Why Is Privacy So Important?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

How much do you trust the government?

The government should only do things because it has a reason. And a good one at that. Having evidence that a person is molesting children is enough to temporarily take away that persons privacy at home. Putting a hidden camera in everyone’s home to catch pedophiles is going too far.

The idea of the government keeping detailed files on me just because it can kind of annoys me. The idea of companies doing the same thing for “market research” is just as bad.

Every time I fire up the spyware program, and find all the shit everyone put on my computer, I get a little peeved.

Although on the opposite end, I believe that if anyone were to take this monitoring too far, they would not have the resources to watch everything. So many cameras may mean so much to watch that nobody every actually watches everything. And with all those files building up, nobody is really going to care what is in them. Just collecting information for the possibility of future use.

At least until computers are advanced enough to watch everything in real time, and contact the police. (Hey, gotta watch Terminator again.)

I understand watching the terrorists, but why the hell would they need to watch me? No different then making old ladies take off their shoes at the airports. I don’t care how non-PC this is, but the terrorists do fit a profile. As far as I know, not one woman has been a terrorist, and all have been under a certain age.

22

Why is privacy important? Because it’s mine. I have my cave, I have my fire. What I do in that cave (shit, fuck, read, train), with my fire (cook, sterilize, dispose of used napkins, search for smoke plumes resembling lesbian porn), with any other consenting Homo erectus (fuck, masturbate, train, read, shit, soil napkins) is only my business, so long as I do not interefere with another cave dweller who does not wish to be involved in my cave-adventures.

Of course, the question always comes again: why?

Because. That’s my cave. That’s my fire. This is my developing body, mind and spirit. It belongs to me. Without privacy, I am up for inspection by any willing to watch at any time.

I don’t trust the watchmen. I don’t trust those watching the watchmen. I don’t want to tear down the watchmen’s tower, though. But I sure as shit want a plank over my cave’s biggest opening.

23

[quote]snipeout wrote:
On a whole the closer you live to major terrorist attractions the more willing you are to give up some privacy not to be killed in a terrorist attack. If you don’t live close enough to say NYC or the Baltimore harbor tunnel you can’t fully grasp the reality of the situation. I’m not saying to give up all expectations to privacy but you don’t realize how real the threat of a major terrorist attack is until you experience it first hand, not just on TV.[/quote]

I agree that those who are in the most direct threat of violence would naturally be most inclined to sacrifice some privacy in order to protect themselves. However, I think that by willingly giving up some personal freedom in exchange for increased security, we are also allowing terrorism to effect us in a deep way. If terrorists can scare us into giving up some of our freedom as a result or their actions, I would argue that that terror has worked.

Protecting the lives of its citizens is an important function of the federal government (although more so now then a few hundred years ago) and of civilizatoin in gereral, but freedom and liberty were princles that this country was founded on. Thomas Jefferson argued that people’s freedom and liberty were granted by God and that social contracts were formed only to ensure people could enjoy those rights. It was understood even then that some liberty had to be sacrificed to avoid a primitive state of chaos in which nobody could enjoy their God-given rights, but liberty and freedom, not security, were that things that were being protected.

24

[quote]skinnygrowboy wrote:
There are plenty of reasons why preserving our right to privacy is important. For example, the world is becoming more bent on political correctness, multiculturalism, etc., to the point that there is a push to criminalize thoughts. So if I say something in a conversation that should be private, I could lose my job, be crucified by the media, or in some places be charged with a crime. I don’t want to have parts of my private conversation taken out of context and wind up being charged with one of these “hate crimes” or deemed a terrorist because I may have an unpopular point of view.

In my opinion (which is correct), the erosion of the right to privacy is an erosion of the rights of the individual and a movement towards an ever more socialist society. Reduction of my privacy will make it easier for the government to redistribute my wealth. It will become easier to force me to be double and triple taxed. It will make it easier for the government and/or private oranizations or individuals to segment the population and categorize people (good or bad) by their association or affiliation with certain groups. Of course this is done already, but imagine it being done on a scale that is orders of magnitude beyond what we have seen so far.

