I think this a fantastically important topic and good post, but also misses some important things (which i dont know but there are defienitely missing ones) and focuses very much on recent tech-sphere promiment issues .
some points
-privacy is probably most important for most people in their private relationships and social life (instead of the emphasis on these recent issues)
-could be made more comprehensve/extended we have some regulations for privacy in personal relations, e.g. sexting/sex-pics publication
(that could be extended to more activities)
(this is not related to the private relationships mentioned one point above)
-there is a difference between privacy for separating life/having different identities and forgiving/importantness-view-reduction of past behaviors
(some european countries heavily limit prepetrator-/convicted-personal-info-transmission, mainly on the belief that this aids rehabilitation(reduces reperpetration-rates) but possibly also on the belief that then the crime is paid for/there shouldn't be further punishing for it (incl social one) but they dont approve of crime/dont see crime as a separate legitimate identity)
--it is very interesting that there seem to be no(?)/very limited norms around past-information-transmission/its legitimacy
((eg after 10 years things shouldnt be mentioned)
(there are systems that deal with wrong-thought(seen as wrong) behavior like of course personal forgiving, church forgiving of sins etc that are about legitimacy of taking into account(shouldn't be (negatively) taken into account) (maybe this indirectly speaks a bit to the main subpoint indirectly because then it would also get somewhat delitimized to talk about it/continue to frequently talk about it (which could well be seen/meant to affect the talked-about person negatively) but this is then more an indirect effect)
-violence/(counter-)aggression seems to most pronounced in personal relations, e.g. people aggress/retaliate (like for other unwanted behavior) and try to reduce status of orig aggressor, eg just saying theyre bad or associating them with low-status categories (eg theyre ugly or dumb or do something (if it happens often enough probably gets turned into insult thats somewhat divorced from originally maybe somewhat seriously meant relationship-supposation, e.g. son of a whore etc)) (again by just saying that or telling negative gossip etc)
* -privacy is very important for/very important component of self-expression (and identity trying(so latter part of former ofc (so e.g. really)) *
(maybe most important part why privacy matters)
-for these more politcal/abstract/not directly personal discussions something you could have specific settings like Chatham-house-rules while still maintaining productivity-oriented rules in other parts
(so Chatham-house-rules for a restaurant-meetup or discord, but disturbing discussions in workplace could be brought up to HR etc)
(chatham-house-rules instead of more restrictive rules like around medical privacy etc)
(this is a bit work in progress)
"And if not me, imagine a person of some power or influence: don't we want to know when someone's public political stance is different to how they really feel?"
( aside from other points: )
But it seems political positions are somewhat arbitrarily chosen within the many possible positions and position-combinations and then you also have to change in lockstemp or not?
So you have two parties (or a few more in different systems) and they have largely adopted specific positions, so you have to decide on one of the two positions on a issue (e.g. democrats with high taxes dont like corporations etc -> need to be in favour of high corporate taxes instead of vat+no corporate taxes+vat and redistribution-transfers 2) and then share their specific combination (instead of pro-choice rep or pro-gun dem etc)(and there are so many positions that you have to keep track of like tax-structure (income, vat, corporate-tax(corporations are bad -> high tax etc)), abortion, guns, climate change, lgbt, religion/religious-freedom, foreign policy 1) for all these positions and then also change whats your positions somewhat in lockstep with the party (eg support/opposition for foreign inventions, sexual, crime (90s vs today etc), gun rights (like how police unions used to be in favour etc)).
(But if you loo at any issue objectively/remotely (i dont mean like objectively right, but somewhat separated from partisan-/party-influence) it seems like people would get to a wide variety of positions on just one issue (just like there are hundreds of possible positions) and then an even greater variety of combinations of this variety of positions (and then againan even greater variety in changes of positions and position-combinations etc).)
Not saying it doesnt make sense to have political duopoly (of alliances) so that complicated and unclear will can be somehow translated into power/actions. But asking a politician to honestly believe what he says seems somewhat like asking them to never remotely look at things and just try to directly assimilate into him whatever polls good for some time (without really any inner thinking or critical judgement etc a bit like a robot etc)(because all that wouldnt do that would then need to resign latest at the next position-change and only would remain etc).
Sry for replying to my own post, but i cant seem to edit my post/save the edit of my post?
(I can click edit and change the comments text (mainly wanted to improve formatting), but then when clicking "update" the (edit-)site just seems to reload
Also i apparently only have two hours to edit, so it would probably be good to do it now.)
edit: I seem to be able to edit this post, but not my other, longer posts. (This posts edit-site also reloads the itself when clicking "update", but updates the post itself too.)
edit2: Sry for possible confusion. I realize it says edit somewhere in the parent comment, but that is just because i had mostly finished writing the comment when looking up the article and adding the link (but before posting the post). I can't really edit it.
