How Important is Privacy?

Off Topic
41

[quote]OsakaNate wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Maybe we all need to read up on post-structuralism; from: Post-structuralism - Wikipedia

* The author's intended meaning, such as it is (for the author's identity as a stable ''self'' with a single, discernible ''intent'' is also a fictional construct), is secondary to the meaning that the reader perceives. Post-structuralism rejects the idea of a literary text having a single purpose, a single meaning, or one singular existence. Instead, every individual reader creates a new and individual purpose, meaning, and existence for a given text. To step outside of literary theory, this position is generalizable to any situation where a subject perceives a sign. Meaning (or the signified, in Saussure's scheme, which is as heavily presumed upon in post-structuralism as in structuralism) is constructed by an individual from a signifier. This is why the signified is said to 'slide' under the signifier, and explains the talk about the ''primacy of the signifier.''

cliff notes:
-what the author meant is less important than what what the reader thinks it means[/quote]

I don’t know about this. Seems to be one of those things that applies only to intellectual games (or law, lol).

I figure that I, as an author of some type of statement (or ‘‘text’’), can have a specific meaning intended which I am trying to communicate. If the reader thinks it means something other than the meaning I intended, then the reader is mistaken, and has misinterpreted the statement (or ‘‘text’’), either as a result of my poor communication skills or them being an idiot.

Case in point:

If Professor X tells me to eat a lot to get big, and that I may need to hold some bodyfat to put on a decent amount of muscle, and I interpret that to mean ‘‘eat hamburgers and get fat’’, have I "creat[ed] a new and individual purpose, meaning, and existence for [the] given text’’ or am I just a dumbfuck with no reading comprehension skills?

On another note, I think that privacy is very important and should be protected at all costs. Anonymity is another thing entirely though, so for the topic at hand, I’m not sure which you’re discussing.

I do believe that I should be able to control access to personal information. However, I also agree that there should be some accountability for things on the internet.

Tough call as to how to balance the two.[/quote]

I think one of the main points to post-structuralism is that there is always a gray area in communication, a chance of miss-communication, and dependency on assumptions on some part. This is especially important when you move across cultural boundaries. Look at the thread on the N-word thread and the role of context.

Look at how politicians fight over the particular meaning of something and how it MUST mean THIS.

Also, consider any text that is translated between languages and across time - post-structuralists would argue they are at best a interpretation but not the same thing.

This is actually a powerful notion.

Consider this, we can talk about eating at table and we will both now what I am talking about. But the questions is what does the table look like? Does it matter in this case, probably not, but we are both working on the assumption that table means the same thing to both of us and the actual table does not matter. In general we make a lot of assumptions in what we write and read. Post-structuralism points that out.

42

[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ X where does the responsibility lie though? [/quote]

The pivotal question. Is it at the site of the individual or at some higher public level.

Market is one way (individual site driven) or government is another.

43

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ X where does the responsibility lie though? [/quote]

The pivotal question. Is it at the site of the individual or at some higher public level.

Market is one way (individual site driven) or government is another.[/quote]

I am always for less government because A. Show me one government organization that is cost effective and productive and B. Loss of individual freedem will follow

So I have no problem with Govt stipulations and guidelines in the free market system. Otherwise we lose actual fair market. Again example above, Punitive damages should be sought and given to BB.com for its management of the site it is responsible for.

44

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
It is illegal to video cops in some jurisdiction, there are other limits on video and audio depending on place.[/quote]
If you haven’t, you should look up the copwatch movement(?). It’s all about accountability.

My second point is, if there’s video footage of the person doing the crime, then that is evidence and can be used in court, if necessary.
Reading what you wrote again, I originally took it to mean that you meant a bystander recording an incident should somehow be held accountable for recording, but after reading it again, I think what you meant was if the person recording and the person committing the crime are ‘in cahoots’, then they both should be held accountable, is that right?

45

^I will check out the copwatch movement.

The second reading was what I intended. I think there is a place for videoing so that it can be used as evidence, something that should be turned over to police and alleged victims/perpetrators lawyers - not only to the police. Filming is secondary to calling 911.

If a crime takes place and is filmed for entertainment value then the filmers would be accomplishes, correct?

46

From PWI

47

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I think one of the main points to post-structuralism is that there is always a gray area in communication, a chance of miss-communication, and dependency on assumptions on some part. This is especially important when you move across cultural boundaries. Look at the thread on the N-word thread and the role of context.[/quote]

I do not disagree that there are gray areas in communication. I also do not disagree that there are times when multiple interpretations of a text (or other form of communication) are possible, desirable, or intended.

