Privacy Is a Human Right(blog.torproject.org)
blog.torproject.org
Privacy Is a Human Right
https://blog.torproject.org/privacy-is-a-human-right
176 comments
> The best agrument is that privacy is power.
I am reminded of the TV series "The Prisoner" out of BBC, especially the final episode "Fall Out Pt2".
Expounds about "the individual's right to be individual", community, the status quo, and so forth.
And over that "no" is a complete sentence that needs no more explanation.
I am reminded of the TV series "The Prisoner" out of BBC, especially the final episode "Fall Out Pt2".
Expounds about "the individual's right to be individual", community, the status quo, and so forth.
And over that "no" is a complete sentence that needs no more explanation.
A classic from the 60s, worth watching (I'm from the 80s). Starring Patrick McGoohan. Obligatory link [1]. "Quote: The final episode, "Fall Out", received a Hugo Award nomination for Best Dramatic Presentation in 1969." This specific episode also has its own Wikipedia entry, [2].
A quote from that article: "There are numbers here, there are no names, so you can't expect it to end like James Bond, so you have to have an allegorical ending. Now (...) what is the most evil thing on earth? Is it jealousy? Is it hate? Is it revenge? Is it the bomb? What is it? When one really searches it's only one thing, it's the evil part of oneself that one is constantly fighting until the moment of our demise. The Jekyll and Hyde if you like, but on a much larger scale." —Patrick McGoohan. Which reminds me of Sad But True by Metallica.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prisoner
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_Out_(The_Prisoner)
A quote from that article: "There are numbers here, there are no names, so you can't expect it to end like James Bond, so you have to have an allegorical ending. Now (...) what is the most evil thing on earth? Is it jealousy? Is it hate? Is it revenge? Is it the bomb? What is it? When one really searches it's only one thing, it's the evil part of oneself that one is constantly fighting until the moment of our demise. The Jekyll and Hyde if you like, but on a much larger scale." —Patrick McGoohan. Which reminds me of Sad But True by Metallica.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prisoner
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_Out_(The_Prisoner)
Adverts and telemetry suggest a third party. The more parties you introduce to any transaction the less private it becomes.
Actual real privacy would be between two parties that trust each other and encrypt their communications in both directions. That means no Facebook servers to intercept your commentary, send you advertisements, and send friend suggestions.
Actual real privacy would be between two parties that trust each other and encrypt their communications in both directions. That means no Facebook servers to intercept your commentary, send you advertisements, and send friend suggestions.
I would also argue that it's hard to have freedom without privacy. I think we do all have a right to be forgotten.
I think this does need to be balanced with the public benefit to know things though. One of the bad side effects of counties that have such "right to be forgotten" laws is that their primary beneficiaries seem to be corrupt politicians who want the public to forget about their scandals by suppressing Google searches about them.
On the point of arresting people planning to protest, many protest around the world were fueled by the use of social media/messaging apps. So in that case its not obvious that it has a negative effect on democracy.
These happened due to networks, not our loss of privacy.
I understand your point is that our loss of privacy didn’t lead to arrests or in these instances, but there has almost certainly been arrests in other instances, and we’d be losing sight of the bigger picture if we deluded ourselves into believing oppressive governments, companies, billionaires, etc.. weren’t already heavily using mined data to counter dissidence movements in more ways than just arrests.
I understand your point is that our loss of privacy didn’t lead to arrests or in these instances, but there has almost certainly been arrests in other instances, and we’d be losing sight of the bigger picture if we deluded ourselves into believing oppressive governments, companies, billionaires, etc.. weren’t already heavily using mined data to counter dissidence movements in more ways than just arrests.
Governments responded to the Arab spring by taking social media much more seriously. There are a lot of ways to use social media to suppress and discourage dissent, outside of arrests; it's a very powerful counterintelligence tool.
Unless you count the arrests that happened after the protests, where the social media feeds were the intel which lead to the arrests...
Playing the devil's advocate here but there could be a good side. It can also help us buy things we didn't know we needed, bringing our unconscious forward and making us realise things about ourselves we didn't know. I wouldn't mind that, if only I knew only I had access to that information though.
>It can also help us buy things we didn't know we needed
It is remarkably difficult for such a thing to happen. Very little is needed and that that is tends to be rather obvious.
It is remarkably difficult for such a thing to happen. Very little is needed and that that is tends to be rather obvious.
In Maslov's model the volume of needs would probably graph to an ellipse instead of a triangle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
I think there's a clear distinction to make between clicking on links to other people's content - that's like walking into a store and the proprietor sharing his video footage of you in there with other vendors - vs. having your own personal expression (photos, personal sentiments, friend networks) shared without your consent.
> It can also help us buy things we didn't know we needed, bringing our unconscious forward and making us realise things about ourselves we didn't know
There is no commercial incentive to do any of that
There is no commercial incentive to do any of that
Most commercial incentive I have witnessed is to do precisely that.
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12)
NOTE: Emails are correspondence and we all know, that our emails are shared with governments...
NOTE: Emails are correspondence and we all know, that our emails are shared with governments...
I'm just gonna play the devil's advocate here for a moment, because I do think there is an interesting discussion to have.
The argument seems to be that we have rights because the UN says so. Who or what endowed the UN (or anyone else) with the prerogative to declare human rights?
