The big problem with the "nothing to hide" argument is that it turns the spotlight on the viewee and ignores the role of the viewer. You might have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean that whoever's looking at you is benevolent with nothing but good intentions. The law may be just, but the people enforcing it are fallible. Innocuous information can nevertheless be used against you. That's part of why we have our fifth amendment rights. The same issue applies in social situations. Ones sexual preferences, for example, are amoral. They don't affect anyone other than ones sexual partner(s), yet if they were public knowledge, one could (and probably would) nevertheless be judged by them and treated differently (perhaps unfairly) because of them. Even aside from that issue, there's a certain social dynamic involved in having privacy, even if the information is known to other parties. It's a matter of individual knowledge versus mutual knowledge that can be disruptive of important social dynamics. It's why we speak with euphemisms innuendos instead of being blunt. We're conveying information all the same, but we're doing it in a complicated way that protects the integrety of our social interactions. I'm doing a poor job of explaining this phenomenon, but it is described quite well in this video: RSA Animate - Language as a Window into Human Nature
"If you have nothing to hide/ if you're doing nothing wrong why require privacy?" Although this logic may be sound within the valuesystems of the person asking and the person being asked; What is considered to be "wrong" is in of itself a value judgement, aswell as "Things that should be hidden", therefor privacy, regardless of ones own opinion about the rightness or wrongness of any given subject/action should be had in my opinion, since if there were no privacy, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of whatever a person is doing, there's going to be another person judging that thing to be wrong.. For example, the swedish government has apparently taken a lot of information of swedish citizens, eventhough sweden thinks that 99% of everyone's dealings are "right", what happens when we sell that information to the states (It's been done apparently, or even given.. dont remember), maybe the states only consider 70% of it to be "right"? Interesting stuff..
man where have you been i am happy to discover this video series eventhough i am struggelng with english and sadly you are talking so fast ,,thank you so much.. greetings from Algeria
Two videos on the subjects that I found interesting: "Total surveillance: Everybody watching everybody else" by Stuart Armstrong ua-cam.com/video/zjwzhPkzfp0/v-deo.html "Burn the Data to the Ground" by Peter Watts ua-cam.com/video/gLihNlDhu_E/v-deo.html
You can add 20 billion and 50 billion in your head by adding 2+5 and then tacking on the requisite ten zeroes. And those are all ideas that you can comprehend.
The ‘if you have nothing to hide’ argument hinges upon an implicit assumption of benevolent, error-free governance which never ooerates with any agenda contrary to people with legitimate reasons to keep what they are doing private.
The big problem with the "nothing to hide" argument is that it turns the spotlight on the viewee and ignores the role of the viewer. You might have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean that whoever's looking at you is benevolent with nothing but good intentions. The law may be just, but the people enforcing it are fallible. Innocuous information can nevertheless be used against you. That's part of why we have our fifth amendment rights.
The same issue applies in social situations. Ones sexual preferences, for example, are amoral. They don't affect anyone other than ones sexual partner(s), yet if they were public knowledge, one could (and probably would) nevertheless be judged by them and treated differently (perhaps unfairly) because of them.
Even aside from that issue, there's a certain social dynamic involved in having privacy, even if the information is known to other parties. It's a matter of individual knowledge versus mutual knowledge that can be disruptive of important social dynamics. It's why we speak with euphemisms innuendos instead of being blunt. We're conveying information all the same, but we're doing it in a complicated way that protects the integrety of our social interactions. I'm doing a poor job of explaining this phenomenon, but it is described quite well in this video: RSA Animate - Language as a Window into Human Nature
"If you have nothing to hide/ if you're doing nothing wrong why require privacy?" Although this logic may be sound within the valuesystems of the person asking and the person being asked; What is considered to be "wrong" is in of itself a value judgement, aswell as "Things that should be hidden", therefor privacy, regardless of ones own opinion about the rightness or wrongness of any given subject/action should be had in my opinion, since if there were no privacy, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of whatever a person is doing, there's going to be another person judging that thing to be wrong.. For example, the swedish government has apparently taken a lot of information of swedish citizens, eventhough sweden thinks that 99% of everyone's dealings are "right", what happens when we sell that information to the states (It's been done apparently, or even given.. dont remember), maybe the states only consider 70% of it to be "right"? Interesting stuff..
man where have you been i am happy to discover this video series eventhough i am struggelng with english and sadly you are talking so fast ,,thank you so much.. greetings from Algeria
Two videos on the subjects that I found interesting:
"Total surveillance: Everybody watching everybody else" by Stuart Armstrong ua-cam.com/video/zjwzhPkzfp0/v-deo.html
"Burn the Data to the Ground" by Peter Watts ua-cam.com/video/gLihNlDhu_E/v-deo.html
The federal reserve note is not a positive thing, for most people.
You can add 20 billion and 50 billion in your head by adding 2+5 and then tacking on the requisite ten zeroes. And those are all ideas that you can comprehend.
The ‘if you have nothing to hide’ argument hinges upon an implicit assumption of benevolent, error-free governance which never ooerates with any agenda contrary to people with legitimate reasons to keep what they are doing private.