zlacker

[return to "Why privacy is important, and having “nothing to hide” is irrelevant"]
1. blitzp+6c[view] [source] 2016-01-06 04:40:11
>>syness+(OP)
"This affects all of us. We must care." is not an effective way of convincing someone.

I personally do not care about privacy. I see no reason why I should.

It's just my opinion. I know other people do but please don't generalize.

◧◩
2. dsacco+lc[view] [source] 2016-01-06 04:43:22
>>blitzp+6c
I think your opinion is valid and should be fairly represented, but consider that your reasons for not caring about privacy may be flawed or inconsistent.

Assuming that you don't care about privacy because you're apathetic, do you also not care about free speech because you don't say anything controversial? Do you care about your right to assembly even if you don't protest anything? As an extreme example upon which to build a baseline, would you mind if a neighbor had unmitigated access to watching you lounge in your underwear, take a shower or have sex?

Why do you not care about privacy? Do you feel that you don't need it because you have nothing to hide, or are you willing to sacrifice it for some greater good (e.g. terrorism etc.)? Are you merely indifferent or do you aggressively oppose the concept?

◧◩◪
3. blitzp+ng[view] [source] 2016-01-06 05:50:38
>>dsacco+lc
First of all thank you for respecting my opinion. I appreciate it.

1.) Free speech is a completely different topic. Snowden's quote on this page makes no sense to me no matter how often I re-read it. If free speech didn't exist I wouldn't be able to express my opinion about privacy :)

2.) Privacy means hiding the truth. Hiding what really happened. Hiding who you really are. I believe it is a flaw of the human personality that makes us want to hide information and eventually lie about it.

I don't care if Google or the government knows that I'm searching "[insert embarassing keywords for you here]" or if Facebook knows my location, or if Twitter knows what I like based on the people I follow.

Who is the government? It's people. People like you and me. If people decide to make assumptions based on data they collected and the assumptions aren't correct it's their own fault for assuming something in the first place (because...you know...it's an assumption...it can be wrong).

I am not aggressively opposing the concept of privacy. I respect other people's opinion.

◧◩◪◨
4. Swizec+Lg[view] [source] 2016-01-06 05:58:51
>>blitzp+ng
This is all true and I agree wholeheartedly.

And when The People incorrectly decide that based on data you raped a 15 year old, you will be in prison for the duration of the trial, you will be on the sex offender list forever, and you will be inconvenienced with anything requiring a background check. You, not The People.

Ideologically, I agree, privacy is a lame side-effect of how groups of people work. Pragmatically, please don't take it away.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. rhino3+sn[view] [source] 2016-01-06 08:29:28
>>Swizec+Lg
How is privacy really a good solution to the problem of mistaken convictions?

The lack of privacy may very well reduce the amount of false convictions. Sure, you looking up pix of teen boys might look suspicious. But the lack of privacy might catch the real criminal too.

If we had accurate gps for all people all of the time, it would probably reduce false conviction rates.

Plus, the way the system works now is that once you are a suspect, you really don't have privacy anymore. That's how the Constitution works. Once there is probably cause, the state will rifle through your stuff, ask your friends and family, etc.

On the mistaken conviction issue, I'd probably rather live in a privacy free state than a state with privacy. Assuming I was innocent.

Though I prefer privacy for other reasons.

[go to top]