Let's imagine a that the UN would change its mind and declares the right to eternal salvation, and mandates that every state submit to the authority of the holy see.
If the current rights are "true" human rights, and the right to salvation is a "false" human right, what sets them apart given that the UN in this hypothetical scenario declares them both? How do rights become true or false?
The argument seems to be that we have rights because the UN says so. Who or what endowed the UN (or anyone else) with the prerogative to declare human rights?
Let's imagine a that the UN would change its mind and declares the right to eternal salvation, and mandates that every state submit to the authority of the holy see.
If the current rights are "true" human rights, and the right to salvation is a "false" human right, what sets them apart given that the UN in this hypothetical scenario declares them both? How do rights become true or false?
Some of the premises in your post are incorrect.
--
> The argument seems to be that we have rights because the UN says so.
That's not the argument. The reasons we have human rights is because individual countries decided to implement them.
The Universal Declaration itself is not legally binding. It's just an agreement that participating countries decided to implement into their own laws.
UN can't force countries who didn't vote into it to implement. They can't even force countries who actually voted for it to implement it.
However, individual countries have the freedom to complain or stop trading with countries who don't implement, or on countries that implement but don't follow. Out of the things that countries do to each other, this seems like a minor thing.
--
> Who or what endowed the UN (or anyone else) with the prerogative to declare human rights?
Nobody.
Anyone can declare human rights. I've declared a few myself yesterday during tea time.
The Universal Declaration carries its weight because it was made and approved by the countries themselves who took part in the UN at a certain time. It's not as if some crazy person at the UN has the power to change something in the document at their will. And even if they did, so what?
--
> The argument seems to be that we have rights because the UN says so.
That's not the argument. The reasons we have human rights is because individual countries decided to implement them.
The Universal Declaration itself is not legally binding. It's just an agreement that participating countries decided to implement into their own laws.
UN can't force countries who didn't vote into it to implement. They can't even force countries who actually voted for it to implement it.
However, individual countries have the freedom to complain or stop trading with countries who don't implement, or on countries that implement but don't follow. Out of the things that countries do to each other, this seems like a minor thing.
--
> Who or what endowed the UN (or anyone else) with the prerogative to declare human rights?
Nobody.
Anyone can declare human rights. I've declared a few myself yesterday during tea time.
The Universal Declaration carries its weight because it was made and approved by the countries themselves who took part in the UN at a certain time. It's not as if some crazy person at the UN has the power to change something in the document at their will. And even if they did, so what?
It's actually not arbitrary at all. The UN came out of the league of nations, which was specifically a bunch of colonial powers and their offspring / colonies.
That is precisely the reason why some highly controversial UN resolutions were passed right after the second world war. It's almost ironic that China now wields so much more power over the path the UN is taking than the old colonial powers.
But whenever people say this or that is a human right, we ought to remember that a lot of the things that are legally defined as human rights were at some point defined by some old colonial overlord until it wasn't. The founders of the UN definitely didn't think that people of any colour were the same or that interracial marriage is a human right.
That is precisely the reason why some highly controversial UN resolutions were passed right after the second world war. It's almost ironic that China now wields so much more power over the path the UN is taking than the old colonial powers.
But whenever people say this or that is a human right, we ought to remember that a lot of the things that are legally defined as human rights were at some point defined by some old colonial overlord until it wasn't. The founders of the UN definitely didn't think that people of any colour were the same or that interracial marriage is a human right.
You are correct and I agree with you, but I think you answered to the wrong reply. It's my interlocutor that believe it's arbitrary.
Ok, if as you say, human rights can just be declared arbitrarily by anyone and have no special significance or legal power beyond being a fancy way of saying "I want this", why would anyone care about human rights in the first place?
People care because they read the thing and thought it sounded like a bunch of good ideas to implement in their own neck of the woods. Some politician brings it home a copy and tries to make law, representatives vote. That's it.
People routinely suggest new human rights and some people agree and others disagree. There is no higher court or secret world parliament deciding your life.
You asked "How do rights become true or false?". Well, by becoming new laws in individual countries.
People routinely suggest new human rights and some people agree and others disagree. There is no higher court or secret world parliament deciding your life.
You asked "How do rights become true or false?". Well, by becoming new laws in individual countries.
Returning to the post, if Tor is claiming "Privacy Is A Human Right", and Facebook (hypothetically) responds "No It Isn't", can either party be said to be correct?
If neither is correct (or both simultaneously), is it even a meaningful statement about the world to declare a human right like Tor does?
If neither is correct (or both simultaneously), is it even a meaningful statement about the world to declare a human right like Tor does?
> can either party be said to be correct
Yes. Tor is correct and Facebook is wrong. I said it. Other people might say otherwise, but I'll say they're wrong. (and they are)
In societies it is normal to have disagreements.
What people do is discuss the issue and potentially reach an agreement. Maybe this will become a law somewhere. Maybe it will go into the Universal Declaration, and most countries will implement it. Maybe not. After becoming a law, people will either follow it or not. If they sort of break the law, a judge or peers will decide if they need punishment. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Who knows.
Life is not a computer program or math equation. Life is a bit hard.
Yes. Tor is correct and Facebook is wrong. I said it. Other people might say otherwise, but I'll say they're wrong. (and they are)
In societies it is normal to have disagreements.
