zlacker

>>syness+(OP)
Why don't privacy proponents don't go all in and just ask to get rid of the Internet? Surely, privacy is easier to maintain when communication is inefficient.

Perhaps that's because privacy is actually an archaic and backward idea that maintains all of our problems alive. I can't think of a less progressive (more conservative) idea than privacy.

The next most important revolution in human history will be our transition to a completely transparent society.

>>miguel+2C
How do we get to a completely transparent society without massive collateral damage? I understand the rationale for the goal but the transition is so very difficult. I wish more thought was being put into it.

>>m1sta_+5I
My only concern at the moment is to get people to realize that privacy is not good. Only when people understand that our goal is transparency can we come up with a strategy to make the switch.

Considering that we need to get to a transparent society, contributions to the privacy movement only ensures that the transition will be even more difficult and violent.

>>miguel+lM
Have you written anywhere about how you arrived at such a radical position?

(I mean radical in the traditional sense, not as a slur)

>>maxeri+6O
I don't see how it's radical. It's the only logical conclusion.

Many people have written about this. I haven't read a single convincing argument in favor of privacy as anything other than a defensive measure.

>>miguel+hv1
So no? I don't care about the labeling. I want to better understand the reasoning. Or at least, what pieces of information make it so obvious.

>>maxeri+Jv1
I'm of a similar (although not identical) opinion to miguelrochefort. The short answer is... if you imagine a utopia, do you imagine lots of secrets or lots of openness and acceptance?

The reality is that I came to this conclusion through a long process but I'm pretty tired. The process definitely considered whether the 'private' version of the world was even possible. I don't think it is. Surveillance will happen. Better we accept it and keep an eye on how it's used than pretend like we can prevent it in the long term. Even if you were able to discourage the ubiquitous 'high tech hackers' and 'big data' forms of surveillance (which I don't think you'll be able to do), bribes and drones will continue to be used for the powerful to get what they want.

>>m1sta_+Zz1
How do bathroom doors fit into this?

In your utopia, if you ask me a question, do I have to answer honestly? That people would always want to answer honestly is not a satisfying answer.

>>maxeri+nC1
I don't know that bathrooms need doors.

If you don't answer honestly, then people won't consider your answers to be reliable, and therefore everything you say will have less value.

Imagine a person that's completely transparent and honest. You can't find a more predictable and reliable person. That's something you can trust and rely on. How could you dislike such a person? Honesty is beautiful.

We live in a society where there's a race to the bottom when in comes to openness. We all are ashamed, lie, cheat. Full of insecurities. Constant worries. Who would like that?

This leads to a society where appareance is more important than substance. You go to we'll rated schools nkt to learn and get better, but to impress your future employer and get prestigious jobs. They hire you for the same reason (safer to justify hiring Ivy League students to your boss). The best way to get a job and climb up the ladder is nkt to work on your skills, it's to bullshit well. All because we're used to seeing the perfect side of people (they get to choose what they show you). That's just disgusting.

>>miguel+EN1
I could have been clearer. What If I simply decline to answer? That's essentially me keeping the answer private, so my query might have been better phrased, must I answer any question asked of me?