It will also become easier for the government and others to monitor your behavior for whatever purpose. Suppose you went out and bought a pack of cigarretes for your father-in-law and used your credit card–then two months later your medical insurance premiums are increased because you reported when you got it that you didn’t smoke. There are probably hundreds of other scenarious like this.

I know these examples might seem a little extreme, but they are examples of what will eventually happen if privacy is not protected.[/quote]

This is incorrect. Socialism is absolutely not about invading people’s privacy, and the privacy issue has little to do with the redistribution of your wealth.

Do you know the difference between socialism and Stalin-esque communism? Do realize that socialists are the most vehement defenders of right to privacy that there are? All socialists decry the facist patriot act. They are against giving out anyone’s information, they are against making moral laws such as banning abortion or even wearing a seatbelt. Socialism is an economic system that does not want o redistribute your wealth by “triple taxing” you. Who funds the ACLU? Certainly no right wingers. All lefists and Democrats.

The only reason we are bent on multicultralism is because, as discussed in the other threads, America has been an outright racist nation for most of its existence. But this has nothing to do with privacy, so I dont know why you brought it up.

The things you mention are things that facists do, not socialists. Get your facts straight.

25

What one must remember is that 230 years ago islamic extremists did not crash jetliners into skyscrapers or blow up subways with themselves as the bomb. We had a racial profiling thread a while back where alot of people disagreed about specific pofiling of any one group to prevent crime or terrorism. So, as alot on here would agree specific monitoring of middle eastern people in America is not the answer. If that is not the answer, than as a whole we may have to sacrifice a small amount to not die as a result of another disgusting large scale terrorist attack. I went to the NY GIANTS home opener September 11th this year, and I will tell you I was a little nervous. My nerves were relieved when I saw the overwhelming presence of the NJ State Police on the ground and overhead with M-4’s. Due to my location in proximity to major terror targets I will gladly make small sacrifices not to die because people living in the middle of nowhere don’t want the government invading their right to look at animal porn.

26

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Vegita wrote:
I mean I would rather know my government is using every espionage tool available to find out who the really bad people are and jump on them before they do something really bad.

V

That’s fine, until you start feeding hungry black children before school, and the government decides YOU are one of the bad guys.[/quote]

What about hungry hispanic kids? They don’t get to eat?

27

[quote]hankr wrote:
… the single greatest threat to your freedom is the US gov’t. …[/quote]

It always has been. Break the law and the USSR wasn’t going to lock you up.

I think the single biggest threat to your personal freedom is being stupid and committing a felony.

It is the governments job to incarcerate criminals. The real issue is not how much privacy you have, the real issue is what is illegal and what isn’t.

I think too many “victimless” crimes are illegal. If law enforcement becomes more intrusive and actually starts to lock up everyone that bets on a BB game or smokes pot we will have major problems.

I think the solution is not to make it easy to hide your crimes (privacy), but to decriminalize many things.
That way high school kids can have a beer and not worry about it being on their criminal record.

28

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
…

The only reason we are bent on multicultralism is because, as discussed in the other threads, America has been an outright racist nation for most of its existence. …[/quote]

For the last 50 plus years America has actually been one of the least racist nations in the world. Our extremely diverse cultural makeup means we have lots more interaction between various races and more opportunity for problems, but your statement takes it too far.

Japan may be the most racist nation on earth. Korea is pretty racist too. I have heard some horribly racist things come from the mouths of Europeans.

Sorry for the hijack, but I hate to see mindless America bashing.

29

[quote]Vash wrote:
…
I don’t trust the watchmen. I don’t trust those watching the watchmen. I don’t want to tear down the watchmen’s tower, though. But I sure as shit want a plank over my cave’s biggest opening.[/quote]

I understand this sentiment completely.

Just remember, no one trusts you either.

30

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I think the solution is not to make it easy to hide your crimes (privacy), but to decriminalize many things.
[/quote]

But since that will never happen…

31

I’m not going to cover this on philosophical/theory grounds, because I don’t think anyone really reads those posts of mine anyway. I don’t blame you, they’re long.

Instead, let me just suggest a couple of things about human psychology and power.

