zlacker

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.

>>Swizec+(OP)
I see your point. If society ends up believing in the fact that assumptions based on collected data have suddenly turned into "facts" then we will be truly...let me say it frankly...we are done for.

I believe when this happens Hacker News won't exist anymore because the intelligence of human beings will be comparable to that of a fly.

Luckily...this didn't happen yet because I can still have intellectual discussions, even on the internet.

I like your separation of "ideologically" and "pragmatically". I agree, it's not a pragmatical approach.

>>blitzp+J
It's not even about "facts". Suspicion is enough because "innocent until proven guilty" is true in theory, but the period between "suspected" and "proven innocent" can be very ... inconveniencing.

And that's IF the internet or real lynch mob doesn't decide to go after you. If it does, then the being proven innocent part is the least of your concerns.

>>Swizec+a2
There are enough examples (at least here in Germany), where peoples lives got uprooted and destroyed exactly because false accusations or false interpretations of "facts" happened. Even after the where acquitted lots of people distrusted them, bullied them and such, because the press had already told everybody what awful people these people were.

And hey, if it is in the news, it has to be true - doesn't it?

We will never fix these idiots (myself totally included). Because even if we do not believe these things we will have them forever at the back of their heads, when presented with a name of someone because: "maybe they did do the thing non the less, even if the court acquitted them".

This is just human nature. You cannot actively un-know something you heard and this will sadly inform your inherent biases non the less - even if you intellectually know it to be untrue.

>>Swizec+(OP)
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.