What people do is discuss the issue and potentially reach an agreement. Maybe this will become a law somewhere. Maybe it will go into the Universal Declaration, and most countries will implement it. Maybe not. After becoming a law, people will either follow it or not. If they sort of break the law, a judge or peers will decide if they need punishment. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Who knows.
Life is not a computer program or math equation. Life is a bit hard.
If you say the sky is blue, or that water is wet, or that rock is hard, or that ice is cold, and so forth; I can agree with you because I can use my senses and they tell me the same thing you were telling me.
If you tell me the angular sum of a triangle is 180 degrees, I cannot see it directly with my senses, but I can construct a simple proof with pen and paper that shows me it cannot be any other way than what you told me.
How do you experience the truth of the human right to privacy?
If you tell me the angular sum of a triangle is 180 degrees, I cannot see it directly with my senses, but I can construct a simple proof with pen and paper that shows me it cannot be any other way than what you told me.
How do you experience the truth of the human right to privacy?
That's a very misleading question. You are comparing law and social constructs with natural science or math equation results. That's not how the world works.
Societies are much more complex than that.
I can try to convince you that this is right, if that's what you're asking. But no, there won't be a math equation or an scientific measurement that proves that it is correct. Because we're humans, not numbers or bits.
Societies are much more complex than that.
I can try to convince you that this is right, if that's what you're asking. But no, there won't be a math equation or an scientific measurement that proves that it is correct. Because we're humans, not numbers or bits.
Right, but the only things I have access to are the things I can experience. I am of a slight empiricist bent, so if I am to be convinced about something, it needs to at least be related to those sorts of things I have experienced or can experience.
I can't touch something like a social contract or an ideological standpoint, I don't know where it is are or how long it's been there, when it happened, how intense it is, whether it has any properties, whether it was caused or can cause; these things don't appear to be like anything that in any sense can be said to exist. If these things are gods, then for the sake of this conversation let's call my position an agnostic one.
Society is complex, but even complex things are built from the parts we can see and touch, and since our senses are the only means we have for interacting with the world, even impossibly complex things must somehow be relatable back to them (unless there is some additional channel in which knowledge enters our minds?).
If something is so nebulous that it is completely built from things we can't experience in any way other than being told about them, then how can they be said to exist at all, how could we tell this tale apart from complete fiction?
I can't touch something like a social contract or an ideological standpoint, I don't know where it is are or how long it's been there, when it happened, how intense it is, whether it has any properties, whether it was caused or can cause; these things don't appear to be like anything that in any sense can be said to exist. If these things are gods, then for the sake of this conversation let's call my position an agnostic one.
Society is complex, but even complex things are built from the parts we can see and touch, and since our senses are the only means we have for interacting with the world, even impossibly complex things must somehow be relatable back to them (unless there is some additional channel in which knowledge enters our minds?).
If something is so nebulous that it is completely built from things we can't experience in any way other than being told about them, then how can they be said to exist at all, how could we tell this tale apart from complete fiction?
If you are looking for a proven moral system, there are none. The whole idea of human rights is a product of a certain culture (western europe and its dependencies) just like the Quran or the Bible. You can't really prove something is a human rights, much like you can't prove human rights are the 'correct' moral framework. So it's all opinions really.
I would say that Robert M Pirsig made a pretty good case for objective morality with his Metaphysics of Quality. I had never agreed with the notion before (usually the arguments are religious in nature and require faith to accept) but it is the closest I've ever come to accepting objective morality as brute fact. At the very least it is compelling to indulge in and try out, can't say I've ever looked at things in quite the same way since I first finished Lila.
> If you are looking for a proven moral system, there are none.
What do you mean by "prove"? You can easily extend your skepticism to any body of knowledge. The empirical sciences ought not be given a free pass merely because of some unexamined (and incoherent) prejudice like scientism.
Everything can be said to be a matter of opinion, so that does nothing to clarify the subject.
What do you mean by "prove"? You can easily extend your skepticism to any body of knowledge. The empirical sciences ought not be given a free pass merely because of some unexamined (and incoherent) prejudice like scientism.
Everything can be said to be a matter of opinion, so that does nothing to clarify the subject.
Right, but doesn't that inevitably lead to nihilism? If all value systems are equal, then are any value systems meaningful?
Why do we assert that this-and-that is a human right in such a context?
Why do we assert that this-and-that is a human right in such a context?
This is simply the is-ought problem. You cannot prove a moral statement from observation or measurement of nature. This does mean that indeed Facebook and Tor would be on equivalent grounds. The judgment between them is up to you.
All judgement is "up to me". And how does your claim about observation and measurement fair when subjected to its own criteria?
Also, the "is-ought" problem follows from a particular (very problematic) metaphysics. It does not follow from an Aristotelian understanding of metaphysics.
Also, the "is-ought" problem follows from a particular (very problematic) metaphysics. It does not follow from an Aristotelian understanding of metaphysics.
> the "is-ought" problem follows from a particular (very problematic) metaphysics
Why is it problematic?
> It does not follow from an Aristotelian understanding of metaphysics.
Aristotle's metaphysics does also carry some baggage. It is contingent on an unmoved mover/active intellect that creates not only motion but purpose in the universe.