  1. It may be true that human beings require privacy to feel autonomous. And to a large extent, autonomy requires privacy. Liberal societies that, in principle, believe in the “marketplace of ideas” need exceptional people who challenge norms; these people will be less likely to emerge if they are subject to constant monitoring. But I’ve said too much…

  2. Some laws ought to be broken. The ability to break laws, to resist the government, and to be disobedient to authority are necessary to check the tyranny of government. This may sound somewhat anachronistic to your ears, because you’ve never lived under such an oppressive regime, or have not troubled yourself to imagine what that would be like.

  3. There are many things that people like to do that are not threatening to others, yet they would not wish to become public knowledge. As such, intruding privacy gives government the power to coerce in chilling ways.

  4. On the other hand, I do wonder if people would be made more just by such invasive laws. This is, again, probably anachronistic. We don’t generally speak of “statecraft as soulcraft” any longer. But it’s an interesting question. We should also wonder if such a regime could ever be tolerated in a commercial republic… unless it were, in fact, carried out on the premise of commercialism.

But it doesn’t matter what we say, really. Our rights are being eroded. People are imprisoned without due process. Websites that embarrass the administration are being shut down. Parents are starting to buy tracking devices for their teenage children, which will serve the useful purpose of making them accustomed to constant monitoring from an early age. We have no property rights. It is time for a revolution, but no one will turn off the television long enough to care.

But hey… if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to hide, right?

32

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
…

The only reason we are bent on multicultralism is because, as discussed in the other threads, America has been an outright racist nation for most of its existence. …

For the last 50 plus years America has actually been one of the least racist nations in the world. Our extremely diverse cultural makeup means we have lots more interaction between various races and more opportunity for problems, but your statement takes it too far.

Japan may be the most racist nation on earth. Korea is pretty racist too. I have heard some horribly racist things come from the mouths of Europeans.

Sorry for the hijack, but I hate to see mindless America bashing.[/quote]

C’mon now, when I bash America it’s never mindless.

You are right. Racism is somehow ingrained in everyone’s brain, regardless of nationality. The super PC attitude is an attempt, albeit sometimes ourageously overboard, to correct this. But yes, this country has made a hell of a lot of headway in the last 50 years. No hijacking here either, just thought I’d clear that up.

33

[quote]nephorm wrote:
I’m not going to cover this on philosophical/theory grounds, because I don’t think anyone really reads those posts of mine anyway. I don’t blame you, they’re long.

Instead, let me just suggest a couple of things about human psychology and power.

  1. It may be true that human beings require privacy to feel autonomous. And to a large extent, autonomy requires privacy. Liberal societies that, in principle, believe in the “marketplace of ideas” need exceptional people who challenge norms; these people will be less likely to emerge if they are subject to constant monitoring. But I’ve said too much…

  2. Some laws ought to be broken. The ability to break laws, to resist the government, and to be disobedient to authority are necessary to check the tyranny of government. This may sound somewhat anachronistic to your ears, because you’ve never lived under such an oppressive regime, or have not troubled yourself to imagine what that would be like.

  3. There are many things that people like to do that are not threatening to others, yet they would not wish to become public knowledge. As such, intruding privacy gives government the power to coerce in chilling ways.

  4. On the other hand, I do wonder if people would be made more just by such invasive laws. This is, again, probably anachronistic. We don’t generally speak of “statecraft as soulcraft” any longer. But it’s an interesting question. We should also wonder if such a regime could ever be tolerated in a commercial republic… unless it were, in fact, carried out on the premise of commercialism.

But it doesn’t matter what we say, really. Our rights are being eroded. People are imprisoned without due process. Websites that embarrass the administration are being shut down. Parents are starting to buy tracking devices for their teenage children, which will serve the useful purpose of making them accustomed to constant monitoring from an early age. We have no property rights. It is time for a revolution, but no one will turn off the television long enough to care.

But hey… if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to hide, right?[/quote]

Nice.

34

[quote]nephorm wrote:
But hey… if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to hide, right?[/quote]

That was a good post Neph. You obviously put a bit of thought into that.

