Then we're agreed? The argument that if we just removed privacy from everyone then everything would be A-OK is a non-starter and meaningless because we live in a world where judgement and prosecution exist, and attempting to change the way that humans currently work to "remove judgment and prosecution" would be nigh-upon impossible.
Not exactly.
Privacy is necessary to avoid judgment and prosecution.
Where there is no judgment and prosecution, there is no need for privacy.
And that place doesn't exist, and never will.
So that's that.
Phew.
That's a relief.
You seem to have misunderstood my post, or I was not clear in my articulation.
I did not mean, "A land free of judgment and prosecution has no need of privacy". Rather, there is no need for privacy, with respect to data-X, if data-X will not result in problematic judgments or prosecution.
If Player-A wearing black shoes will not result in criminal prosecution, or problematic judgments about Player-A, then there is no need for Player-A to have privacy with respect to shoe color. The only reason to have that privacy would be to avoid criminal prosecution or problematic judgments. Since there will be no criminal prosecution of problematic judgments made of Player-A, based upon shoe color, Player-A has no reason to demand or expect privacy regarding the color of Player-A's shoes.
If your phone records will not result in criminal prosecution or problematic judgments made about you, then there is no need for you to have privacy with respect to your phone records. If you think knowledge of your phone records could result in problematic judgments or criminal prosecution, then you have a reason to desire privacy with respect to those records. Now, replace phone records with "bank statements, travel records, online purchases, sexual proclivities, etc."
If a person desires privacy with respect to X, the only reason to desire that privacy is to avoid problematic judgments or prosecution. This is what we find in situations of gay / bisexual / poly / trans persons living in the south. They need privacy to protect them from the problematic judgments others would have were those others to know the trans person's sexual orientation. Within a culture in which those orientations are accepted, there is no reason for the individual to desire privacy about those aspects of their self.
Practically, when a person states a desire for privacy with respect to X, this indicates that they believe knowledge of X would potentially result in either criminal prosecution or problematic judgments. If they did not believe that, there would be no reason for them to demand privacy.
Edit: It's akin to what happens if an individual were to plead the fifth. The only reason to avoid testifying against one's self is reasonable fear that said testimony would incriminate one's self. The only reason to desire privacy with respect to X, is a reasonable fear that others knowing about X would result in either criminal prosecution or problematic judgments.
Or maybe the person prefers to not live in the data equivalent of a glass cube.
For what reason would the person prefer this?
- To avoid punishment.
- To avoid being judged.
And, so, see above.
Or perhaps they're by nature private, and prefer to not put their life on display - even if they are doing nothing that would merit punishment or adverse judgement. The core predicate of your argument - that people pursue privacy solely to avoid adverse judgement - is completely wrong, and thus your argument is fatally flawed from the outset.
In short, my life is my business - for many reasons.
The core of my argument is that privacy is a means, not an end in itself. Folks do not want privacy for its own sake. Rather, privacy serves as a means to actualizing other desires.
1) I do not want people to think ill of me for X, so I need privacy with respect to X.
2) I would go to prison if folks knew I did X, so I need privacy with respect to X.
3) I could not profit off my intended invention-X were others to know about it prior to its being trademarked/copyrighted/patented, and so I need privacy with respect to invention-X.
Those are all instances of privacy as a means, since privacy is always only ever a means to some end.
If you have other ends for which privacy is a means, I would be happy to add them to the list. Making the list longer does not change my argument, since the argument is simply that folks desire privacy for the sake of something other than privacy. If that something is removed, so too is the need for privacy.
And your core is still wrong. Yes, privacy can be a means to an end, but it is very much an end unto itself. I can be a completely upright citizen who has no defined reason for seeking out privacy, and yet desire to keep my life private. That you seem to be fundamentally incapable of grasping this concept is a flaw on your part, not mine.
I can be a completely upright citizen who has no defined reason for seeking out privacy, and yet desire to keep my life private.
If you desire privacy without having a defined reason for desiring privacy, then that desire is, by definition, not reasonable.
We don't deal with non-reasoned desires in proper debate or discourse.
So, sure, unreasonable people have unreasonable desires. Those folks are irrelevant to the conversation. though.
Edit: If those folks regain their ability to reason, and so can provide reasons for their desires, then their desires can be considered. Folks who simply exclaim, "I want X!" without an ability to articulate the reasons for the desire, or justify the desire, are not considerable, since they are just spouting unreasoned emotive inclinations.
_J_ on
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Here's the point, @_J_: I want to keep my life private for the sake of keeping it private. I don't have any other motives other than being a private individual by nature. To try to argue that this is somehow irrational is something that I find rather offensive, as it's just an attempt to put an academic fig leaf on "if you have nothing to hide..."
Here's the point, @_J_: I want to keep my life private for the sake of keeping it private. I don't have any other motives other than being a private individual by nature. To try to argue that this is somehow irrational is something that I find rather offensive, as it's just an attempt to put an academic fig leaf on "if you have nothing to hide..."
Unreasonable can love while reasonable people are in bed by 9pm. Be thankful you are sane and unreasonable.
Here's the point, @_J_: I want to keep my life private for the sake of keeping it private. I don't have any other motives other than being a private individual by nature. To try to argue that this is somehow irrational is something that I find rather offensive, as it's just an attempt to put an academic fig leaf on "if you have nothing to hide..."
It's more just another manifestation of _J_'s own unique personal psychosis.