Although his ethics can broadly be taken at face value as long as you agree with the proposition that your purpose is to flourish as a human. It does seem to work pretty well, although the question he was truly answering was how to be a happy individual, whereas the meaning of ethics has shifted over the millennia to deal more with civic virtues than personal ones.
Why is it problematic?
> It does not follow from an Aristotelian understanding of metaphysics.
Aristotle's metaphysics does also carry some baggage. It is contingent on an unmoved mover/active intellect that creates not only motion but purpose in the universe.
Although his ethics can broadly be taken at face value as long as you agree with the proposition that your purpose is to flourish as a human. It does seem to work pretty well, although the question he was truly answering was how to be a happy individual, whereas the meaning of ethics has shifted over the millennia to deal more with civic virtues than personal ones.
> Also, the "is-ought" problem follows from a particular (very problematic) metaphysics.
No, it flows from propositional logic, which is not a metaphysics. You can't have an “ought” conclusion with only “is” premises.
A metaphysics may assume “ought” axioms and thus support “ought” conclusions from only “is” additional bases, but then you still aren't getting an “ought” from an “is”, you are getting it from the “ought” you assumed with your metaphysics.
No, it flows from propositional logic, which is not a metaphysics. You can't have an “ought” conclusion with only “is” premises.
A metaphysics may assume “ought” axioms and thus support “ought” conclusions from only “is” additional bases, but then you still aren't getting an “ought” from an “is”, you are getting it from the “ought” you assumed with your metaphysics.
You can’t, so you just have to accept that in some senses, reality is imperfect, in shades of gray, and sometimes irreconcilable with itself. You will not find a neat proof showing how to make everyone live in peace, harmony and happiness. But as humans we can try to do the best we can, which inevitably will be a long series of compromises.
I do not know why you are being down-voted, the whole subject is interesting. The question could lead to great discussions.
It's understandable. It's uncomfortable to have the things you believe to be true brought into the light and scrutinized.
They killed Socrates for asking too many of these types of questions.
They killed Socrates for asking too many of these types of questions.
It's a distraction from the main discussion. And your comments are boring, because this is one of the most discussed epistemological questions and you are bringing exactly zero new insights to it.
But others may have brought some insights into it, right? To me, that would be a "success".
It's not uncomfortable. It's just that the questions are boring and littered with fallacies and incorrect assumptions. People isn't having a rich discussion, as we have to correct a lot of misconceptions. The downvotes are perfectly understandable.
This is the opposite of Socrates. He started from the premise that he knew nothing. In this discussion here, you're asking questions from the premise that already know most things about the subject. Also, this is not why Socrates was killed, please do some reading instead of jumping on another meme.
Also: comparing yourself to Socrates for asking fallacious questions is peak Hacker News. Don't think I ever saw such arrogance.
This is the opposite of Socrates. He started from the premise that he knew nothing. In this discussion here, you're asking questions from the premise that already know most things about the subject. Also, this is not why Socrates was killed, please do some reading instead of jumping on another meme.
Also: comparing yourself to Socrates for asking fallacious questions is peak Hacker News. Don't think I ever saw such arrogance.
The way I read it, it was already obvious to me that analytic propositions are different from synthetic propositions (using the terms as used by Kant or David Hume).
I merely just wished to have a discussion on how we do determine what right "should be" a human right, and what makes it a human right, or simply, a right to begin with? It is actually quite a lengthy topic, and for example Rothbard has written a lot on how human rights are property rights and so forth. We could have gotten to animal's rights as well! I suppose one could brush it all under the rug with the term "subjective", but I would rather not stop there.
But in any case, this is my only defense for the OP. I have no idea how one would "experience the truth" of a human right, I would need some more answers before I get to know what the OP has meant by it exactly.
As for the Socrates stuff, I have no comment on that.
---
Allow me to quote some Rothbard:
> There are several aspects of this important truth. In the first place, each individual, according to our understanding of the natural order of things, is the owner of himself, the ruler of his own person. Preservation of this self-ownership is essential for the proper development and well-being of man. The human rights of the person are, in effect, a recognition of each man’s inalienable property right over his own being; and from this property right stems his right to the material goods that he has produced. A man’s right to personal freedom, then, is his property right in himself.
> But there is another sense in which human rights are really property rights, a sense which is much obscured in our time. Take, for example, the human right of freedom of assembly. Suppose that a certain group wants to demonstrate for a particular idea or bill in a street meeting. This is an expression of the right of assembly.
> On the other hand, suppose that the police break up the meeting on the ground that traffic is being disrupted. Now, it is not sufficient simply to say that the right of assembly has been abridged by the police for political reasons. Possibly, this was the case. But there is a real problem here, for maybe traffic was disrupted. In that case, how is one to decide between the human right of free assembly and the "public policy" or "public good" of clear and unobstructed traffic?
> In the face of this apparent conflict, many people conclude that rights must be relative rather than absolute and have to be curbed sometimes for the common good.
Taken from https://fee.org/articles/human-rights-are-property-rights/.
I merely just wished to have a discussion on how we do determine what right "should be" a human right, and what makes it a human right, or simply, a right to begin with? It is actually quite a lengthy topic, and for example Rothbard has written a lot on how human rights are property rights and so forth. We could have gotten to animal's rights as well! I suppose one could brush it all under the rug with the term "subjective", but I would rather not stop there.
