Tumbling Dice - First Privacy, Then Democracy?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I don't Twitter or Tweet. I don't text (alright, I have - twice - when it was really important). I have a cellphone - a Blackberry even - that I use for motorcycling. I have a Facebook page but only because a friend hectored me into posting a bunch of pictures of a motorcycle jaunt down the Baja. At least I think I still do. I've not visited it in many months. I do e-mail, perhaps a dozen times a week, but not without an awareness that I could be divulging too much.

I'm not the kind to gather up the guns and take refuge in a cave but I am very concerned about our core human and political right - our right to privacy - and how mindlessly we seem to be forfeiting it. That warning screams out to me whenever I see streams of youth shuffling through the mall, cellphones in hand, oblivious to the world around them as they receive and transmit text messages that I can only assume are of seismic importance.

Social networking. What's particularly "social" in electronic communication in its various guises? To me, social introduces an element of direct, personal interaction. I do like talking to people - from a distance of anywhere from three to ten feet. It facilitates an openness that enables freewheeling exchanges of ideas. That's far more social than the way I'm communicating right now. I'm not communicating to someone. I can't tailor my words to adapt to your interests or perspective because, until I post this and you choose to read it, "you" simply don't exist. The best I can do is try to shape my message to communicate to the types of persons I'd like to engage in discussion and that's a clumsy and artificial device at best. But I'm veering off topic.

When you and I sit down and converse we are yielding a measure of our personal privacy but only to each other. When we text or swap e-mails or post party pictures on our social networking pages we drop privacy to the floor and to almost anyone and for ever. That information can be used by anyone from our governments to future employers to those who simply wish to cause us harm and embarassment. Add that to all the other layers of personal information that are harvested every day each time you use a credit card or a store affinity card, take a flight, cross a border or pass before one of the dozens of security cameras you'll unwittingly encounter in daily urban life - and you've pretty much given away everything they haven't already been able to simply take from you.

There is a reason why democratic societies have invariably wrestled with powers of search and seizure. For generations, centuries, we've understood that unwarranted intrusion into our personal affairs, our private lives is lethal to democratic freedom.

The question(s), therefore, are have we lost sight of the importance of our right to privacy, how much further could this go, can it be reversed and what does it portend for democracy?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,924 • Replies: 20

No top replies

@RDRDRD1,

....not to mention the ever-present surveillance police cameras peering down on everyone, or all those cell-phones with built in cameras.

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

Personally, I have no issues with Facebook or e-mail. They are very useful tools when used properly. There are ways to protect your privacy with both, and they allow me to connect with and stay in contact with people that I have know that live in other areas of the country or world. These tools are as valuable and useful as you make them. The real danger is surveillance and intrusions of privacy by unwanted people.

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

Theaetetus, it's not the proper use of e-mail or social networking systems that's the real problem so much as their improper use particularly by the likes of people such as Admiral Poindexter. I believe it's an illusion to believe there are ways to protect your privacy for those with the means and desire to intrude. That's my opinion in any case. The greater question is whether we're losing sight of the importance of our right to privacy, have we become complacent to the erosion of this right and what does that mean for democracy?

1 Reply

@RDRDRD1,

I'm as concerned with privacy as the next guy, I suppose. Heck, I don't even like having my picture taken. But I'm a little unaware as to how you figure privacy affects democracy. I suppose if someone were butting into our affairs, such as trying to coerce our votes or something, then it could be a problem. But then, if someone were going to try to do something like that, I figure they could do so whether our privacy is more or less guarded. Yes, I think you're right; our privacy has been eroded and not a whole lot is seeming to be done about it. I just don't see how that affects democracy, not yet anyway.

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

All good concerns; however, where there is some expectation of privacy there has always been the potential for interception and subsequent exploitation of such communique's. From the first whisperings while under the first tribal government to mass social-networking, this is nothing new.

A valid concern though... and should remain a focus, likely... forever (regardless of system of government).

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

These rights and laws you claim are a hoax.

The rights af all men to be equal, signed by men who continued to own slaves.

The Magna Carta, forcing a king to relenquish sole supremacy amongst the aristocracy and remove the church as supreme figure.

The Ten Commandments, deny all other sacrifice to gods for the sake of just one.

Privacy cannot exist in an afflicted mind.

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

Oh I think privacy can very much affect democracy when it is the government that tramples on the citizenry's privacy. Look at every tyranny of the past century - Hitler, Stalin, Kim (I &II) for example. They strip their peoples' privacy to manipulate them; to weed out, intimidate and control dissenters; and to generally enforce their will. As the right of privacy erodes it gives way to a surveillance state. I don't know about you but I highly value my private life and yet even the reasonable practices I take to maintain it aren't very effective.