Then we're agreed? The argument that if we just removed privacy from everyone then everything would be A-OK is a non-starter and meaningless because we live in a world where judgement and prosecution exist, and attempting to change the way that humans currently work to "remove judgment and prosecution" would be nigh-upon impossible.
Not exactly.
Privacy is necessary to avoid judgment and prosecution.
Where there is no judgment and prosecution, there is no need for privacy.
And that place doesn't exist, and never will.
So that's that.
Phew.
That's a relief.
You seem to have misunderstood my post, or I was not clear in my articulation.
I did not mean, "A land free of judgment and prosecution has no need of privacy". Rather, there is no need for privacy, with respect to data-X, if data-X will not result in problematic judgments or prosecution.
If Player-A wearing black shoes will not result in criminal prosecution, or problematic judgments about Player-A, then there is no need for Player-A to have privacy with respect to shoe color. The only reason to have that privacy would be to avoid criminal prosecution or problematic judgments. Since there will be no criminal prosecution of problematic judgments made of Player-A, based upon shoe color, Player-A has no reason to demand or expect privacy regarding the color of Player-A's shoes.
If your phone records will not result in criminal prosecution or problematic judgments made about you, then there is no need for you to have privacy with respect to your phone records. If you think knowledge of your phone records could result in problematic judgments or criminal prosecution, then you have a reason to desire privacy with respect to those records. Now, replace phone records with "bank statements, travel records, online purchases, sexual proclivities, etc."
If a person desires privacy with respect to X, the only reason to desire that privacy is to avoid problematic judgments or prosecution. This is what we find in situations of gay / bisexual / poly / trans persons living in the south. They need privacy to protect them from the problematic judgments others would have were those others to know the trans person's sexual orientation. Within a culture in which those orientations are accepted, there is no reason for the individual to desire privacy about those aspects of their self.
Practically, when a person states a desire for privacy with respect to X, this indicates that they believe knowledge of X would potentially result in either criminal prosecution or problematic judgments. If they did not believe that, there would be no reason for them to demand privacy.
Edit: It's akin to what happens if an individual were to plead the fifth. The only reason to avoid testifying against one's self is reasonable fear that said testimony would incriminate one's self. The only reason to desire privacy with respect to X, is a reasonable fear that others knowing about X would result in either criminal prosecution or problematic judgments.
Right. This reads to me as "if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear..."
I disagree with this position and I think it is pretty far off the mark. While I have no real issues with policy and statute as it stands at this time, and while I still believe people are conflating privacy and anonymity in this discussion, you don't really seem to be bringing a position that is defensible in any way. It also feeds into the garbage hyperbole and strawmanning that has gone on in the threads around this topic.
And a person can plead the fifth for many reasons, to the point where a pleading of the fifth cannot be construed as an admission of guilt.
With what, specifically, do you disagree? And in what ways, specifically, do you find my position to be indefensible?
I think it is a fairly simple, unassailable, argument.
1) Player-A desires privacy of Data-X only for the sake of avoiding the P or Q or R or Z that would occur to Player-A were other persons to learn of Data-X.
2) If there is no reasonable expectation that persons learning of Data-X would result in P or Q or R or Z happening to Player-A, then there is no reason for Player-A to desire privacy with respect to Data-X.
Where, exactly, is the flaw?
The flaw is that you are arguing from a position that every known society (that i've read of at least) has determined to be unreasonable. Privacy in your own physical person is one of the few constants out there (and I'm the guy who postulated far earlier in the thread that privacy to the extent of this discussion was a recent social construct).
Seriously. Even the exhibitionisty of exhibitionists has the occasional need to shut it down.
Man I love where this conversation is going. I'm on vacation ATM, and don't get back for a couple days. I'll respond in depth to questions to me then. Keep having fun y'all.
I desire privacy so that there are periods of time in which I do not need to put as much effort into determining my behavior.
Privacy lets me have a day where I don't use hairspray or shave my facial hair, where I can burp without excusing myself, where I can wear ugly-colored clothing, where I can get all my curse words out so I can use softer ones, etc etc etc.
Privacy allows people to reduce their overall levels of social anxiety and thus improves their health. Privacy allows us to break social rules without fear of reprisal. A lack of privacy can RUIN LIVES.
Here's the point, _J_: I want to keep my life private for the sake of keeping it private. I don't have any other motives other than being a private individual by nature.
That doesn't make any sense, and is likely false.
People do things for reasons. One eats to appease hunger. One consumes alcohol to fit in with friends, or feel a particular way, or win a competition.
Presumably, there is some motivation for your inclination to privacy. You desire to avoid judgment, or have paranoia, or fear punishment. There is a reason for why you are inclined towards privacy rather than openness.
Moreover, to claim that you are private "by nature", is to maintain that there would be a natural inclination for an individual to prefer privacy over social openness. Given that human beings are naturally a social species, it is highly unlikely that you are motivated to privacy by "nature".
"I want to do X because I want to do X" is not an explanation; it is a simple restatement of desire. Rational agents can articulate reasoned explanations for their inclinations.
Within the context of this discussion, folks who are inclined towards privacy need to offer reasons to explain and justify their inclinations.
I desire privacy so that there are periods of time in which I do not need to put as much effort into determining my behavior.
Privacy lets me have a day where I don't use hairspray or shave my facial hair, where I can burp without excusing myself, where I can wear ugly-colored clothing, where I can get all my curse words out so I can use softer ones, etc etc etc.
Privacy allows people to reduce their overall levels of social anxiety and thus improves their health. Privacy allows us to break social rules without fear of reprisal. A lack of privacy can RUIN LIVES.
