this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
27 points (72.9% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26238 readers
1230 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This isn't meant to start a war in the comments.

I have been thinking... Platforms that advertise encryption and unmatched privacy have almost always been used by bad actors that ruin it for everyone else. This leads to some sort of middle ground being set up that ends up being further from privacy than we'd like it to be.

I see the benefits of both situations, and am left wondering if we can even survive as a society if we were to have absolute privacy.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Edit:

I'm asking how we can navigate this conundrum in order to reach a common ground where we do NOT have to give up our precious privacy in exchange for security.

Nothing else. I'm sorry if my post didn't reflect that.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

To your direct question, bad actors exist, cuz interests can be misaligned. If we protect ourselves from all bad actors we'll have absolute security and no liberty. And then eventually we will have no security.

US founding father is often quoted as saying those who are willing to give up Liberty for security will have neither. Freedom is the only stable state politically, without freedom somebody becomes oppressed, when people are oppressed countries become unstable.

To answer the more philosophical question, you need to moderate the privacy in your life versus the utility it provides. If you're taking care of an octogenarian relative who could have dementia, or is it a fall risk, you want to be able to monitor them, to know if they are in trouble. Hopefully this monitoring comes with informed consent. There are many times when we don't need privacy from everybody, we can let some people in.

In everyday life, our neighbors usually know a huge amount about our lives. That's why they can check in when the patterns change. Hey I didn't see Bob check the mail for a day. We should go see him and say hi. That's a demonstration of the lack of privacy.

I think the main issue is when it happens with uninterested third parties who simply use their surveillance capabilities to oppress people, maybe not oppressed today but build the machinery to oppress tomorrow. And that's the main issue

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

This was a really good point.

"What's the true intent?" is an important question.