1 Reply

@RDRDRD1,

Hello Rob. I see you made it back safe and sound. Let me see if I can shed some light on the subject. IMO, we were never meant to be "private" inasmuch as we define that as our "personal domain"; that is understood. We thrive in the public domain and are under that scrutiny. Always have been and always will be unless we are force to live in caves for protection. Our interaction with others is so very important in our communication efforts of which you rightfully concluded. Unfortunately, if the "wrong" eyes are observing, whether it be due to a camera or the history on a credit card or in real time, the results can cause much harm. So what are we to do?

From the benevolent observer it can be a boon in those methods in which we communicate as that observer can witness those areas where communication is lacking and needs improvement. Such as every thing we have ever experienced in our history, we seem to use it the wrong way before we figure out how to beneficially use it; not unlike communication itself.

Observation is how we learn to fastest. It also illustrates what "jumping to conclusions" means if all we have is what we "see" without the infusion of tone, inflection and intensity which can only be accomplished eye ball to eye ball. The key word here IMO is benevolent intent. We are only using "malevolent" intent, for good reason. We are not a benevolent society, yet. I feel all we have discovered can be of benevolent purpose once become "more socialized and civilized" as it relates to our all getting along with each other. In my opinion, there is no other way.

IMO George Orwell was on to something, only malevolently so. Turn that around and consider the benebolent uses it could bring. I know this is "reverse thinkiing", but it seems to me a lot of how we think, if we turn it around, what difference it would make. IMMHO.

William.

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

Hi William. Yes I did make it back safe and sound and very, very sore. Geezerdom does bring a certain decline in resilience.

I think every democracy depends on a delicate balance of privacy and openess. Who can dispute the need for secret ballots at the polls but open voting by our elected representatives? We also need a good measure of privacy in our personal lives. Without it, no man's home can ever be his castle.

My opinions, except to the extent I am willing to express them publicly or share them with select friends in more narrow circumstances, are mine and mine alone. Yet industry and government relentlessly seek to discern those opinions from virtually everything I do within their purview. They know my shopping habits, how and where and with whom I travel, the books I read, the state of my health, charities and political parties I support, the views I have expressed online and so much more - a veritable mosaic of who and what I am.

This is powerful information that can readily be used and misused by those who possess it. Yet there is so very little reciprocation. What do we know of those who are minotoring us as individuals, communities, societies? What do we know of how we are being monitored, what information is being gathered and by whom and to what purposes that information is being used?

Now there is talk about national ID cards, high-tech devices that will allow our every movement to be traced and recorded. They'll know that this particular cardholder has this demographic and attended this controversial film or that questionable rally or was in the company of this character and that one too. Isn't that sort of thing directly contrary to the spirit of your constitutional safeguard against unreasonable search and seizure?

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

Rob, I agree with you whole heartedly. Considering our current political system and it manipulative ability to alter the thinking of so many, I stand behind your accurate summation. The reality I am envisioning is the benefits it could render. I know we are a long way from that. Like the message that greets one entering "Boys Town" as it depicts a young boy carriying another smaller one on his back which says, "He ain't heavy Father, he's my brother". To me this statue illustrates the true image of what a "big brother" is all about. This short simple saying says volumes as it relates to that vision I have of global cooperation, consideration and communication. I will never see it in this lifetime, but one day I hope to be a part of the "civilization". There is a silver lining in every cloud, such a the cloud that represents our technology. It can come of some "good use".......someday.

William

1 Reply

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;75074 wrote:

Oh I think privacy can very much affect democracy when it is the government that tramples on the citizenry's privacy. Look at every tyranny of the past century - Hitler, Stalin, Kim (I &II) for example. They strip their peoples' privacy to manipulate them; to weed out, intimidate and control dissenters; and to generally enforce their will. As the right of privacy erodes it gives way to a surveillance state. I don't know about you but I highly value my private life and yet even the reasonable practices I take to maintain it aren't very effective.

These tyrannies you mention are examples of how privacy can very much affect democracy? I suppose Hitler's Nazi regime was democratically elected, but Stalin and the Kims?

All I'm trying to say is that it seems to me to be an incredible leap to go from concern over guarding our privacy rights to fear of a communist dictatorship taking over. We shouldn't push the panic button. Doing so is rarely, if ever, constructive.

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

Sorry Solace but I don't believe that democracy is nearly so robust as you suggest. There is even some fraying around the edges in our own country.

1 Reply

@RDRDRD1,

Well, don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of government, whatever form it comes in, including democracy. But it seems to be a necessary evil either way.

Pro-democracy seems to be the wave of the future, well, the wave of the present anyway. Heck, even Iran had a "democratic" election recently, hehe. (Bad joke, I know, but my point is that at least the illusion of democracy was attempted, even there.) Via those very same devices that the OP posed concerns over, that is text messaging, etc, the farcity of that election was exposed and the plight of the Iranian people was brought to world-wide attention.

So in the end, a device is just a device; it's how it gets used that matters. The same is true for democracy. If democracy is used democratically it will protect our privacy. If it is not used democratically it will restrict our privacy. But then, if democracy isn't being used democratically, is it even democracy at all? In which case, I digress, because we'd need to fix the government before we could get the government to fix our privacy rights.