Agreed. In some contexts, at some times, privacy can be an excellent means to achieve some ends. Privacy can be a means to decreasing social anxiety. Where there is no social anxiety, privacy is not needed. Privacy can offer individuals a means by which they can break social rules without fear of reprisal. Again, though, if there are no social rules, or no fear of reprisal, then privacy is not necessary.
Nothing in your post contradicts my argument.
Privacy allows you to avoid X. Yes. Great. Sure. But if there were no X, then privacy would not be needed to avoid it.
The relevance to the thread, again, is to articulate the need for a specific justification to be given for the merit of privacy in a particular situation. If folks do not want the government to have their phone records, persons need to offer an argument. An argument of, "I want my phone records private to avoid punishment" is fine provided that a lack of privacy, with respect to one's phone records, could result in punishment. If one will not be punished for calling one's grandmother, then there is no need to keep that phone record private, as a means of avoiding punishment, since no punishment would follow from the information being known.
Here's the point, _J_: I want to keep my life private for the sake of keeping it private. I don't have any other motives other than being a private individual by nature.
That doesn't make any sense, and is likely false.
People do things for reasons. One eats to appease hunger. One consumes alcohol to fit in with friends, or feel a particular way, or win a competition.
Presumably, there is some motivation for your inclination to privacy. You desire to avoid judgment, or have paranoia, or fear punishment. There is a reason for why you are inclined towards privacy rather than openness.
Moreover, to claim that you are private "by nature", is to maintain that there would be a natural inclination for an individual to prefer privacy over social openness. Given that human beings are naturally a social species, it is highly unlikely that you are motivated to privacy by "nature".
"I want to do X because I want to do X" is not an explanation; it is a simple restatement of desire. Rational agents can articulate reasoned explanations for their inclinations.
Within the context of this discussion, folks who are inclined towards privacy need to offer reasons to explain and justify their inclinations.
Man, i guess all those times i kept eating after i was no longer hungry were false. Like, reality distorted and produced the impossible event of eating when full.
As a closeted democrat living in his state's sole red county I value privacy greatly. Sometimes it's good to stop pretending.
Of course.
However, if you lived in a blue county, you would not desire privacy with respect to your being a democrat, because you would have no reason to hide it.
I desire privacy so that there are periods of time in which I do not need to put as much effort into determining my behavior.
Privacy lets me have a day where I don't use hairspray or shave my facial hair, where I can burp without excusing myself, where I can wear ugly-colored clothing, where I can get all my curse words out so I can use softer ones, etc etc etc.
Privacy allows people to reduce their overall levels of social anxiety and thus improves their health. Privacy allows us to break social rules without fear of reprisal. A lack of privacy can RUIN LIVES.
Agreed. In some contexts, at some times, privacy can be an excellent means to achieve some ends. Privacy can be a means to decreasing social anxiety. Where there is no social anxiety, privacy is not needed. Privacy can offer individuals a means by which they can break social rules without fear of reprisal. Again, though, if there are no social rules, or no fear of reprisal, then privacy is not necessary.
Nothing in your post contradicts my argument.
Privacy allows you to avoid X. Yes. Great. Sure. But if there were no X, then privacy would not be needed to avoid it.
The relevance to the thread, again, is to articulate the need for a specific justification to be given for the merit of privacy in a particular situation. If folks do not want the government to have their phone records, persons need to offer an argument. An argument of, "I want my phone records private to avoid punishment" is fine provided that a lack of privacy, with respect to one's phone records, could result in punishment. If one will not be punished for calling one's grandmother, then there is no need to keep that phone record private, as a means of avoiding punishment, since no punishment would follow from the information being known.
There has to be a word for ends which require specific means to obtain, making those means inherently valuable within the context of the known universe, even if not inherently valuable in all conceptual universes, like the universe where we do not have social anxiety or willingly removed it from the species using genetic modification or at-birth brain surgery or whatever.
Privacy is valuable to humanity because humanity values low anxiety levels and a lack of privacy causes anxiety in humans.
Similarly, food is only valuable because we need food to live, and living is valuable because we value not-death, and values are valuable because we value values.
I desire privacy so that there are periods of time in which I do not need to put as much effort into determining my behavior.
Privacy lets me have a day where I don't use hairspray or shave my facial hair, where I can burp without excusing myself, where I can wear ugly-colored clothing, where I can get all my curse words out so I can use softer ones, etc etc etc.
Privacy allows people to reduce their overall levels of social anxiety and thus improves their health. Privacy allows us to break social rules without fear of reprisal. A lack of privacy can RUIN LIVES.
Agreed. In some contexts, at some times, privacy can be an excellent means to achieve some ends. Privacy can be a means to decreasing social anxiety. Where there is no social anxiety, privacy is not needed. Privacy can offer individuals a means by which they can break social rules without fear of reprisal. Again, though, if there are no social rules, or no fear of reprisal, then privacy is not necessary.
Nothing in your post contradicts my argument.
Privacy allows you to avoid X. Yes. Great. Sure. But if there were no X, then privacy would not be needed to avoid it.
The relevance to the thread, again, is to articulate the need for a specific justification to be given for the merit of privacy in a particular situation. If folks do not want the government to have their phone records, persons need to offer an argument. An argument of, "I want my phone records private to avoid punishment" is fine provided that a lack of privacy, with respect to one's phone records, could result in punishment. If one will not be punished for calling one's grandmother, then there is no need to keep that phone record private, as a means of avoiding punishment, since no punishment would follow from the information being known.
