
‘I have nothing to hide’ is killing the privacy argument - plhetp
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/02/11/i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-killing-the-privacy-argument/
======
SFjulie1
of course it is. because it is the right argument against privacy.

I love to scratch my balls and I do it at home with my wife in the room
proudly.

I am a cynique. My dream as a man would be to wank like a dog on the public
space and that putin or bill gates came to me asking me if I needed something
(probably to stop disgracing the place).

In my dreams I answer "Move your ass from my sun, I already have the best I
wish, and the sun whatever the fuck powerful you think you are is not in your
power to command".

The guy probably would have asked me if I was not fearing him and I would have
answered: are you waking up every morning and looking up in the mirror
thinking you are a bad guy? No. Should I fear the good guys?

Knowing the answer, I would have had resumed wanking again.

But the actual modern internet is all about self censorship by bigotry. If
they were less bigotry internet would be a tad better.

Nowadays, living like a dog as a choice is not possible anymore. So when I
basically tell the story of Diogenes who made fun of Alexander the Great, I
see a problem with our civilization pretending that our society is better and
more free than the Athenian democracy because we have no more slaves.

I would say the opposite: we are now all slaves. Especially from not only
bigotry and the fear of the disapprobation of the moeurs, but also the fact
there is an asymmetry between the citizens that must strip without consent of
their privacy, while the more powerful shield themselves in invisibility
cloaks.

And if someone read greek old myths as I do, we all remember the Gyges ring
parabol about how substracting yourself from the public view is a perfect tool
for planning and hiding crimes.

So my problem with the privacy always boils down to: who watches the watchmen
(Allan Moore 1996)

EDIT conclusion what cynism tells about privacy Fear not who you are, because
the pressure of feeling observed is our universal moral compass. There is no
morality possible without accepting fully your own nature and build you life
centered around not the picture a society have of you, but around your true
nature. The true slavery is the one of imposed morality. Hence the true face
of slavery is a society that requires privacy to function properly. Care not
about the eyes of the others, care about your own weakness at not accepting
your differences.

~~~
plhetp
Theoretically I think it's great to live in a society were everyone can be
themselves, without the need to 'fit in' with everyone else. To be able to do
everything you truly want, without having to worry about what others might
think. But I think that such a society isn't possible in the real world, since
we tend to judge each other in a matter of seconds. I believe that if everyone
knows everything about me, that doesn't make them judge me on the whole me,
but only on the things that stand out. Just because I like to 'things' in my
own home, doesn't mean that i'd like my colleagues to know about it. Or
Facebook. Or the government.

It should always be my own decision (freedom of choice) to make something
public.

~~~
SFjulie1
Well I don't think a society problem can be fixed with cryptography.

Diogenes messages is clear: the less you need in order to be happy, the more
free you are.

The first spying system seems to be in your brain not in the nature of the
world, and it is called moral judgement; useless thoughts that make you
vulnerable.

You can shield yourself more around your vulnerabilities (crypto), or you can
totally accept to give up on your vulnerabilities (shameless UK/US).

Maybe giving up on moral crap and living as we really are would solve the
problem much more than spending useless money on this topic.

Being shameless= 0$ (poor's weapon), good crypto = ...M$ (wealthy kid's
weapon)

Sometimes I pledge for a clear business analysis for highlighting stupid
ideas.

People claim they need crypto just in case they need to revolt (China...) and
they cannot revolt against stupid stuff because they don't have tools. For
being more free.

But being more free is above all a state of mind. And believing that
submitting to more (technical) constraint is a necessity to be more free seems
very idiotic to me. I think it a technical solution to a shared nevrosis of
some illuminated developers that never took the time to open "good old paper
books". Crypto is a shield to protect a vulnerability that can be avoided by
accepting to wank in the public space.

Hey, geektarded, there are libraries with SMALL DATA. Pieces of knowledge
written in intelligible way. It is called books.

Of course, you have then 2500 years worth of books about "the social
contract", political science on how to solve the need to accept our
differences (ourselves) and how to share a public space.

But I guess, coders suffer NIH syndroma since their hubris is exploding the
standard reference set by Narciss. They seem to ignore old pieces of
knowledge.

Sometimes, IT is making media more efficient to distribute shitload of new non
information at the detriment of our past cultures that are loaded with a lot
of them.

It is time for being a Luddite.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
You'll never compete in the next revolution with books. Too slow; need a
publisher on your side; the govt has all the electronic communication and can
react/communicate instantly.

No, its about an escalating war and going back to bow and arrow is not going
to win. Witness the Maginot Line in WWII etc.

Modern e-communications are available to folks of almost every wealth -
witness in Africa that most banking is done on phones! Its a tired old
argument that only the rich worry about computer tech.

~~~
plhetp
I agree. You can't battle the information overload with books, since they
aren't as available as the internet for the entire world population.