"
- depth of social bonding and cultures
- even magic and mysticism.. (in the days of full and unalterable data with logic processing)
"
I think here privacy is very important as it allows identity-trying. If there is no privacy then somebody can't try different incompatible identities that they find interesting and they also need to be very careful in their current identity not to anything that is permissible in their currenty identity, but might be a problem in future identities (theyre behavior is limited activities that are current-identity approved and all possible future-identities approved.)
E.g. non-major drug-crimes like posession might not be seen as very bad in your current country/setting but when immigrating to the US they seem to play a big role1 (kidnapping/robbery can get waived, almost all drugs not iiuc). (somewhat related to some parts of mysticism)
E.g. someone who lives openly gay(/or in faith/opinion/group) in a region but might want to return to his more negative former country where it would be better to hide this tendencies from family umfeld/authorities (eg during an college exchange term or whatever).
This basically goes for everything whether it be a complete lifestyle (eg hippies vs traditional business executive (in 60s archetypes) or whatever people do or just their personal or political/world-view opinions (eg personx thinks persony is z or political opinion or whatever or worldview from like causality to like what determines behavior or basis of justice/legitimacy of behavior etc))
And in general depth of social bonding is strongly related to trust and intimacy and that is greatly facilitated by privacy (eg when you google psychologist one suggestion is even indicating that people love their psychologists and maybe also this experiement2))(edit: could be further facilitated with privacy-regulation (like with formerly mentioned psychologists or sexting that we already have)
1:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/for-what-types-crime...
You may be able to get a waiver if you are inadmissible for one of the following:
a crime involving moral turpitude (except for murder or torture)
two or crimes with a combined sentence of five years or more (except for murder or torture)
one offense relating to simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana
prostitution or commercialized vice, or
having committed a serious criminal offense, claimed immunity for that offense (for example, diplomatic immunity), and left the United States, without thereafter being prosecuted in a U.S. court for that offense.
You will not be eligible for a waiver if you are inadmissible for one of the following:
any drug crime (other than an offense related to simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana)
drug trafficking
murder or torture
significant trafficking in persons
money laundering, or
having committed a particularly severe violation of religious freedom while serving as a foreign government official.
[eg getting a waiver doesnt seem simple at all, but they couldnt even get one]
some points
-privacy is probably most important for most people in their private relationships and social life (instead of the emphasis on these recent issues)
-could be made more comprehensve/extended we have some regulations for privacy in personal relations, e.g. sexting/sex-pics publication
(that could be extended to more activities) (this is not related to the private relationships mentioned one point above)
-there is a difference between privacy for separating life/having different identities and forgiving/importantness-view-reduction of past behaviors (some european countries heavily limit prepetrator-/convicted-personal-info-transmission, mainly on the belief that this aids rehabilitation(reduces reperpetration-rates) but possibly also on the belief that then the crime is paid for/there shouldn't be further punishing for it (incl social one) but they dont approve of crime/dont see crime as a separate legitimate identity)
--it is very interesting that there seem to be no(?)/very limited norms around past-information-transmission/its legitimacy ((eg after 10 years things shouldnt be mentioned) (there are systems that deal with wrong-thought(seen as wrong) behavior like of course personal forgiving, church forgiving of sins etc that are about legitimacy of taking into account(shouldn't be (negatively) taken into account) (maybe this indirectly speaks a bit to the main subpoint indirectly because then it would also get somewhat delitimized to talk about it/continue to frequently talk about it (which could well be seen/meant to affect the talked-about person negatively) but this is then more an indirect effect)
-violence/(counter-)aggression seems to most pronounced in personal relations, e.g. people aggress/retaliate (like for other unwanted behavior) and try to reduce status of orig aggressor, eg just saying theyre bad or associating them with low-status categories (eg theyre ugly or dumb or do something (if it happens often enough probably gets turned into insult thats somewhat divorced from originally maybe somewhat seriously meant relationship-supposation, e.g. son of a whore etc)) (again by just saying that or telling negative gossip etc)
* -privacy is very important for/very important component of self-expression (and identity trying(so latter part of former ofc (so e.g. really)) * (maybe most important part why privacy matters)
-for these more politcal/abstract/not directly personal discussions something you could have specific settings like Chatham-house-rules while still maintaining productivity-oriented rules in other parts (so Chatham-house-rules for a restaurant-meetup or discord, but disturbing discussions in workplace could be brought up to HR etc) (chatham-house-rules instead of more restrictive rules like around medical privacy etc) (this is a bit work in progress)