Breathing allows you to avoid dying. Yes. Great. But if there were no dying, then breathing would not be needed to avoid it.
See? Your arguement, while true, adds absolutely nothing to a discussion at hand, because we don't live in a world that behaves where not dying, or not being judged, exists.
I desire privacy so that there are periods of time in which I do not need to put as much effort into determining my behavior.
Privacy lets me have a day where I don't use hairspray or shave my facial hair, where I can burp without excusing myself, where I can wear ugly-colored clothing, where I can get all my curse words out so I can use softer ones, etc etc etc.
Privacy allows people to reduce their overall levels of social anxiety and thus improves their health. Privacy allows us to break social rules without fear of reprisal. A lack of privacy can RUIN LIVES.
Agreed. In some contexts, at some times, privacy can be an excellent means to achieve some ends. Privacy can be a means to decreasing social anxiety. Where there is no social anxiety, privacy is not needed. Privacy can offer individuals a means by which they can break social rules without fear of reprisal. Again, though, if there are no social rules, or no fear of reprisal, then privacy is not necessary.
Nothing in your post contradicts my argument.
Privacy allows you to avoid X. Yes. Great. Sure. But if there were no X, then privacy would not be needed to avoid it.
The relevance to the thread, again, is to articulate the need for a specific justification to be given for the merit of privacy in a particular situation. If folks do not want the government to have their phone records, persons need to offer an argument. An argument of, "I want my phone records private to avoid punishment" is fine provided that a lack of privacy, with respect to one's phone records, could result in punishment. If one will not be punished for calling one's grandmother, then there is no need to keep that phone record private, as a means of avoiding punishment, since no punishment would follow from the information being known.
Breathing allows you to avoid dying. Yes. Great. But if there were no dying, then breathing would not be needed to avoid it.
See? Your arguement, while true, adds absolutely nothing to a discussion at hand, because we don't live in a world that behaves where not dying, or not being judged, exists.
Except the relation of privacy -> judgement is not nearly black and white as breathing -> dying.
It's not a useful end unto itself, and perhaps more importantly in the situation we're discussing it's not even clear that any individuals correspondence is being interrogated: if you collect communications to and electronically scan a few million emails for keywords, how can anyone form judgement on someone else if they don't actually read any more then a select handful?
And does judgement matter if you don't know the person, or the information is never disclosed outside an organization which doesn't take action on it?
Whereas "what if you stopped breathing but didn't know" isn't even a sensible question.
I desire privacy so that there are periods of time in which I do not need to put as much effort into determining my behavior.
Privacy lets me have a day where I don't use hairspray or shave my facial hair, where I can burp without excusing myself, where I can wear ugly-colored clothing, where I can get all my curse words out so I can use softer ones, etc etc etc.
Privacy allows people to reduce their overall levels of social anxiety and thus improves their health. Privacy allows us to break social rules without fear of reprisal. A lack of privacy can RUIN LIVES.
Agreed. In some contexts, at some times, privacy can be an excellent means to achieve some ends. Privacy can be a means to decreasing social anxiety. Where there is no social anxiety, privacy is not needed. Privacy can offer individuals a means by which they can break social rules without fear of reprisal. Again, though, if there are no social rules, or no fear of reprisal, then privacy is not necessary.
Nothing in your post contradicts my argument.
Privacy allows you to avoid X. Yes. Great. Sure. But if there were no X, then privacy would not be needed to avoid it.
The relevance to the thread, again, is to articulate the need for a specific justification to be given for the merit of privacy in a particular situation. If folks do not want the government to have their phone records, persons need to offer an argument. An argument of, "I want my phone records private to avoid punishment" is fine provided that a lack of privacy, with respect to one's phone records, could result in punishment. If one will not be punished for calling one's grandmother, then there is no need to keep that phone record private, as a means of avoiding punishment, since no punishment would follow from the information being known.
Breathing allows you to avoid dying. Yes. Great. But if there were no dying, then breathing would not be needed to avoid it.
See? Your arguement, while true, adds absolutely nothing to a discussion at hand, because we don't live in a world that behaves where not dying, or not being judged, exists.
Except the relation of privacy -> judgement is not nearly black and white as breathing -> dying.
It's not a useful end unto itself, and perhaps more importantly in the situation we're discussing it's not even clear that any individuals correspondence is being interrogated: if you collect communications to and electronically scan a few million emails for keywords, how can anyone form judgement on someone else if they don't actually read any more then a select handful?
And does judgement matter if you don't know the person, or the information is never disclosed outside an organization which doesn't take action on it?
Whereas "what if you stopped breathing but didn't know" isn't even a sensible question.
There must be a purpose for collecting and analyzing such information, agreed? My belief is that the government will do the same thing corporations do, they will use the information to create profiles of persons they feel may be likely to commit certain crimes, and use these profiles as justifications for subjegation of a subset of Americans.
While yes, I agree that the letter of Presumption of Innocence is maintained during an investigation, the court of public opinion doesn't have to deal with niceties and this can lead to an all new replacement for racism/sexism/etc.
And leaks do happen. So how long before this highly valuable information ends up being passed into the data analysis machines of the RNC or DNC? Or worse, is leaked into the hands of some Nigerian Prince who will now no longer need a small transfer from you to launder their money?
And my previous statement was a rewording of _J_'s statement about privacy, to show how it was adding nothing to the conversation at hand. I'm not trying to say breathing should be equated to judgement (and technically, I equated judgement to dying).
