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.

  • HMN@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do you think perhaps that valuing privacy differently from one individual to the next would have a net negative effect? If we’re now also talking about threat assessments, that’s another topic altogether, with privacy only being a part.

    • Candelestine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, perhaps. It’s irrelevant though. Trying to get everyone to agree to a universal set of values on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is already hard enough. Privacy is even harder.

      People have different opinions and value different things, they choose that all for themselves. They’re free to do that, and it’s fine.

      • HMN@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        My point is that I’m not sure it’s a good idea to use those in bad situations as the gauge as to what about privacy is important. Doing it in this way, in my opinion, risks losing sight of the core reasons why privacy should be important for everyone. And everyone, regardless of their situation can choose, if they wish, to have as little privacy as they want. However, those who choose to retain their privacy should have the freedom to do so. It shouldn’t be dictated by the masses. Do we just become nihilists when things require a bit of complex thought or aren’t black and white?

        • Candelestine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The key part of this that is also opinion, is the “why privacy should be important for everyone”.

          That will be answered by the democratic process, not any single person’s judgement. Privacy does not have any inherent importance from god or nature, we give it importance. We decide.

          That clarification aside, I do agree with you. I also believe in privacy on principle. However, my belief is my opinion. What is fact is that it saves lives in more dangerous regions. This is more important than any opinion I could possibly have, regardless of how strongly I feel. My opinion on the importance of privacy is mainly based on my concerns for the future, which I cannot be certain of, not the facts of the present day, which I can be certain of.

          • HMN@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Totally agree that it helps in dangerous regions (depending of course on the source of the dangers). I shouldn’t be deciding on what level of privacy you should be entitled to. Democracy, or any decision making, whatever you want to call them that involves making decisions that affect many people will be a constant battle. Ideally we should be giving people as many protections as feasible, while at the same time allowing them to have autonomy to choose what’s appropriate for them. And you’re right, thinking about the future is something we (as the human race) don’t tend to do enough of, leading to many short-sighted decision-making because votes. Nice chat, see ya round.