[FoRK] Apple collecting, sharing iPhone users' precise locations
michaelslists at gmail.com
Mon Jun 21 20:52:08 PDT 2010
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Jeremy Apthorp <nornagon at nornagon.net> wrote:
> On 22 June 2010 13:00, silky <michaelslists at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Jeremy Apthorp <nornagon at nornagon.net> wrote:
>>> Personally, I don't know where to stand on the privacy scale. After
>>> having thought about it for some time, I still don't even really
>>> understand what privacy *is*, or whether it's inherently important.
>>> The question I try to ask myself is: what would a society with no
>>> privacy look like? Would that be a good society?
>> It's important.
>> One of the more obvious ways it's important is that people live
>> differently to how they work. Now, you may argue that your private
>> life has some bearing on your work life, and that's true to a degree;
>> but your work doesn't own you. One thing to look at is the recent
>> controversy surrounding Tavis Ormandy and his disclosure process to
>> Taking it to the extreme, if there was absolutely no privacy ever,
>> you'd need to have people who are comfortable knowing everythinng
>> about each other, and still working with them comfortably. I suspect
>> there are many uncomfortable truths you wouldn't want to know about
>> people around you right now; you have no business knowing.
> That is a circular argument. If we had no *expectation* of privacy,
> then why would I be uncomfortable?
Well, that's what I'm saying; the state of no privacy would mean that
human nature would need to change so that you don't care. If you
didn't care, then yes, you wouldn't care. So I agree, there would be
no problem. It's hard to say how society would be, though, isn't it,
if human nature was so significantly changed? Then again, that's your
question, isn't it ...
>> But if you
>> did know, what would you do? It's probablt in your nature to treat
>> them differently. It would be impossible not to. But if this attitude
>> of different treatment were removed from the human species after long
>> exposure, then there would be no reason for privacy.
> Is that a future to be avoided or sought out?
I would say, "avoided", maybe ...
But I don't see how it would be possible without significant changes
to humans. So much so that I'm not sure what we would be. Would we be
people who no longer care what others do? Surely we would no longer
make rational decisions.
I suppose the movie "The Invention of Lying" covers this idea a little
bit (but not truly).
I must admit, I'm having a bit of trouble imagining what a society
like that would be like ... If it were possible to have a situation in
which all secrets could be public, and rational decisions were still
made, and no ill affects were afforded to those with "bad" secrets and
no benefits to those with "good" secrets, then I think it would be
More information about the FoRK