11
   

Is Privacy necessary to Democracy?

 
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2020 05:51 pm
@vikorr,
I stand by my position then...

Technology does not present any special danger in a totalitarian state, the risks remain the same as they have always been. The safeguards against totalitarianism remain the same with or without technology. We need to

1) Diligently guard the right to freedom of expression.
2) Protect and strengthen civil democratic institutions.
3) Continue a culture of protecting civil rights of people who are not politically powerful.

If we do these things, we will be OK. Technology is what it is. It doesn't substantially change the balance of power.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2020 05:55 pm
@maxdancona,
And you're welcome to stand by it. At this point in time, it is largely a hypothetical exercise. It will be some generation in the future where the results of it will play out (for good, or bad).

Quote:
1) Diligently guard the right to freedom of expression.
2) Protect and strengthen civil democratic institutions.
3) Continue a culture of protecting civil rights of people who are not politically powerful.
These by the way, are precursors to my question, which question plays out after those things have been removed by a dicator.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 06:08 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

So, it's a matter of perception. Kinda like with the weather and rape, if it's inevitable, might as well enjoy it.


Like weather...but NOT at all like rape. That was just dumb. Mad

In regard to violations and their preceptions, privacy is on the side of the spectrum with rape, not the weather.


If that is how you see it...go with it. I think you are wrong.

In any case, you have less personal privacy today than yesterday; will have even less tomorrow...and that trajectory will continue from now on.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 06:24 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Privacy of the kind you appear to want...is a thing of the past. We will never return to anything even close.
We both agree to the red. However it wasn't the question posed.


You posed several questions...and presented an all-encompassing predicate to those questions. In light of that, the "However it wasn't the question posed" is questionable itself. I do appreciate your agreement with part of what I said.

Quote:
Quote:
As for the Internet...if you post on the Internet, you essentially give up your privacy voluntarily.
This is a rather fatalistic, 'I give up' type of statement, rather than a statement of actual voluntary surrender of the right to privacy, and it is only partly true:
- most states have privacy laws, that are meant to be enforceable. This shows that it is not meant meant to be carte blanche for companies on the net.
- a lot of companies have privacy policies - many of which show that those companies <with good privacy policies> believe in privacy... which shows that many believe it is not meant meant to be carte blanche for companies on the net.
- the laws of course haven't kept up, which is likely why the policies of the more invasive companies haven't kept up
- and there are ways to remain mostly anonymous online if not purchasing things online. But I also I doubt there is any foolproof way to remain anonymous online.


If you go swimming in the ocean, you give up your right not to drown in the ocean. If you stay off the Internet, you will lose no privacy to the Internet. It is becoming more and more obvious that no policy of any company operating on the Internet cannot be violated by people wanting to violate them.

The essentials of my comment remain, Vikorr.

Quote:
Quote:
It happens to be my opinion that the less privacy we each have...the better society is.
Unfortunately, none of your responses addressed the question of my OP.


My comment of above covers this. I gave opinions on the rather general issue you raised.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 07:38 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

For this reasons, it strikes me that the lack of online privacy is bad for democracy.

Maybe electronic communication and social media are bad for society in general. People are often excoriated for their willingness to trade freedom for security. In like manner, people seem willing to trade privacy for convenience.
We're still at the dawn of this "Information Age" and I expect it will take some time before we truly recognize all the ramifications. Perhaps "democracy", as we understand it, will be replaced by something else. Something better. A brave new world.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 09:06 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

vikorr wrote:

For this reasons, it strikes me that the lack of online privacy is bad for democracy.

Maybe electronic communication and social media are bad for society in general. People are often excoriated for their willingness to trade freedom for security. In like manner, people seem willing to trade privacy for convenience.
We're still at the dawn of this "Information Age" and I expect it will take some time before we truly recognize all the ramifications. Perhaps "democracy", as we understand it, will be replaced by something else. Something better. A brave new world.


Amen!
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 10:49 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

In any case, you have less personal privacy today than yesterday; will have even less tomorrow...and that trajectory will continue from now on.

The concern, however, is how to mitigate the deleterious effects that this reduced privacy can have on people.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 10:58 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

In any case, you have less personal privacy today than yesterday; will have even less tomorrow...and that trajectory will continue from now on.

The concern, however, is how to mitigate the deleterious effects that this reduced privacy can have on people.


That may be your concern...and the concern of some others. But there are many of us who focus slightly differently. We are willing to accept that the natural consequences of our technology will be LESS PERSONAL PRIVACY...and to concern ourselves with how to best incorporate it into day to day living...how to make it into a positive rather than think of it as a negative.

My personal feelings are that LESS PERSONAL PRIVACY will result in a much better society. The betterment of society may well rest on a willingness to concede to less personal privacy and less personal freedom. The path to a greater overall society may run counter to greater individual freedom and privacy.

I understand and respect your disagreement with that.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 11:55 am
@Frank Apisa,
I will give a specific example...

We are facing a global pandemic that jumps, often undetectably, from person to person in society. To combat this pandemic, we need to identify and isolate the people who carry the virus.

There are apps that are developed that will track people's motion to detect who has been in contact with the virus.

Privacy hurts these efforts.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 12:00 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I will give a specific example...

We are facing a global pandemic that jumps, often undetectably, from person to person in society. To combat this pandemic, we need to identify and isolate the people who carry the virus.

There are apps that are developed that will track people's motion to detect who has been in contact with the virus.

Privacy hurts these efforts.



Yup. Good example, Max.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 01:30 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I will give a specific example...