Here is my slant on the whole issue - It is none of your fucking business what I do in my private time, especially if you have no reason to suspect me of breaking the law. People are there to keep tabs on the government, not the other way around.

If you suspect me of breaking the law with good grounds, come and kick my door in, but if not, stay the fuck out of my life.

My privacy is just that; private.

Anybody who thinks that this sort of power would not be abused both by the government and those individuals who are running the surveillance is living in a fairy land.

35

[quote]Massif wrote:
If you suspect me of breaking the law with good grounds, come and kick my door in, but if not, stay the fuck out of my life.
[/quote]

I don’t even agree with that. If you suspect me AND have solid evidence, then you can do that, otherwise, breaking my door down just because you “suspect” something is retarded. How immature must anyone be to not see the potential danger and abuse behind letting EVERYTHING about you become public knowledge? Did your parents argue when you were a kid. How about we all listen in on your family’s personal issues? You were how old when you first masturbated? That would look nice on a job application, wouldn’t it?

I can’t believe this is even a debate. What is wrong in this country where even the thought of allowing the government to access every possible nook and facet of your life is applauded by anyone? How clueless would you have to be to welcome this with open arms?

36

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Massif wrote:
If you suspect me of breaking the law with good grounds, come and kick my door in, but if not, stay the fuck out of my life.

I don’t even agree with that. If you suspect me AND have solid evidence, then you can do that, otherwise, breaking my door down just because you “suspect” something is retarded. [/quote]

Solid evidence is what I meant by “with good grounds”. I guess I didn’t make that clear enough.

If you have evidence that I’m a bad little bastard, then come get me. If you don’t, then your incompetence in the collection of evidence does not mean you can piss on my privacy.

37

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
…

The only reason we are bent on multicultralism is because, as discussed in the other threads, America has been an outright racist nation for most of its existence. …

For the last 50 plus years America has actually been one of the least racist nations in the world. Our extremely diverse cultural makeup means we have lots more interaction between various races and more opportunity for problems, but your statement takes it too far.

Japan may be the most racist nation on earth. Korea is pretty racist too. I have heard some horribly racist things come from the mouths of Europeans.

Sorry for the hijack, but I hate to see mindless America bashing.

C’mon now, when I bash America it’s never mindless.

You are right. Racism is somehow ingrained in everyone’s brain, regardless of nationality. The super PC attitude is an attempt, albeit sometimes ourageously overboard, to correct this. But yes, this country has made a hell of a lot of headway in the last 50 years. No hijacking here either, just thought I’d clear that up.
[/quote]

FightinIrish, You are alright for a Jersey liberal.

38

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I think the solution is not to make it easy to hide your crimes (privacy), but to decriminalize many things.

But since that will never happen…[/quote]

Unfortunately you are right.

39

How much privacy do you think people had 100 or 200 years ago?

I suspect they did not have very much. The government and churches have always been very intrusive.

I think the big difference now is technology for spying and recording.

I think we are lumping too many things together in this subject. I am 100% against traffic cameras and the like because they are purely a revenue enhancement device.

Perhaps a caveat that any intrusion of privacy could NOT result in any form of revenue would impose reasonable limits.

40

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
How much privacy do you think people had 100 or 200 years ago?

I suspect they did not have very much. The government and churches have always been very intrusive.

I think the big difference now is technology for spying and recording.

I think the other big difference is the the dissapearence of the frontier. From the Puritan settlers until the late 19th century people who didn’t want to abide by the laws or norms of society were always able to move west (or east from California after the Gold Rush) and live their lives with a greater degree of personal freedom and anonimity. These benifits were accompanied by less security and more lawlessness. Although that lifestyle didn’t suit everyone, it always gave everyone the option to withdraw from their social contract and escape somewhat from the rules and restraints of cvilization.

We no longer have a frontier to move to. We have no option to pack up escape civilization anymore. For that reason I think any erosion of our liberty is much more destructive to our freedom. It effects everyone and once our freedom is gone will have to reverse the process to get it back, since their is nowhere else to go. It may be hard to demand more freedom from a federal goverenment that no longer upholds its citizens right to do so, or holds people who oppose government without due process under the guise of national security.