But in any case, this is my only defense for the OP. I have no idea how one would "experience the truth" of a human right, I would need some more answers before I get to know what the OP has meant by it exactly.
As for the Socrates stuff, I have no comment on that.
---
Allow me to quote some Rothbard:
> There are several aspects of this important truth. In the first place, each individual, according to our understanding of the natural order of things, is the owner of himself, the ruler of his own person. Preservation of this self-ownership is essential for the proper development and well-being of man. The human rights of the person are, in effect, a recognition of each man’s inalienable property right over his own being; and from this property right stems his right to the material goods that he has produced. A man’s right to personal freedom, then, is his property right in himself.
> But there is another sense in which human rights are really property rights, a sense which is much obscured in our time. Take, for example, the human right of freedom of assembly. Suppose that a certain group wants to demonstrate for a particular idea or bill in a street meeting. This is an expression of the right of assembly.
> On the other hand, suppose that the police break up the meeting on the ground that traffic is being disrupted. Now, it is not sufficient simply to say that the right of assembly has been abridged by the police for political reasons. Possibly, this was the case. But there is a real problem here, for maybe traffic was disrupted. In that case, how is one to decide between the human right of free assembly and the "public policy" or "public good" of clear and unobstructed traffic?
> In the face of this apparent conflict, many people conclude that rights must be relative rather than absolute and have to be curbed sometimes for the common good.
Taken from https://fee.org/articles/human-rights-are-property-rights/.
What if I then draw a triangle on the surface of a sphere with an angle sum of 270 degrees?
All you're saying here is that we've agreed on a principle that implies what you're saying is true. This is the exact same as what the other commenter is saying.
All you're saying here is that we've agreed on a principle that implies what you're saying is true. This is the exact same as what the other commenter is saying.
My answer will be "not immediately, but I state that I understand that the history has proven the former to be correct, and I fully believe our collective will and the future continues to prove that".
Feel free to call BS on it. Kinda is. Ultimately it's the human might that supports rights.
Feel free to call BS on it. Kinda is. Ultimately it's the human might that supports rights.
> Well, by becoming new laws in individual countries.
Can a country create a right for more living space for some of its citizens?
Can a country create a right for more living space for some of its citizens?
Like all social constructs, they come into being when a bunch of humans collectively believe in them.
The social significance depends on how the believers act. Some discipline themselves, some try to persuade others, some start a war, some try to push through legislations.
The social significance depends on how the believers act. Some discipline themselves, some try to persuade others, some start a war, some try to push through legislations.
I think this is an extremely reductionist view of the UN. The UN was not formed in a vacuum, it was formed in the wake of two consecutive world wars in order to solve international disputes amicably.
The UN declaration holds power precisely because it is a declaration, members agree on it.
The UN declaration holds power precisely because it is a declaration, members agree on it.
The UN as a whole doesn't hold as much power as people think. The only organ that can mandate is the security council. The general assembly can only make recommendations. So we are rather talking about thr interests of a handful of countries.
Members agree on it yet no one upholds it to the full standard. North korea is a member of the UN, so is China. If we say this is what applying these standards looks like, then this declaration is useless.
Saying that something is useless because it's not perfect is the worse possible and most naive argument one can offer.
Life is not a computer program or a math equation.
Rules do have exception, especially in complicated systems like "the entire world".
Life is not a computer program or a math equation.
Rules do have exception, especially in complicated systems like "the entire world".
I believe in this case it's indeed useless as a set of rules. If we'd call it as it seems to be, a "suggestion", we could say it has some purpose.
It is a framework of rules that countries decide to implement into their own. Those countries who implemented it decided it was a useful enough set of rules to implement at home. Others didn't.
If by "this is a useless set of rules" you are saying "oh, c'mon! This is not the law"... then yeah, you're right. It's not legally binding. It says so in the first paragraphs of Wikipedia. But it was useful to others as a framework and model.
If by "this is a useless set of rules" you are saying "oh, c'mon! This is not the law"... then yeah, you're right. It's not legally binding. It says so in the first paragraphs of Wikipedia. But it was useful to others as a framework and model.
This is literally the whole discussion under this article. How can we act like it's a violation of something if it's not binding in the first place.
How can we complain about western countries violating our privacy defined by some ruleset defined by organisation that decided it's a good idea to make genocidal state member of a human rights council of said organisation.
How can we complain about western countries violating our privacy defined by some ruleset defined by organisation that decided it's a good idea to make genocidal state member of a human rights council of said organisation.
FWIW, the ECHR does recognize the right to privacy and that's legally binding to all EU members.
> How can we act like it's a violation of something if it's not binding in the first place.
It is the framework used for creating things that are binding: laws.
Even so, something someone else does can "violate my personal beliefs", even if they're not really legally binding. Nothing strange about that.
Saying "something violates human rights" is a shortcut to saying "Something violates a set of rules that are the framework of our societies, and those rules are important enough that they managed to seep into our laws and influence our thought, and our world. We should pay attention to that violation, and maybe crack down on it."
> How can we complain about western countries violating our privacy defined by some ruleset defined by organisation that decided it's a good idea to make genocidal state member of a human rights council of said organisation.
