Instead of 100% return to the office how about having (optional) get together offline meetup every once in a while, it can be about work or simple lunch.
-22 karma · joined December 12, 2013
Again, I'm not the expert, every situation will may require its unique solution.
>You say "just fix it to detect whether it's legit data" - how
Yes this my attempt to at least give a hint with my far from expert knowledge.
My point is we should spend our effort to solve this instead of trying to make information private.
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.
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.
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.
>Facial Recognition?
That could be one way
> I will just grab your profile picture.
Then maybe fix it to detect whether its a real person or just a picture.
Or maybe there are better way, I don't know.
Like I said, I'm not the expert, I wouldn't know every solution to every problem.
My point is we should spent the effort on figuring out that problem instead of trying to keep thing hiding.
Here is another example: some people argue for privacy because the information can be used to criminalized gay people.
Well then fix the criminalization of gay people instead of trying to hide the fact that they are gay.
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 ?
So that is the actual problem, not the privacy.
I never heard any convincing argument about why privacy has value.
>but that doesn't mean we should allow everything to be collected.
Why ?
The problem that need to be solves is not how to hide information but how to fix the issue that arise when the information are public.
Lets talk about one example :
Right now it is a problem if my credit card number become public because it can be used for unauthorized purchase.
Simply having my credit card number become public is not an issue perse but for it to be used for unauthorized purchase is the problem.
But what if I can have my credit card number public while nobody can use it for unauthorized purchase ? then I won't have issue for it being public.
The problem is when they use it to harm me.
What need to be fixed is The government record, observe and judge every single thing a person does to harm people.
>to subject everyone in a society to that kind of scrutiny would just be laying the foundations for abuse
It can be used for abuse but not always, It can also be used for good, what need to be prevented is the use for abuse.
Them knowing is not the problem. Them using it to harm me is the problem. These are different thing, latter is a problem, former is not.
Let pick this one example :
'your restaurant visits and shopping habits'
Just them knowing is not problem, in fact them knowing can also benefit me: e.g when they want to give me gift.
government monitoring people by itself is not a problem, government monitoring people to harm people is the problem.
What need to be fixed is the usage of tools to harm people, not the tool itself.
Whats the problem with this ?
Sure, but like any other tools it also enable all sorts of new benefit.
The preferable action would be to take advantage of the benefit while also try to fix whatever it is that cause problem with the tools instead of simply banning it.
Anything has risk of course, any hunting need be covert and expertly done.
>How would you feel if they decided to declare some enemies on US soil and start hunting them on your patch?
I would assume they already did that.
immoral? Its subjective. I disagree and apple likely don't think its immoral
illegal? isn't that what the trial is for ? to decide whether this is illegal.