What I disagree with is the assertion that ‘‘the author’s identity as a stable ‘‘self’’ with a single, discernible ‘‘intent’’ is [also] a fictional construct’’. While I can agree with the premise that a person, either as author or reader, is a dynamic entity ‘‘compris[ed of] tensions between conflicting knowledge claims’’, I disagree that a ‘‘text’’ has this same dynamism. What I mean by this, is that a ‘‘text’’ is a ‘‘snapshot’’ of a particular moment in time of an author’s ‘‘personal concept of self’’, which does have a ‘‘single, discernible intent.’’

And this intent, this intended meaning, is the core of that which the author is trying to communicate, and thus takes primacy over any perceived meaning that the reader appends. Basically, I assert that it is the burden of the reader to decipher the author’s intent and not merely ‘‘understand how the work is related to his or her own personal concept of self’’, or at least not until after discerning the author’s original intent.

I did allude to law being an area that allowed for this kind of interpretation. Again, I do not disagree that there are some things that are deliberately left open to interpretation of intent.

But this is, really, a different argument, unless the work was translated by the author. It is the equivalent of a subject reading a ‘‘text’’ and then writing their own interpretation of the original and then trying to pass it off as the original. As someone who has done translation (from Japanese to English), I can tell you that it is difficult to convey the the original intent of an author across language barriers. However, most good translators will still attempt to ascertain and stay as true to the original intent as possible, even though the risk of misinterpretation is always present.

And let me reiterate, at this point, that it is not the idea that there will be misinterpretations, or varying interpretations, of a given text that I am arguing against. It is the notion that the primary intent of the author is secondary to these misinterpretations (or varying interpretations) that I reject. I stand behind the example in my previous post.

Like I said before, there are times when multiple interpretations are possible, desirable, or intended. Yes, I agree that the table in question may look different in my mind’s eye than in yours (or anyone else’s), and in this case would exemplify ‘‘creat[ing] a new and individual purpose, meaning, and existence for a given text’’ in relation ‘‘to his or her own personal concept of self.’’

However, I do believe that the reader can erroneously interpret this same information. If, for example, the context of the aforementioned table was a 19th century London townhome, and the reader interpreted the table as being some angular, brushed steel frame with a composite tabletop, then I would assert that this interpretation is in error, as tables of that sort did not exist at that time period, and, therefore, the intent of the author takes primacy over the perception of the reader.

I would think the same if I were to write a sentence like: The samurai warrior stood over his enemy, sword raised overhead to strike.
And the reader interpreted the word ‘‘sword’’ to mean a two-handed Scottish claymore, or a light, thin rapier as opposed to the Japanese katana. I would consider this to be a misinterpretation due to ignorance of historical and cultural context, and not ‘‘a new and individual purpose, meaning, and existence for a given text’’ that takes primacy over my original intent as the author.

48

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Reading what you wrote again, I originally took it to mean that you meant a bystander recording an incident should somehow be held accountable for recording, but after reading it again, I think what you meant was if the person recording and the person committing the crime are ‘in cahoots’, then they both should be held accountable, is that right?[/quote]

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
The second reading was what I intended. I think there is a place for videoing so that it can be used as evidence, something that should be turned over to police and alleged victims/perpetrators lawyers - not only to the police. Filming is secondary to calling 911.

If a crime takes place and is filmed for entertainment value then the filmers would be accomplishes, correct?[/quote]

And this exchange highlights my point further (emphasis mine).

You had a purpose, an ‘‘intent’’, in what you were trying to communicate. MattyG35 interpreted it in a different way than you intended, but was able to re-read and ascertain your intent.

I would say he misinterpreted your intent, and that your intent was primary to his interpretation.

Would the ‘‘post-structuralist’’ assert that his misinterpretation of your intent be primary to your intended meaning?

49

I cannot speak for post-structuralist. You make valid points. Bear in mind that in the case of someone entity policing the internet it would be their (the policing agents) interpretation of the text that would be of primary importance when it came to taking action against the poster. Also, consider art (which can be read as a text). It is the viewers interpretation that is important, even artist admit this.

Post-structuralists wrote knowing that their texts could be interpreted differently than they intended.

From my own experience I have reread things I have written to find them far more thought provoking than I intended. My reinterpretation of my own writings, finding new and intriguing things in them, has me leaning towards post-structuralism as a theory with some kernels of truth in it.

50

Reviewing about the gov’t internet ID, it is intended as a single ID for all gov’t interactions online rather than multiple screen names & passwords. I can see this as helpful for individuals who interact with gov’t frequently.

However, is this not what SS#'s are supposed to do, be a single identifying indicator that says you are who you say they are. If that is not good enough (it has been degraded as it is/was used by commercial and public sources) then I am not sure how the internet ID would not meet the same fate if it also used by non-governmental entities.