Literally by doing it. Just because the UN is not perfect, doesn't mean it automatically retroactively invalidates a certain text that we hold to a high standard.
The current state of the UN really makes no difference on the text itself. Even if someone in the UN goes wacko and decides to rewrite the text, we still have a previous copy. Just fork it.
It is the framework used for creating things that are binding: laws.
Even so, something someone else does can "violate my personal beliefs", even if they're not really legally binding. Nothing strange about that.
Saying "something violates human rights" is a shortcut to saying "Something violates a set of rules that are the framework of our societies, and those rules are important enough that they managed to seep into our laws and influence our thought, and our world. We should pay attention to that violation, and maybe crack down on it."
> How can we complain about western countries violating our privacy defined by some ruleset defined by organisation that decided it's a good idea to make genocidal state member of a human rights council of said organisation.
Literally by doing it. Just because the UN is not perfect, doesn't mean it automatically retroactively invalidates a certain text that we hold to a high standard.
The current state of the UN really makes no difference on the text itself. Even if someone in the UN goes wacko and decides to rewrite the text, we still have a previous copy. Just fork it.
[deleted]
This feels on par with relabeling the Monopoly booklet "suggestions" because no one is enforcing it, really.
Its purpose is to define a common standard for mutual exchange, but most importantly it is to bring everyone to the table. On the basis of such declarations talks can ensure. It is a process before being a commitment.
> it was formed in the wake of two consecutive world wars in order to solve international disputes amicably.
and failed miserably at doing any of that.
and failed miserably at doing any of that.
You're asking good 101 questions about rights[0]. I wish more people asked them because it's important to have a clear idea about what rights are and what they are grounded in. The social constructivist view seems to be having its heyday[1], producing all sorts of strange sui generis "rights" untethered from anything real, but there is much to be said about the natural law grounding of natural rights (as opposed to mere legal rights, or even the legal recognition of natural rights) which is then a matter of recognizing them. This is a realist view.
But if you're looking for natural rights you can perceive through your senses (which you have indicated elsewhere in this thread), then you have a bad understanding of reality. You already believe in a number of intangible "things" which you've never perceived...like the notion that things must be perceivable through the senses to be considered real. This is a principle, a false principle, but something that is nonetheless taken by you to be true about reality. Otherwise, what are you even talking about?
[0] But you're also asking a question that's a bit out of context. We are appealing to endoxa and the violations of privacy we are witnessing are unjustified given the general agreement about privacy as a right.
[1] Not to nitpick since the essential question still stands, but since you mentioned the Holy See...
> declares the right to eternal salvation, and mandates that every state submit to the authority of the holy see.
Catholics do not believe they have a right to salvation. Salvation is a gratuitous gift of God, in fact so gratuitous that good works alone cannot deserve it and faith is needed.
But if you're looking for natural rights you can perceive through your senses (which you have indicated elsewhere in this thread), then you have a bad understanding of reality. You already believe in a number of intangible "things" which you've never perceived...like the notion that things must be perceivable through the senses to be considered real. This is a principle, a false principle, but something that is nonetheless taken by you to be true about reality. Otherwise, what are you even talking about?
[0] But you're also asking a question that's a bit out of context. We are appealing to endoxa and the violations of privacy we are witnessing are unjustified given the general agreement about privacy as a right.
[1] Not to nitpick since the essential question still stands, but since you mentioned the Holy See...
> declares the right to eternal salvation, and mandates that every state submit to the authority of the holy see.
Catholics do not believe they have a right to salvation. Salvation is a gratuitous gift of God, in fact so gratuitous that good works alone cannot deserve it and faith is needed.
Human rights don't have any special weight because of the UN. Nobody should care what the UN thinks. The heft that they have is because the UN is one of the most wishy-washy and politically petty organisations on the planet. Anything that they can agree on probably is a reasonably universal human value. They would not agree to eternal salvation, for example.
The list of things that the UN has agreed to are values not because they are expedient or nice to have, but because they have been generally proven to be hallmarks of civilised life. Losing a right to privacy is much, much scarier than people having private facets of their lives.
And, if appeals to authority is what it takes to get people to agree to good ideas, then the UN is telling them these things are really good ideas. Better than whatever looks like a good idea in the short term then turns out not to be.
The list of things that the UN has agreed to are values not because they are expedient or nice to have, but because they have been generally proven to be hallmarks of civilised life. Losing a right to privacy is much, much scarier than people having private facets of their lives.
And, if appeals to authority is what it takes to get people to agree to good ideas, then the UN is telling them these things are really good ideas. Better than whatever looks like a good idea in the short term then turns out not to be.
It is possible that some countries may provide better human rights than the UN can even hope for. :)
One thing is for sure, despite one of its own Supreme Court jurists championing the idea of a "right to privacy",1 America now has some of the poorest privacy protection, culturally and legally, of any country. This intended disregard for privacy today puts money in many Americans' pockets, particularly the Silicon Valley crowd.
1 https://archive.org/stream/jstor-1321160/1321160_djvu.txt
Was talking to someone in their 80's in the US about the telephone service they had as a child. Operators could listen in on calls.
But did they. Honest question.
Operators certainly were not jumping into a call and injecting advertising. Nor were they recording metadata, e.g., who someone's contacts are, call history, etc., to support an advertising service.