There must be a purpose for collecting and analyzing such information, agreed? My belief is that the government will do the same thing corporations do, they will use the information to create profiles of persons they feel may be likely to commit certain crimes, and use these profiles as justifications for subjegation of a subset of Americans.
You do realize that America already subjugates people, right? Racially motivated law enforcement policies skew statistics, lead to systems of state sponsored racist propaganda based on circular logic, which has lead to a regime of racial enforcement. It's called the Southern Strategy.
There must be a purpose for collecting and analyzing such information, agreed? My belief is that the government will do the same thing corporations do, they will use the information to create profiles of persons they feel may be likely to commit certain crimes, and use these profiles as justifications for subjegation of a subset of Americans.
You do realize that America already subjugates people, right? Racially motivated law enforcement policies skew statistics, lead to systems of state sponsored racist propaganda based on circular logic, which has lead to a regime of racial enforcement. It's called the Southern Strategy.
And do you feel such activities are morally sound?
No. I'm saying that nobody needs to say "what if". The United States are already doing their damnedest to enact apartheid, and multiple states still maintain eugenics programs, so why worry that these murderers might do something they've already done?
You should take for granted that the US government is actively hostile to your best interests and plan accordingly, whether it's composed of craven Reagan Clinton Democrats or strapping technocratic men of the future.
Here's the point, _J_: I want to keep my life private for the sake of keeping it private. I don't have any other motives other than being a private individual by nature.
That doesn't make any sense, and is likely false.
People do things for reasons. One eats to appease hunger. One consumes alcohol to fit in with friends, or feel a particular way, or win a competition.
Presumably, there is some motivation for your inclination to privacy. You desire to avoid judgment, or have paranoia, or fear punishment. There is a reason for why you are inclined towards privacy rather than openness.
Moreover, to claim that you are private "by nature", is to maintain that there would be a natural inclination for an individual to prefer privacy over social openness. Given that human beings are naturally a social species, it is highly unlikely that you are motivated to privacy by "nature".
"I want to do X because I want to do X" is not an explanation; it is a simple restatement of desire. Rational agents can articulate reasoned explanations for their inclinations.
Within the context of this discussion, folks who are inclined towards privacy need to offer reasons to explain and justify their inclinations.
Sometimes, people sleep under blankets in order to stay warm and to be protected from the elements. Other times, people do not need a blanket to stay warm or to be protected from the elements. But even in those cases, some people will still prefer to sleep under a blanket. Because there's something about the presence of a blanket that is comforting in a general sense. Absent the blanket, the person would be less comfortable. They wouldn't be too cold or anything, they'd just miss the blanket.
Is "I want X because X makes me more comfortable" (where X can be a blanket, or a chair, or a bath, or privacy, etc.) a reasoned explanation for an inclination?
No. I'm saying that nobody needs to say "what if". The United States are already doing their damnedest to enact apartheid, and multiple states still maintain eugenics programs, so why worry that these murderers might do something they've already done?
You should take for granted that the US government is actively hostile to your best interests and plan accordingly, whether it's composed of craven Reagan Clinton Democrats or strapping technocratic men of the future.
Yeah, and they build roads, provide schools, feed the poor, etc. The USA is hardly perfect, but it's not a third world country.
No. I'm saying that nobody needs to say "what if". The United States are already doing their damnedest to enact apartheid, and multiple states still maintain eugenics programs, so why worry that these murderers might do something they've already done?
You should take for granted that the US government is actively hostile to your best interests and plan accordingly, whether it's composed of craven Reagan Clinton Democrats or strapping technocratic men of the future.
No, they really aren't. Like, not even close.
You know if they were trying their damnedest to enact apartheid because the wrong races would already be in camps. We even know what it looks like when they do that sort of thing. It does not look anything like the present.
I think _J_ that you're missing the point that people don't need to write out a damn essay as to why they need privacy.
And when they do, you keep arguing right past them in favor of your hypothetical world that doesn't fucking exist.
Find me this pure, judgeless, utterly empathic world, then tell me how they don't need privacy.
Because none of us fucking live there and we kind of fucking need some goddamn privacy in the world we live in.
Also oh my god how many pages have we been debating whether or not privacy actually exists now.
Given that my point is not difficult, I am confused as to why so many people continue to miss it.
Privacy is a means by which persons can avoid:
1) Punishment / harm
2) Deleterious judgments
3) Theft of ideas
So, for example, if a person is going to be harmed for being a homosexual in Alabama, then privacy is a means of avoiding that harm for that person in Alabama.
If a person is not going to punished / harmed for X, deleteriously judged for X, or have their notion of X stolen for someone else's monetary gain, then there is no need for privacy, with respect to X.
That's the point: Folks need to articulate a reason for why privacy is necessary, with respect to X. So, yeah, folks do need to write out a damn essay to justify their desire for privacy, with respect to X. They essay is necessary for two reasons:
1) This is a forum for debate and discourse, not merely articulating baseless emotive dispositions.
2) Privacy is a notion subject to legality, and legality tends to require essays in which persons argue for or against particular legal structures.
Hopping about proclaiming a desire for privacy based upon, "I'm just private by nature", is not a compelling argument. Recognizing that privacy is a means to avoiding the deleterious consequences listed above, and explaining how X needs to be privacy, for the sake of avoiding those consequences, seems reasonable.
Edit:
Primarily, I am arguing against this sort of notion:
People aren't missing your point. Your point is that privacy should not exist without a purpose. Your original arguement was that Privacy's only purpose was to avoid judgement or punishment. Other examples, such as theft of ideas or an innate desire for privacy have been presented, and you have either accepted or rejected those ideas based on your conception of privacy.
