Participating in a discussion is a great way to learn and contribute to ideas for superstructing. When you post a comment, try to provide information that others may not know, and avoid getting into arguments. Winning discussions are all about working together to get smarter.

Please login or register to post


    OutlawPlanet: Privacy Overhaul?

    Is the right to privacy in need of a philosophical overhaul?

    Started by: drabiega Raves:8

    Subscribe » RSS

    The conflict between privacy and security is age old. The core of the issue is the concept that privacy and anonymity enable freedom. The other side of the coin is that without security freedom the people will erode each other's freedom. If we completely do away with privacy, we should be able to prevent the inappropriate use of that information, should we not? It's a daunting concept, but think about it this way. Do you really want people not to know about X or do you want them to not be able to discriminate on you because of X?

    Excellent question. I was going to start a discussion on whether Transparency and Privacy are like oil and water, but this really capture where I was going. Privacy really is a fear based attitude. We need to investigate what\\\'s at the root of that fear, and eliminate it. If we have a truly transparent society there shouldn\\\'t be a fear of what you\\\'re calling discrimination, as the discriminator would be discriminating out in the open. If that makes sense.

    But the discrimination is still there. People should be able to have their secrets, their things that no one else knows about them. People could be refused jobs, they could be left homeless ,jobless, unable to do anything, and all because of the \\\"lack of privacy\\\" that people think may be what is needed. Personally, I think there needs to be some privacy. I think it really is more of a \\\"not wanting someone to be able to discriminate on you because of X\\\" thing than anything else, but it may actually be a mix of both.

    In oppostion to your argument, George Orwell states, in his novel, 1984, that it is possible to maintain a society based completely on fear and terror. While some of the concepts may not apply, as we have reached achievements that he did not think were possible. Because the people had no privacy, they were discouraged from partaking in any social wrongs, thus maintaining order and stability.

    I think that fear stems from the possible misuse of information. Remaining anonymous is beyond discrimination, it may be more about keeping yourself secure by not directly identifying who you are. Remember the famous movie line?: \\\"If I tell you, then I\\\'d have to kill you.\\\"

    If we re-framed our discussion, and began to see ourselves as part of a species instead of as a community or a society, wouldn't we then have to re-envision privacy? As an example: When I care more about myself, I want to hide a certain degree of who I am. But, when I care more about those around me (friends or family), I find little reason to hide much of anything. Often times certain things aren't ready to be spoken and sometimes you can't put into words what you may want to say, so naturally we will have inner and outer selves. With the threat of extinction, can we really afford to be hiding things? Shouldn't we come together in the spirit of life and love, opening ourselves and allowing others to open to us?

    With the fear of extinction, I would want others to know as little about me as possible. The more you know about me, what I care about, what I enjoy, etc... the more control and power you have over me. The fact is that the info *can* be used to discriminate. We can try to eradicate that discrimination from society but all it takes is one person or group willing to step beyond those constraints and Pandora's Box is open. The closer we come to extinction the easier it would be for some fanatical group to shape the world in their own image whether it's the elimination of all people with high blood sugar, bad eyesight, anemia, ReDS, Jewish heritage, or whatever. I would not be cooperative with any efforts to undermine privacy.

    In a perfect world we could all get along with very little privacy. Unfortunately, however, there are malicious individuals out there who will seek out data about people and use that for their own benefit, or simply to hurt others ("griefing.") As long as there are people like that around, we cannot have true radical transparency.

    Privacy as a basic human right gives everyone the right to dictate who has access to their information. If we attempt to redefine privacy and its status as a "right" in the face of this global threat, what is to stop us from redefining other basic rights in the same context. We could redefine the philosophy of freedom in the same breath, citing that freedom and security are at odd. In an Orwellian scenario, freedom cannot truly exist without privacy. Also, at what point is existence less desirable than extinction? I know that I would rather not exist than to live in a world like either 1984 or its counterpart Brave New World.

    How are we supposed to organise resistance to government or corporate attrocity if they are lawfully able to access all of our communications? We would have no protection at all!




    Nominate For A Badge

    Badge:
    More detail on badges



    NOMINATE CANCEL