0 Replies

@William,

William;75111 wrote:

Rob, I agree with you whole heartedly. Considering our current political system and it manipulative ability to alter the thinking of so many, I stand behind your accurate summation. The reality I am envisioning is the benefits it could render. I know we are a long way from that. Like the message that greets one entering "Boys Town" as it depicts a young boy carriying another smaller one on his back which says, "He ain't heavy Father, he's my brother". To me this statue illustrates the true image of what a "big brother" is all about. This short simple saying says volumes as it relates to that vision I have of global cooperation, consideration and communication. I will never see it in this lifetime, but one day I hope to be a part of the "civilization". There is a silver lining in every cloud, such a the cloud that represents our technology. It can come of some "good use".......someday.

William

Your responses always send chills down my spine Will. I'm afraid those which I consider my enemies have done too fine a job with their propaganda. That is, by the way, no insult. I'm sure you don't blindly follow the establishment views, i.e. propaganda, but rather have a personal logic upon which you base your views. Anyway, in that sentence you quoted, who I wonder is 'Father?' Think about that. Does Father carry anyone? Or does he just direct others to carry the small? Who determines who needs to carry and who needs to be carried?

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;78511 wrote:

Your responses always send chills down my spine Will. I'm afraid those which I consider my enemies have done too fine a job with their propaganda. That is, by the way, no insult. I'm sure you don't blindly follow the establishment views, i.e. propaganda, but rather have a personal logic upon which you base your views. Anyway, in that sentence you quoted, who I wonder is 'Father?' Think about that. Does Father carry anyone? Or does he just direct others to carry the small? Who determines who needs to carry and who needs to be carried?

As far as the chills, I take that as a compliment, they are meant to, though I am sure what you are saying is not in the context as mine.
The "Father" is a metaphor for anyone who extends a hand to eliminate anothers load the are accustom to carrying. The statement itself can be interpretated any way you wish. I view it simplistically and don't wish to do more than that as it shows the uncommon strength of the oppressed to deal with their load expecially if that load is the caring of those they love. Is it a sad testiment to illustrate that oppression in such a way? Absolutely. It shouldn't exist. But it does as people are forced to survive clinging to that they hold dear, that in the eyes of the more fortunate, it may pose a stretch to understand for it may render a guilt that is hard to bear. You may interpret that any way you choose.

William

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

Brightnoon, I'm struck by your morbid resignation to what seems to you an incredibly dark, insurmountable future. I've been around long enough to know that sort of thing can be, commonly is, fashionable albeit fleeting. Giving in to despair in the guise of realism is to concede the struggle to the very oligarchs you perceive. Life is a struggle, almost to the very last breath, and those who don't, yield. There's much too much fire in you to slide off that slope so soon.

2 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

Just a thought here...

... while I'm no expert, I have been an amateur fan/avid reader of history for quite some time now. Of the many perspectives I've gained in this long study is the realization that in virtually all cultures, throughout all generations and across the planet, virtually everyone - at one time or another - has honestly believed their future was on the verge of collapse, apocalypse or mass-degeneration.

Calls like "We are in the last days!", "Oh my god its the end of civilized interchange!" and the like have always echoed far and wide. I think it's a natural tendency - born from the human animal's innate ego - that says, "Oh my gosh! It's all falling apart". But after the smoke from each successive generation clears it endures just fine, plodding along century after century with many good morals, humility and honorable intellectualism well intact.

So yea, while these things *are* a concern (and great to discuss), a historical perspective says it's probably not nearly as bad as it feels.

Thanks

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;78531 wrote:

Brightnoon, I'm struck by your morbid resignation to what seems to you an incredibly dark, insurmountable future. I've been around long enough to know that sort of thing can be, commonly is, fashionable albeit fleeting. Giving in to despair in the guise of realism is to concede the struggle to the very oligarchs you perceive. Life is a struggle, almost to the very last breath, and those who don't, yield. There's much too much fire in you to slide off that slope so soon.

There's no resignation. I intend to disobey, organize, resist and if needed fight tooth and nail to reverse these trends, but what can I do, as an individual without exceptional means, or important connections? I will be a realist in analysis of the situation, an idealist in the solutions I offer, and again a realist in ensuring that those solutions are applied. Playing the part of Candide does no one any good. The facts are clear. The facts are ugly. That realization is the first necessary step to changing the facts.

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

A couple of things you could do include looking for the positive and lending that all the support you can muster. I think you're probably correct in your concern about an evolving oligarchy but the way to push back is, as you note, to "organize." It used to be that North American society would stratify along generational lines but I think that's less prevalent today. Yet we do seem to be becoming more stratified along economic or class lines, particularly with the decline of the middle class and accompanying weakening of social mobility.

I don't think the survival of civilization is going to be too easy in the latter part of this century but I think if we're to have real hope of changing that we all need to begin identifying solutions, real answers to we need to begin pursuing and very soon.

1 Reply

Tumbling Dice - First Privacy, Then Democracy?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know