So stop being silly goose and doing what you're accusing others of doing.
People aren't missing your point. Your point is that privacy should not exist without a purpose.
My point is not that privacy "should not" exist without a purpose. That would be a normative claim, and subject the conversation to different standards for discerning should, ought, right, wrong, good, bad, etc.
Rather, I start with the recognition that privacy is a social construct. While ignorance is not a social construct, and acting in a secretive manner is, perhaps, not a social construct, privacy is very much bound up with the rules of social interaction. When we're talking about privacy, at least in this context, it is the granted ability for individuals to seclude information from others.
Privacy: Player-B knowingly permits Player-A to not divulge fact-X, or "facts within category-X" about Player-A.
or
The government permits Citizen-Y to not divulge Fact-X, or facts within category-X.
That act of permitting the seclusion of information is very much a social construct, beholden to the rules of the social game.
Humans are reason giving creatures. A component of the social game is giving reasons, providing justifications. When arguing for the permissibility of X, or the ability to engage in X, humans who play the social game provide reasons and justifications for that permissibility, in the form of purposes. Humans explain the utility of X with respect to the acquisition of some Y, or state the purpose for which X is desirable or permissible, in itself.
It is not the case that human beings *should* give reasons when engaged in the social game. Rather, human beings do provide reasons when engaged in the social game. If a particular human being is not providing reasons, then it is not engaged in the social game, and so not considerable with respect to the social game.
Your original arguement was that Privacy's only purpose was to avoid judgement or punishment. Other examples, such as theft of ideas or an innate desire for privacy have been presented, and you have either accepted or rejected those ideas based on your conception of privacy.
Not based on "my conception of privacy", but rather a discernment of what privacy is, within the context of this discussion. Our current legal framework, supported by a history of court decisions and public policy, maintains that privacy entails X, Y, Z, Q, etc. Those decisions are based primarily upon interpretations of the meaning of
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
and
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
There is no explicit "right" to some all-encompassing privacy justified by "well I'm just private by nature", whatever the fuck that might mean. Rather, those sanctioned abilities we combine under the category of "privacy" result from specific interpretations of specific texts.
That is what privacy, practically, is. Not what it "should" be, or what it "ought" to be, but what it legally, functionally, is.
Persons may have a desire for some act of seclusion they bundle under a notion of privacy. That is a fine starting point. However, when playing the social game, one must move beyond "I desire X", to instead provide reasons and justifications for the ability to do X, while recognizing the legal framework by which we discern what is and is not permissible.
Edit: TL;DR Claiming to be private by nature, in the context of this discussion, is akin to claiming to be immune from double jeopardy by nature.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Which, to put it bluntly, inverts the path of logic that your argument rests on. Under our legal framework, the duty is not on me to justify my right to privacy, but on the government to justify its breach of that right.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Which, to put it bluntly, inverts the path of logic that your argument rests on. Under our legal framework, the duty is not on me to justify my right to privacy, but on the government to justify its breach of that right.
Not really, no.
Given the amount of scholarly and judicial dispute on what the 9th means, it seems very silly to bluntly boil it down to one sentence.
Edit: I mean, really, given that constitutional scholars have been arguing about this for 225 years...it seems absurd to try and "put it bluntly".
Here's a perfect example of my point about people ignoring the actual problem. Android backups to Google hold WiFi passwords in plaintext. In light of Wi-Spy, I find this rather troublesome behavior on the part of Google.
But to the EFF, the only problem is that it means the NSA could acquire the password.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Which, to put it bluntly, inverts the path of logic that your argument rests on. Under our legal framework, the duty is not on me to justify my right to privacy, but on the government to justify its breach of that right.
Not really, no.
Given the amount of scholarly and judicial dispute on what the 9th means, it seems very silly to bluntly boil it down to one sentence.
Edit: I mean, really, given that constitutional scholars have been arguing about this for 225 years...it seems absurd to try and "put it bluntly".
We were talking about the reasons for privacy on page 9. That was not that long ago. Did you forget those posts already, or are you pretending they didn't happen in order to repeat yourself endlessly and so so tiresomely?
Posts
And your core is still wrong. Yes, privacy can be a means to an end, but it is very much an end unto itself. I can be a completely upright citizen who has no defined reason for seeking out privacy, and yet desire to keep my life private. That you seem to be fundamentally incapable of grasping this concept is a flaw on your part, not mine.
If you desire privacy without having a defined reason for desiring privacy, then that desire is, by definition, not reasonable.
We don't deal with non-reasoned desires in proper debate or discourse.
So, sure, unreasonable people have unreasonable desires. Those folks are irrelevant to the conversation. though.
Edit: If those folks regain their ability to reason, and so can provide reasons for their desires, then their desires can be considered. Folks who simply exclaim, "I want X!" without an ability to articulate the reasons for the desire, or justify the desire, are not considerable, since they are just spouting unreasoned emotive inclinations.
Anyone post/see that yet?
Unreasonable can love while reasonable people are in bed by 9pm. Be thankful you are sane and unreasonable.
It's more just another manifestation of _J_'s own unique personal psychosis.
The courts, historically, have agreed that it's one of the marks of a free society!
The flaw is that you are arguing from a position that every known society (that i've read of at least) has determined to be unreasonable. Privacy in your own physical person is one of the few constants out there (and I'm the guy who postulated far earlier in the thread that privacy to the extent of this discussion was a recent social construct).
Seriously. Even the exhibitionisty of exhibitionists has the occasional need to shut it down.