Operators sometimes knew callers personally IRL. This older person was telling me she knew her local operator and one time when she called someone twice in the same day, her friend the operator asked her why she was caling the same person again. "You just called her."
Operators could also make free calls and some did.
Did people back then have a better concept of privacy than young people today who have been brainwashed by SV.
One thing is for sure, despite one of its own Supreme Court jurists championing the idea of a "right to privacy",1 America now has some of the poorest privacy protection, culturally and legally, of any country. This intended disregard for privacy today puts money in many Americans' pockets, particularly the Silicon Valley crowd.
1 https://archive.org/stream/jstor-1321160/1321160_djvu.txt
Was talking to someone in their 80's in the US about the telephone service they had as a child. Operators could listen in on calls.
But did they. Honest question.
Operators certainly were not jumping into a call and injecting advertising. Nor were they recording metadata, e.g., who someone's contacts are, call history, etc., to support an advertising service.
Operators sometimes knew callers personally IRL. This older person was telling me she knew her local operator and one time when she called someone twice in the same day, her friend the operator asked her why she was caling the same person again. "You just called her."
Operators could also make free calls and some did.
Did people back then have a better concept of privacy than young people today who have been brainwashed by SV.
There isnt such a thing as "true" or god-given rights. This was a document agreed by the States that participate in the UN. Every rights declaration will be a compromise over what freedoms will be protected by law. Persons on isolation have infinite freedom , in societies, they dont
I think you've asked a good question. I would rephrase it a bit as - to what in reality gives rise to the concept rights?
The answer in this thread appears to be - if enough of a majority of people in power say its true, then its true.
The answer in this thread appears to be - if enough of a majority of people in power say its true, then its true.
I agree, human rights are arbitrary rules built to resemble some kind of framework for policy making in west or west-like societies.
But the issue here is the selective enforcement of these rules.
It's similar to geneva convention. You can't break it if you're not in war but only in "armed conflict".
But the issue here is the selective enforcement of these rules.
It's similar to geneva convention. You can't break it if you're not in war but only in "armed conflict".
> How do rights become true or false
Not «true or false»: part of the "social contract".
Not «true or false»: part of the "social contract".
This doesn't really change the question.
If two people (or groups) are arguing over whether something is part of the social contract, how can we tell which of them is correct?
This also seems to go against the spirit of human rights. How can we motivate minority rights in a society that feels justified persecuting minorities (i.e. in a society where minority rights are not part of the social contract)?
If two people (or groups) are arguing over whether something is part of the social contract, how can we tell which of them is correct?
This also seems to go against the spirit of human rights. How can we motivate minority rights in a society that feels justified persecuting minorities (i.e. in a society where minority rights are not part of the social contract)?
[deleted]
> arguing over whether something is part of the social contract
What?! The contract is defined in its normative constitution. It's written! It's dynamic - your service provider sends you an update to the contract: you don't like it, you cease rapport.
The issue we have today is with the relative lack of options.
In the case of the DoHR: once accepted, that is part of the contract. Effectiveness to be defined (for example, inconsistencies with a [Statal legal] Constitution are noted by a higher court which can nullify proposed laws).
What?! The contract is defined in its normative constitution. It's written! It's dynamic - your service provider sends you an update to the contract: you don't like it, you cease rapport.
The issue we have today is with the relative lack of options.
In the case of the DoHR: once accepted, that is part of the contract. Effectiveness to be defined (for example, inconsistencies with a [Statal legal] Constitution are noted by a higher court which can nullify proposed laws).
> how can we tell which of them is correct?
might makes right. That has always been the case in nature, because it's the only way that worked so far.
might makes right. That has always been the case in nature, because it's the only way that worked so far.
If you are correct and it's all down to majorities bullying minorities around, how can we motivate human rights? Especially since they seem to have been instituted to prevent majorities bullying minorities around.
Reduce power of the majority by collectively limiting power of government.
That's exactly what having basic rights and human rights does.
Of course this is a bit circular reasoning because this works only if everyone abides by these rules, so in practice protects only against relatively 'mild' infringements and situations (i.e. the people are expected to be reasonable enough not to vote extremists in power... if not, all bets are off but that's true of all laws)
Of course this is a bit circular reasoning because this works only if everyone abides by these rules, so in practice protects only against relatively 'mild' infringements and situations (i.e. the people are expected to be reasonable enough not to vote extremists in power... if not, all bets are off but that's true of all laws)
Don't blame the player, blame the game. Democracy will always converge into extremism the more power government has over people's lives. If you become reliant on government acting violently against the power minority and let government increase it's power, it will always lead to this.
It's self feeding problem. The only solution is slowly to deny government power over people.
It's self feeding problem. The only solution is slowly to deny government power over people.
But what is might here?
Historically, "might" correlated near perfectly with "population size". From Sumer onward, the size of your army & slave count determined right-making (in the UN sense). Exceptions due to technology innovations were sparse and short-lived.
Therefore subsequent evolution has been mostly around how to manage large groups of humans, through "social contracts" and various domestication measures. The social configurations that managed better, won over those that did worse.
In other words, huge centralized states have been a huge evolutionary success. There are pretty much no independent ("sovereign" when it comes to right-making, UN or otherwise) small groups of humans any more, they got all gobbled up by superstates.