We are facing a global pandemic that jumps, often undetectably, from person to person in society. To combat this pandemic, we need to identify and isolate the people who carry the virus.

There are apps that are developed that will track people's motion to detect who has been in contact with the virus.

Privacy hurts these efforts.


Or we could just accept the fact some people will get sick and that this virus is not deadly. 99% survive. Humans adapt, the computers can keep track of how they did it.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 04:02 pm
@maxdancona,

Has either computer technology or internet technology made it easier
to become a victim of identity theft?
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 04:10 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

My personal feelings are that LESS PERSONAL PRIVACY will result in a much better society.

How so?
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 04:57 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
You posed several questions
Hmm. I posed one question as the context for everything else I wrote. Your response seems a little nit picky.

Quote:
If you go swimming in the ocean, you give up your right not to drown in the ocean.
This is a terrible comparison. You are comparing nature, which does what nature does, to constructs of mankind, and the chosen behaviours of people who use said construct.

Quote:
If you stay off the Internet, you will lose no privacy to the Internet.
The internet is only one part of what I am talking about - albeit a very intengral part.

Quote:
It is becoming more and more obvious that no policy of any company operating on the Internet cannot be violated by people wanting to violate them.
So very true. Yet your use of the word 'violate' suggests a morality different to the fatalism you express.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 05:11 pm
@Real Music,
I actually don't know the answer to that.

Digital security is far better than the alternative. Check fraud used to be a much bigger problem.

I would guess that fraud in general is much less of a problem now, thanks to technology.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 05:45 pm
@Real Music,
Thirty years ago, we all carried around checkbooks which we used to pay everything from church tithes, to rent, to groceries, to dry cleaning. These checkbooks contained little rectangles called checks which contained our bank account number in plain sight.

The security of these checks consisted of two things. First was the idea that if you write your name quickly or stylishly enough, no one could copy it well enough to fool a 17 year old cashier or an overworked immigrant contractor. This, of course, was ridiculous, it is meaningless as a security measure. But we all believed in it because we had too.

We needed checks back then because cash was difficult to come by. There were no ATMs... you had to go talk to a live person during bank business hours. Most of us would withdraw enough cash once a week based on what we expected to spend. But for the rest of our expenditures, there were checks.

And once a month, we would go through an always annoying and sometimes painful ritual we called "balancing" our checkbook. We all kept track of how much money we thought should be in our account. But when we got our account statement in the mail from the bank saying how much as actually in the account, we would have to go line by line to figure out why the numbers were different. Often this was because the checks hadn't made it through the slow financial system yet to be reflected in our accounts. Sometimes it was our mistake.

And yes... there was check fraud. It wasn't that hard for people to simply fake a signature or simply copy a bank number. You had to carefully check your statement each month to make sure someone hadn't done this. And... often this meant spending time on the phone with a tired bank employees going line by line over your account.

The good old days weren't always good.... (Billy Joel).
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 05:52 pm
@maxdancona,
With modern technology

1. I am able to see my account at any time day or night. The equivalent of "balancing my checkbook" is going over charges once a month to make sure I know the venders.

2. I have a PIN and a chip on my credit card. These can be hacked... but it isn't easy nor common, and the bank takes the hit in the rare time this happens so there is zero risk to me.

3. I can almost instantly transfer any amount of money to people from my electric company to my landlord. All of this is secure, easy and well documented (I can see where the money went with no risk and no doubt.)

4. And I no longer have to worry about cash. I am using much less cash now (since the electronic equivalents are not only more convenient, but more secure. And, there are machines all over the place that I can use at any time day or night when I need more cash.

Sure... you can point out things that are less secure. Thirty years ago if you were asked for money by a Nigerian prince, it likely meant that you were actually in Nigeria. But most of us have adapted.

Technology, in general, makes life more convenient and more secure.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 06:22 pm
@maxdancona,
Hmmm...I would say it makes it more convenient, and attempts to make it more secure. After all there is still, through using technology:
- credit card fraud
- paywave fraud
- hacking (Eg. mass credit card thefts have occurred)
- identity theft
- online account theft (not just of bank accounts)
- auction fraud (not getting what you paid for - because you are bidding remotely for something you can't actually see)
- online dating scams
- I work for tax office. You owe tax (aka Give me money). Pay X or I send police arrest you scams (People do fall for these. We have a site in Australia called Scamwatch.gov.au)
Yes, some of those have analogues to pre-internet (though not all of them), which isn't my point. Merely pointing out that the security threats have changed, rather than gone away.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 06:32 pm
@vikorr,
Obviously there is still fraud, and the nature of fraud has changed to meet the new ways of doing things.

I suspect that the overall amount of fraud has decreased over the past 50 years due in large part to security measures in the new technology. I looked around a bit... but didn't find any numbers that would confirm or deny my theory.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2020 06:09 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

My personal feelings are that LESS PERSONAL PRIVACY will result in a much better society.

How so?


Max gave an excellent example here: https://able2know.org/topic/553172-4#post-7071370

Video placed around cities and individual homes make various crimes less likely...and makes apprehension of perpetrators more likely.

There are many others.
 

Related Topics

So I just joined Facebook.... - Discussion by DrewDad
YouTube Is Doomed - Discussion by Shapeless
Internet disinformation overload - Discussion by rosborne979
Participatory Democracy Online - Discussion by wandeljw
OpenDNS and net neutrality - Question by Butrflynet
Internet Explorer 8? - Question by Pitter
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/26/2021 at 10:45:54