Privacy lets me have a day where I don't use hairspray or shave my facial hair, where I can burp without excusing myself, where I can wear ugly-colored clothing, where I can get all my curse words out so I can use softer ones, etc etc etc.
Privacy allows people to reduce their overall levels of social anxiety and thus improves their health. Privacy allows us to break social rules without fear of reprisal. A lack of privacy can RUIN LIVES.
That doesn't make any sense, and is likely false.
People do things for reasons. One eats to appease hunger. One consumes alcohol to fit in with friends, or feel a particular way, or win a competition.
Presumably, there is some motivation for your inclination to privacy. You desire to avoid judgment, or have paranoia, or fear punishment. There is a reason for why you are inclined towards privacy rather than openness.
Moreover, to claim that you are private "by nature", is to maintain that there would be a natural inclination for an individual to prefer privacy over social openness. Given that human beings are naturally a social species, it is highly unlikely that you are motivated to privacy by "nature".
"I want to do X because I want to do X" is not an explanation; it is a simple restatement of desire. Rational agents can articulate reasoned explanations for their inclinations.
Within the context of this discussion, folks who are inclined towards privacy need to offer reasons to explain and justify their inclinations.
Agreed. In some contexts, at some times, privacy can be an excellent means to achieve some ends. Privacy can be a means to decreasing social anxiety. Where there is no social anxiety, privacy is not needed. Privacy can offer individuals a means by which they can break social rules without fear of reprisal. Again, though, if there are no social rules, or no fear of reprisal, then privacy is not necessary.
Nothing in your post contradicts my argument.
Privacy allows you to avoid X. Yes. Great. Sure. But if there were no X, then privacy would not be needed to avoid it.
The relevance to the thread, again, is to articulate the need for a specific justification to be given for the merit of privacy in a particular situation. If folks do not want the government to have their phone records, persons need to offer an argument. An argument of, "I want my phone records private to avoid punishment" is fine provided that a lack of privacy, with respect to one's phone records, could result in punishment. If one will not be punished for calling one's grandmother, then there is no need to keep that phone record private, as a means of avoiding punishment, since no punishment would follow from the information being known.
Man, i guess all those times i kept eating after i was no longer hungry were false. Like, reality distorted and produced the impossible event of eating when full.
Of course.
However, if you lived in a blue county, you would not desire privacy with respect to your being a democrat, because you would have no reason to hide it.
Everyone stop being humans living in a world of limited resources and imperfect communication.
Problem. Solved.
There has to be a word for ends which require specific means to obtain, making those means inherently valuable within the context of the known universe, even if not inherently valuable in all conceptual universes, like the universe where we do not have social anxiety or willingly removed it from the species using genetic modification or at-birth brain surgery or whatever.
Privacy is valuable to humanity because humanity values low anxiety levels and a lack of privacy causes anxiety in humans.
Similarly, food is only valuable because we need food to live, and living is valuable because we value not-death, and values are valuable because we value values.
And when they do, you keep arguing right past them in favor of your hypothetical world that doesn't fucking exist.
Find me this pure, judgeless, utterly empathic world, then tell me how they don't need privacy.
Because none of us fucking live there and we kind of fucking need some goddamn privacy in the world we live in.
Also oh my god how many pages have we been debating whether or not privacy actually exists now.
Geth understands our weaknesses and how to exploit them. It's not quite the same.
But it's better then the other one.
Breathing allows you to avoid dying. Yes. Great. But if there were no dying, then breathing would not be needed to avoid it.
See? Your arguement, while true, adds absolutely nothing to a discussion at hand, because we don't live in a world that behaves where not dying, or not being judged, exists.
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UChq0-eLNiMaJlIjqerf0v2A? <-- Game related youtube stuff
http://galdon.newgrounds.com/games/ <-- games I've made. (spoiler warning: They might suck!)
Except the relation of privacy -> judgement is not nearly black and white as breathing -> dying.
It's not a useful end unto itself, and perhaps more importantly in the situation we're discussing it's not even clear that any individuals correspondence is being interrogated: if you collect communications to and electronically scan a few million emails for keywords, how can anyone form judgement on someone else if they don't actually read any more then a select handful?
And does judgement matter if you don't know the person, or the information is never disclosed outside an organization which doesn't take action on it?
Whereas "what if you stopped breathing but didn't know" isn't even a sensible question.
There must be a purpose for collecting and analyzing such information, agreed? My belief is that the government will do the same thing corporations do, they will use the information to create profiles of persons they feel may be likely to commit certain crimes, and use these profiles as justifications for subjegation of a subset of Americans.
While yes, I agree that the letter of Presumption of Innocence is maintained during an investigation, the court of public opinion doesn't have to deal with niceties and this can lead to an all new replacement for racism/sexism/etc.
And leaks do happen. So how long before this highly valuable information ends up being passed into the data analysis machines of the RNC or DNC? Or worse, is leaked into the hands of some Nigerian Prince who will now no longer need a small transfer from you to launder their money?
And my previous statement was a rewording of _J_'s statement about privacy, to show how it was adding nothing to the conversation at hand. I'm not trying to say breathing should be equated to judgement (and technically, I equated judgement to dying).
You do realize that America already subjugates people, right? Racially motivated law enforcement policies skew statistics, lead to systems of state sponsored racist propaganda based on circular logic, which has lead to a regime of racial enforcement. It's called the Southern Strategy.
And do you feel such activities are morally sound?
You should take for granted that the US government is actively hostile to your best interests and plan accordingly, whether it's composed of craven Reagan Clinton Democrats or strapping technocratic men of the future.
