Jump to content
The Corroboree
Distracted

When is privacy necessary?

Recommended Posts

So far.

Privacy is necessary in order to prevent persecution by the state or societies within that state unless you yourself are persecuting unlawfully in which case your privacy is void to afford another persons or corporations privacy.

?

Privacy is necessary so we're not forced to be in a situation where you may feel socially uncomfortable.

I think the concept of entitled privacy can cause significant distress in our secular society, when the difference of ones overt actions to ones covert ideals is great.

The non-secular believers in an omnipotent God however have no privacy as they are never truly alone.

Personally I feel that Snowden's quotes are a bit odd considering he infringed upon the privacy of the state. To me wikileaks is about dismantling privacy, not protecting it.

Edited by Distracted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The non-secular believers in an omnipotent God however have no privacy as they are never truly alone.

Now that's an interesting one! How do religious types feel about having their god(s) always watching over them? Just judging from the behaviour of some (eg. Catholics), I'd say that this has the potential to make people downright neurotic. Because everything that they do "wrong", is automatically known to their deity, right? Breaking a heavenly commandment is not like breaking a law, where you might get away with it if you can conceal it - there is no hiding from an omniscient god. I think this is why some cultures chose more petty human-like gods - if their deities were busy, well, getting busy with each other (& humans, & animals, & sometimes more abstract natural features), then maybe they wouldn't notice what we were getting up to down here on earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post deleted. Because I value my privacy

Edited by paradox
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I feel that Snowden's quotes are a bit odd considering he infringed upon the privacy of the state. To me wikileaks is about dismantling privacy, not protecting it.

forget entitlement to privacy for a minute, what about entitlement to disclosure of privacy reducing methods? this is at least as important an issue, and while i don't seem to share your perspective in this thread (i find it interesting) i have a feeling that this aspect of the matter doesn't change anything in your eyes?

everybody knows that to really invade somebodies business and catch them at their worst your snooping must be covert and unsuspected.

edit: i won't change my wording but i didn't word my post well. these issues don't purely revolve around wrongdoing.

Edited by ThunderIdeal
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

look at the behaviour of children.

x and y sitting in a tree

ewww, x picked his or her nose

paradox's post was more about tall poppies and people who are a bit unusual but the key word was human nature. it's human nature to use information against others. so many people are willing to twist a truth or even manufacture a false claim just to harm the social standing of another individual. sometimes an abundance of information equates to an abundance of ammunition.

the thread opens with "if everybody were all-accepting"... well... it's a nice thought experiment

i hope my post doesn't appear hostile. i always like your input distracted.

Edited by ThunderIdeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I feel that Snowden's quotes are a bit odd considering he infringed upon the privacy of the state. To me wikileaks is about dismantling privacy, not protecting it.

That's a bit different from the issue of personal privacy - 'the state' describes a public institution, doesn't it? And while people might think that a state requires privacy to be able to protect its citizens (from criminals, traitors, etc), how far does that "right to privacy" extend? Should a public body be given the same rights, or greater rights to privacy, than an individual? What about corporations? They often seem to be given similar "rights" to individuals, and yet it is unbalanced - they aren't vulnerable to prosecution in the same way that an individual is. If information is disclosed which incriminates an individual, they can be physically arrested, held & charged, tortured, hung by the neck until dead, whatever. But if a government or a corporation breaks a law, who is pursued? Individual people might be thrown to the wolves, but the "body" that they were working in the name of goes on - nothing happens to it. So it seems to me like these imaginary corporate & government "bodies" get the rights of individuals, but not the responsibilities or vulnerabilities.

And as TI says, why do they need privacy? If their right to privacy protects them from public exposure about their nosiness, and our (the individuals) right to privacy protects us from snoopy neighbours, does that include government surveillance? Aren't those two "rights" at odds when they are used in this way? I know there are laws concerning privacy, but I don't really know what they are - they seem to be more about the security of possessions & income, than protection of any ideal state of privacy. Which keeps taking me back to the idea of ownership. I just can't see that our social concept of privacy is more linked to the concept of "freedom". It seems to be about protecting what we "own" - whether these are material or intangible things. We want to be protected from people looking at our bodies, knowing what we are thinking & doing, knowing where we live, how much money we have & where we keep it. And while I suppose if you want to get real philosophical you could call protection from theft a "freedom", there are many opposing philosophies who believe that being tied to material possessions is the very opposite of freedom.

Edited by Anodyne
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think i said that ^ doesn't matter though

knowledge is power, this has been well understood for a very long time and it's no exaggeration; in warfare it can't be overstated. privacy can mean protection from malicious parties.

Edited by ThunderIdeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops, apologies for that - that post was originally longer, then I edited it. Badly, it seems. I'll let it stand for the sake of continuity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my neighbour is a full 2 generations younger than me. He is attention deficit for sure and a hell of a great electrician. Last summer the fence was falling down between our properties and HE kept hinting at a new fence - nothing to do with getting married oct 2015(end of this month).

Last week at his bucks night a mate of his-that i kinda have met a few times said - "hey mate, why do you wanna put up screening or trellising between you and *88?"

I says" You young cunts get your knickers in a knot over the small things huh?"

He just looked at me.

I goes

"Hey why are YOU discussing this with me? Shouldn't his *88 himself say these matters to me or his future wife?" Not you, are YOU my neighbour mate?"

Ofcourse, the strippers come over and rub their tits in my face and say settle down"

:scratchhead:

I drank two beers and smoked two cammos, then left thinking, i'll put up that screening because it's one thing to trust your immediate neighbours but NOT their friends who don't have to live with me next door.

This whole cammo privacy thing comes down to common decency between consenting adults, not a shit fight between hoons doing burnouts in your patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I require privacy for thinking .

Loud noises, distractions, people asking questions, staring at or talking to me stops me from thinking deeply.

Privacy is necessary for deep thinking, problem solving, concentration, dreaming and conceptualizing..

Ancient people knew of the importance of privacy and for this reason would never disturb someone in deep thought. They would wait patiently, nearby, for the other person to finish their thoughts and approach them.

Unlike today's fast paced, high demand, unsafe, technocratic society!

This is why today we have so many half baked ideas.

Imagine trying to win a game of timed chess while you are being interviewed by important people. Impossible.

So privacy is necessary always, unless I have chosen to connect with others and maybe share some private thoughts or labour.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×