4 ms·

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 o

by 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.

by netcan 17y ago

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.