Thread: Google Announces Privacy Policy Changes Across Products. No Opt-Out.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Absolutely! Total control and surveillance. But obviously for that to work both people and the government need to be generally a lot more open minded and considerate. And like you say, that can't be forced just by suddenly taking away privacy. But in my opinion, gradual degradation of privacy is the first step towards everyone becoming more open minded, more considerate, and more focussed on a goal of a suffering-free society.

It's quite ironic how you think the people and governments have to be much more progressive before something so totalitarian and Orwellian can occur, given that they're the antithesis of each other.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

It's quite ironic how you think the people and government have to be much more progressive before something so totalitarian and Orwellian can occur, given that they're the antithesis of each other.

It could be possible to have a society with total surveillance but where everyone is happy. I don't know if you've heard of Iain M Banks, but in his books he writes about a society so advanced that there is no money, you can have anything you want, and no one commits crime (or very rarely) because a) they know it is damaging for society, and b) they know that they are constantly under watch and the crime would be almost impossible to commit, and if they did manage then they would be assigned a drone for the rest of their lives to stop them from doing it again (an enormous humiliation). The society works because it is 'run' (although there is no heirarchy and the society is a total democracy) by super-intelligent 'minds', which are far beyond AIs and infinitely more intelligent and sentient than humans. Yet the minds look after the humans and give them anything they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

What I'm trying to say is that there can be a perfect society where there is no privacy, no locks on doors, no information that can't be found out, but where people still respect eachother and there is no, or little, suffering.

However Iain Banks himself has said that for this society to arise from our current one, there would have to be much genetic engineering to basically make sure that everyone is nice and selfless, and will gladly give up privacy for the greater good of a large and prosperous civilization. And I'm sure lots of people would be happy with genetic purging so it's probably not going to happen, at least not by choice.

David Brin wrote a lot a few years back about information transparency and the extinction of privacy being inevitable, and I think he's probably right. His point was that it applies equally to public figures like politicians and corporations as it does to private citizens--more so, in fact, because more people are watching the President and Mansanto than are watching Joe Blow in Poughkeepsie. It's not totalitarian if it cuts both ways. Only if an imbalance of information exists--through, for instance, an imbalance of technology--is the disappearance of privacy a threat to liberty.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

His point was that it applies equally to public figures like politicians and corporations as it does to private citizens--more so, in fact, because more people are watching the President and Mansanto than are watching Joe Blow in Poughkeepsie. It's not totalitarian if it cuts both ways. Only if an imbalance of information exists--through, for instance, an imbalance of technology--is the disappearance of privacy a threat to liberty.

Politicians are in the public spotlight because they are servants of, and accountable to the public in a democracy, and there is a need-to-know basis for certain information because they're representing your interests. As a result they give up some privacy, though they are still entitled to a private life. It would be totalitarian if it went both ways because there is no valid justification for creating such symmetry. I need to know certain aspects of a politician's life, they do NOT need to know certain aspects of mine. Likewise, in certain cases this might be reversed, depending on the context and reasoning.

It's also an imbalance of information if one party gets information from many other parties. If a politician's activities are public, it's not an equal exchange for them to find out everything from all other citizens; the information imbalance is extreme in such a case.

Corporations... again there is usually a strong element of public interest here because once you get to a certain size you inevitably start influencing things for the rest of the public. A couple of examples would be effects on the environment and shared/public resources, and the effects of lobbyists. In these cases they have to give up privacy because of the impact on public affairs. Where this does not apply then they have the same right to privacy as anyone else.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

In a society where people are already being denied employment, because job owners are judging them on completely unrelated, outside of work activities, that are evidenced on Facebook? Right. Good luck with that.

People need secrets for the same reason that I said - in another thread - that I wouldn't put my DV activity on my resume; because most people are not that open-minded to the quirks of others.

Yeah, this is what people don't get, mainly anyone arguing for zero privacy. Nobody is the way they present themselves IRL. We know this because of the internet. But employers will always judge people, even though they know this to be true themselves, and for themselves.
Nobody will ever understand and accept everyone's activities or the way they choose to live.
Now, it could be argued that if someone sees you are a DV member, for example, and doesn't understand it, thinks you're a crazy cult member or whatever, then it's best you not work with/for them anyway. But that wouldn't always be the case. It could have been the perfect work relationship except for the fact that the employer had not heard of lucid dreaming and did not understand what was going on.

You'd need to know everyone's entire life story and even then you probably wouldn't know why they said some certain thing or are a part of a certain group.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

And being progressive does not mean stripping people of their privacy rights, to try to force that kind of open-mindedness on the populace....mainly because it won't work, and people are likely to become resentful. In your view of a 'harmonious society', do you think we should allow the government to put video cameras in our homes? Think of all the domestic violence cases and burglaries it would help prevent!

I posted an article, where Richard Branson recently said we need to end the drug war, on my facebook. And this guy from my university said "YES! Exactly! Just get cops on the street 24/7 in cars, patrolling and allow random searches and arrests , we would only need to do this for 10 years to get rid of all drugs".
Branson was arguing for full legalisation btw.
But I find it incredible that people actually want that kind of lack of privacy and safety. I think it's because they think they're not gonna be attacked next (and this guy was gay too, he'd be the first to be killed or arrested after all the drug dealers were gone(even though that can never happen anyway)).

Maybe less privacy would be good, but we're basically at that point now anyway, and people give it up willingly on social networks.
But it's not going to be good for very long when we still have power hungry people in charge who are not looking out for us at all.
And if we have full openness, it's going to be a fucking nightmare....

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Politicians are in the public spotlight because they are servants of, and accountable to the public in a democracy, and there is a need-to-know basis for certain information because they're representing your interests. As a result they give up some privacy, though they are still entitled to a private life. It would be totalitarian if it went both ways because there is no valid justification for creating such symmetry. I need to know certain aspects of a politician's life, they do NOT need to know certain aspects of mine. Likewise, in certain cases this might be reversed, depending on the context and reasoning.

I'm not talking about "should" here, I'm talking about "will," as in "Information will be free." As media companies are having so much trouble learning, law is not enough to make data stay where you want it and behave. As long as channels of transmission continue to multiply (or even if they stayed at current levels), information will get out.

Whether or not we're "entitled" to privacy as a "right," it's entirely possible that we no longer live in a world where it's a possibility.