>I don't think that means we don't need privacy. It absolutely has value.
I never heard any convincing argument about why privacy has value.
>but that doesn't mean we should allow everything to be collected.
Why ?
I never heard any convincing argument about why privacy has value.
>but that doesn't mean we should allow everything to be collected.
Why ?
You have either _never_ had to keep a secret (which I highly doubt, unless you happen to be a literal child) or you simply aren't arguing in good faith.
Assuming that you are arguing in good faith, let's consider a potential reason why someone might value their privacy:
Some people are born attracted to the same-sex (gay, lesbian, bi, pan, etc.).
There are some countries where being gay is a criminal offense; there are even some countries where you can face the death penalty for this. [1]
If a gay person lives in one of those countries, don't they have a right to keep this fact about themselves private simply in order to protect themselves? Or does their life have less value than the profit that can be generated by the "Data Economy"?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_homosex...
Privacy provides a fundemental protection from persecution by your government. This is precisely why the constitution includes specific privacy protections.
So while we should fight governments that persecute homosexuality, we also need to protect at least some aspects of privacy to keep protections for the next persecuted group.
Should we avoid preventing further damage that the domestic company is doing? Or should we limit ourselves to dealing with the issue diplomatically, and not do anything else for fear of "looking at the wrong problem"?
I don't understand why you'd seriously suggest that reducing the likelihood of known harm (by ensuring some level of privacy) is the wrong thing to think about when it doesn't prevent other actions from being taken too. It's possible for groups of people to do different things at the same time, after all.
Ultimately, your argument will never result in a situation where privacy is taken seriously because you could substitute in any issue and your conclusion could just as easily be that "better privacy is looking at the wrong problem."
So that is the actual problem, not the privacy.
Without those gatherings, organizing against anti-gay propaganda (equating it to pedophilia, claiming it would be the downfall of civilization, etc.) would have been impossible and it's unlikely that the laws criminalizing homosexuality would have ever been changed.
If you kill privacy then you'll also kill the ability of marginalized groups to organize against any future oppression.
I doubt you actually believe that privacy doesn't matter however, because you're posting here under a pseudonym and haven't linked any social media accounts or anything which could reveal "private" details like your full legal name, place of residence/work, etc.
Impossible is a really strong word. I'm not saying that its going to be easy but I doubt that its impossible. That's my point lets spend the effort to figure out/solve this problem instead of trying to hide information.
>I doubt you actually believe that privacy doesn't matter however, because you're posting here under a pseudonym and haven't linked any social media accounts or anything which could reveal "private" details like your full legal name, place of residence/work, etc.
I would love to have everything for everyone to be public so that I don't have to worry about hiding those information. The problem is right now I can't. That's why I'm advocating we spent the effort on solving the problem that arise when the information is public rather than trying to hide information.
Likewise, if I'm gay I would much much prefer to have gay to be decriminalized rather than hiding my sexual orientation.
So you're willing to concede that people being unable to make the choice to keep something about themselves private will make it harder for them to promote their own rights? Can you understand how a lack of the ability to have private conversations, relationships, etc. could cause serious problems for some people?
Because earlier in the thread you said: "I never heard any convincing argument about why privacy has value." but now you are seem to be implying that privacy actually does have value to some people, correct?
> That's why I'm advocating we spent the effort on solving the problem that arise when the information is public rather than trying to hide information.
That would be a reasonable statement if you weren't also earlier criticizing the concept of privacy and stating that it had no value. You can choose to reject the idea that people should have individual privacy and try to push for a world where people didn't feel that they had to keep secrets, but you'd need to fix all the systemic issues before you could ethically promote the sort of radical transparency that you're talking about.
Trying to claim that privacy doesn't matter because it'd "be better if everything was public" without first addressing these other issues is terribly callous and could only seek to increase the amount of trauma in the world.
Yes it could cause serious problem but not the privacy itself that the problem, its other people using it to harm other people is the problem.
My conversation being public by itself is not a problem, the problem is when people use it to harm me.
>but now you are seem to be implying that privacy actually does have value to some people, correct?
In any case its not the privacy itself that has value.
So is it OK to advocate for the destruction of people's privacy in this situation or not?
If it is, then you're admitting that you just don't care about the harm that could occur (and trying to minimize the responsibility you'd have by hand-waving the issue as being "other people")
If it is not OK to destroy people's privacy in this situation, then your entire argument about how the coerced loss of privacy isn't a problem is contradictory.
No, to minimize harm is my eventual goal.
There are multiple way to achieve that.
You can try to by privacy or by fixing the actual issue.
I would much prefer the actual issue to be fixed.
When you fix the actual problem, the privacy become irrelevant.
>If it is not OK to destroy people's privacy in this situation, then your entire argument about how the coerced loss of privacy isn't a problem is contradictory
My argument is the loss of privacy by itself its not a problem.
Your response was that you would "much prefer the actual issue to be fixed" and that "When you fix the actual problem, the privacy become irrelevant".
Which (presumably intentionally) sidesteps the question of whether you think it is reasonable to advocate for the destruction of someone's privacy when it is likely to cause them harm.
In your advocacy for the destruction of privacy in this thread, you haven't proposed anything which could minimize harm for people who rely on privacy; in fact you have taken great steps to even acknowledge that there are people who could be harmed by the destruction of their privacy.
At the same time, you're willing to acknowledge that you don't want to post comments here using anything other than a pseudonym because "the problem is right now I can't". So you are admitting that you'd prefer to keep some privacy around your identity.
This could be a reasonable position if you were willing to acknowledge that people (other than you) could be harmed by the loss of their privacy. You have refused to acknowledge this and so that argument is untenable.
Finally, you stated that your argument was that "the loss of privacy by itself is not a problem". You haven't provided any evidence nor explanation of why you believe this to be the case and have refused to acknowledge the value of privacy, despite multiple examples and the obvious hypocrisy of not "practicing what you preach" (though I'd be willing to accept this if you didn't claim that privacy has no value whatsoever)
I did give an example of a situation where someone could be harmed and you didn't bother to address it.
I think you're just being disingenuous and I don't see the point in engaging any further in this discussion.
I don’t know anyone that would want to spend money on a hotel if there was a security camera in the room. I would get the more expensive room without the camera, probably go to a different hotel.
Doctor and patient confidentiality is implicitly understood. Do you think doctors should be able to tell advertisers what their patients are going through.
Maybe your own individual privacy doesn’t have value to you, and that’s okay, but other people value their privacy, and these corps profiting off data definitely find value in lack of privacy.
why do you think is that ?
>Do you think doctors should be able to tell advertisers what their patients are going through
Why do you think they shouldn't ?
>these corps profiting off data definitely find value in lack of privacy.
Yes of course there is value in lack of privacy, but what is value in privacy ?
It’s been more than a decade, but I was impressed by this research from Allessandro Acquisti that suggested people valued their data only in the pennies.
When 25 Cents is too much: An Experiment on Willingness-To-Sell and Willingness-To-Protect Personal Information, Jens Grossklags, Alessandro Acquisti, Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS), 2007