you don't value philosophical knowledge - to that end I won't endeavor to persuade you of it's merit. I would advise you to read his work before you criticize it.
- dejb 17y ago
  > It sounds like you don't value philosophical knowledge I value knowledge based on data and where that is not available, philosophical reasoning. I see 'philosophical knowledge' as somewhat of a contradiction in terms. However I don't see how there can be a point in trying to demonstrate that something is 'dehumanizing' without even properly defining what the term means. It seems to be a recipe for pages of word games rather than any useful philosophical reasoning. > to that end I won't endeavor to persuade you of it's merit. I would advise you to read his work before you criticize it. Could you at least provide the name of work that the quote comes from? Despite my pessimism I'm prepared to at least look at some of his work.
  - maudineormsby 17y ago
    I would look at "Discipline and Punish" and "The History of Sexuality".