Sometimes, people sleep under blankets in order to stay warm and to be protected from the elements. Other times, people do not need a blanket to stay warm or to be protected from the elements. But even in those cases, some people will still prefer to sleep under a blanket. Because there's something about the presence of a blanket that is comforting in a general sense. Absent the blanket, the person would be less comfortable. They wouldn't be too cold or anything, they'd just miss the blanket.
Is "I want X because X makes me more comfortable" (where X can be a blanket, or a chair, or a bath, or privacy, etc.) a reasoned explanation for an inclination?
Yeah, and they build roads, provide schools, feed the poor, etc. The USA is hardly perfect, but it's not a third world country.
No, they really aren't. Like, not even close.
You know if they were trying their damnedest to enact apartheid because the wrong races would already be in camps. We even know what it looks like when they do that sort of thing. It does not look anything like the present.
Given that my point is not difficult, I am confused as to why so many people continue to miss it.
Privacy is a means by which persons can avoid:
1) Punishment / harm
2) Deleterious judgments
3) Theft of ideas
So, for example, if a person is going to be harmed for being a homosexual in Alabama, then privacy is a means of avoiding that harm for that person in Alabama.
If a person is not going to punished / harmed for X, deleteriously judged for X, or have their notion of X stolen for someone else's monetary gain, then there is no need for privacy, with respect to X.
That's the point: Folks need to articulate a reason for why privacy is necessary, with respect to X. So, yeah, folks do need to write out a damn essay to justify their desire for privacy, with respect to X. They essay is necessary for two reasons:
1) This is a forum for debate and discourse, not merely articulating baseless emotive dispositions.
2) Privacy is a notion subject to legality, and legality tends to require essays in which persons argue for or against particular legal structures.
Hopping about proclaiming a desire for privacy based upon, "I'm just private by nature", is not a compelling argument. Recognizing that privacy is a means to avoiding the deleterious consequences listed above, and explaining how X needs to be privacy, for the sake of avoiding those consequences, seems reasonable.
Edit:
Primarily, I am arguing against this sort of notion:
We do not expect "PRIVACY". We expect some instances of privacy with respect to some things, for the sake of things other than privacy qua privacy.
People aren't missing your point. Your point is that privacy should not exist without a purpose. Your original arguement was that Privacy's only purpose was to avoid judgement or punishment. Other examples, such as theft of ideas or an innate desire for privacy have been presented, and you have either accepted or rejected those ideas based on your conception of privacy.
So stop being silly goose and doing what you're accusing others of doing.
My point is not that privacy "should not" exist without a purpose. That would be a normative claim, and subject the conversation to different standards for discerning should, ought, right, wrong, good, bad, etc.
Rather, I start with the recognition that privacy is a social construct. While ignorance is not a social construct, and acting in a secretive manner is, perhaps, not a social construct, privacy is very much bound up with the rules of social interaction. When we're talking about privacy, at least in this context, it is the granted ability for individuals to seclude information from others.
Privacy: Player-B knowingly permits Player-A to not divulge fact-X, or "facts within category-X" about Player-A.
or
The government permits Citizen-Y to not divulge Fact-X, or facts within category-X.
That act of permitting the seclusion of information is very much a social construct, beholden to the rules of the social game.
Humans are reason giving creatures. A component of the social game is giving reasons, providing justifications. When arguing for the permissibility of X, or the ability to engage in X, humans who play the social game provide reasons and justifications for that permissibility, in the form of purposes. Humans explain the utility of X with respect to the acquisition of some Y, or state the purpose for which X is desirable or permissible, in itself.
It is not the case that human beings *should* give reasons when engaged in the social game. Rather, human beings do provide reasons when engaged in the social game. If a particular human being is not providing reasons, then it is not engaged in the social game, and so not considerable with respect to the social game.
Not based on "my conception of privacy", but rather a discernment of what privacy is, within the context of this discussion. Our current legal framework, supported by a history of court decisions and public policy, maintains that privacy entails X, Y, Z, Q, etc. Those decisions are based primarily upon interpretations of the meaning of
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
and
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
There is no explicit "right" to some all-encompassing privacy justified by "well I'm just private by nature", whatever the fuck that might mean. Rather, those sanctioned abilities we combine under the category of "privacy" result from specific interpretations of specific texts.
That is what privacy, practically, is. Not what it "should" be, or what it "ought" to be, but what it legally, functionally, is.
Persons may have a desire for some act of seclusion they bundle under a notion of privacy. That is a fine starting point. However, when playing the social game, one must move beyond "I desire X", to instead provide reasons and justifications for the ability to do X, while recognizing the legal framework by which we discern what is and is not permissible.
Edit: TL;DR Claiming to be private by nature, in the context of this discussion, is akin to claiming to be immune from double jeopardy by nature.
Which, to put it bluntly, inverts the path of logic that your argument rests on. Under our legal framework, the duty is not on me to justify my right to privacy, but on the government to justify its breach of that right.
Not really, no.
Given the amount of scholarly and judicial dispute on what the 9th means, it seems very silly to bluntly boil it down to one sentence.
Edit: I mean, really, given that constitutional scholars have been arguing about this for 225 years...it seems absurd to try and "put it bluntly".
But to the EFF, the only problem is that it means the NSA could acquire the password.
We were talking about the reasons for privacy on page 9. That was not that long ago. Did you forget those posts already, or are you pretending they didn't happen in order to repeat yourself endlessly and so so tiresomely?