But I wonder if our institutions have fully caught up to the fact that the number of humans is near-irrelevant now. With the right technology, a small group can dominate millions, billions. And their necessary supply chain is tiny, relative to the purported UN jurisdiction – by a factor of at least 1000x.
So "democracy as right making" is at DIRECT ODDS with "might as right making". I wonder how this clash between where the power resides (technology and its homeostatic supply chain) and where people think it resides (themselves and their divine individuality) will play out. The emperor has no clothes.
Historically, "might" correlated near perfectly with "population size". From Sumer onward, the size of your army & slave count determined right-making (in the UN sense). Exceptions due to technology innovations were sparse and short-lived.
Therefore subsequent evolution has been mostly around how to manage large groups of humans, through "social contracts" and various domestication measures. The social configurations that managed better, won over those that did worse.
In other words, huge centralized states have been a huge evolutionary success. There are pretty much no independent ("sovereign" when it comes to right-making, UN or otherwise) small groups of humans any more, they got all gobbled up by superstates.
But I wonder if our institutions have fully caught up to the fact that the number of humans is near-irrelevant now. With the right technology, a small group can dominate millions, billions. And their necessary supply chain is tiny, relative to the purported UN jurisdiction – by a factor of at least 1000x.
So "democracy as right making" is at DIRECT ODDS with "might as right making". I wonder how this clash between where the power resides (technology and its homeostatic supply chain) and where people think it resides (themselves and their divine individuality) will play out. The emperor has no clothes.
>How do rights become true or false?
Here's how: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification
Here's how: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification
Right, but how does this process create truth?
Ratification makes them law.
Why does it have to? Who said it?
The right to privacy is not, and has never been, absolute. Hence, for instance, the careful wording of the text you quote: It does not say "no interference" but rather "no arbitrary interference".
There are attempts at infringing on privacy, yes, but we also see attempts at making privacy absolute, and I think the Tor Project is part of that trend.
The realistic and reasonable approach is a trade-off, as has always been the case. Usually this takes the form of strong legal protections of privacy but with exceptions controlled by the courts (e.g. warrants for searches and interception of communications) and parliaments.
There are attempts at infringing on privacy, yes, but we also see attempts at making privacy absolute, and I think the Tor Project is part of that trend.
The realistic and reasonable approach is a trade-off, as has always been the case. Usually this takes the form of strong legal protections of privacy but with exceptions controlled by the courts (e.g. warrants for searches and interception of communications) and parliaments.
It is actually more than that. Privacy is exclusively cast as an individual / personal concept. But that is just the basis. If people have no privacy, any organizations, or enterprizes they form have no privacy either.
Privacy is one of the very foundations of social and economic organization. It is deeply connected with ownership and agency. Holding on to a private piece of the information universe is what underpins also all civic and commercial activity.
It is not clear why we still just talk about privacy instead of actually doing something meaningful about it [0]. This is maybe the most glaring example of how modern society has degenerated / cannot solve any of its self-inflicted diseases.
[0] That's obviously not a critisism of the tor project :-), these early pioneers are the saving grace of our society.
Privacy is one of the very foundations of social and economic organization. It is deeply connected with ownership and agency. Holding on to a private piece of the information universe is what underpins also all civic and commercial activity.
It is not clear why we still just talk about privacy instead of actually doing something meaningful about it [0]. This is maybe the most glaring example of how modern society has degenerated / cannot solve any of its self-inflicted diseases.
[0] That's obviously not a critisism of the tor project :-), these early pioneers are the saving grace of our society.
I don't know. The future of privacy doesn't look good. Maybe Ted Kaczynski was right and many of our modern technologies are antithetical to certain freedoms people in the past enjoyed, like privacy. If that is the case, then no amount of legislation can restore or save privacy. Maybe only delay its inevitable death.
There is a certain truth to that, in that modern digital technology (from digital networks, to data centers to satellites orbiting constantly above Earth) makes it easier than ever to collect and process a lot of very detailed data about everybody and everything
But modern technology has also made it very easy to rob or kill people in large numbers and we (generally) don't do that.
Whether "privacy is dead" or not is not a technological question, it is a moral, political, economic and social structure question. Legislation that is aligned with what society wants (or should want) and is thus enforced can be very effective.
If we resign and normalize the current status quo there will be nobody to blame for the dystopia but us.
But modern technology has also made it very easy to rob or kill people in large numbers and we (generally) don't do that.
Whether "privacy is dead" or not is not a technological question, it is a moral, political, economic and social structure question. Legislation that is aligned with what society wants (or should want) and is thus enforced can be very effective.
If we resign and normalize the current status quo there will be nobody to blame for the dystopia but us.
> we still just talk about privacy
I am not sure what your "we" refers to.
I am sure people can "do more" on improving privacy.
But in many places the concept "privacy" is vague, without much explanation of why it's an important concept. And I would like to see more discussions about this concept.
I do like you saying "Privacy is exclusively cast as an individual / personal concept".
Individuals are the smallest unit in our society and has the least protection against larger groups of people (e.g. companies, governments, other powerful groups). Privacy would be one of the concepts as basis of "individual protection".
I am not sure what your "we" refers to.
I am sure people can "do more" on improving privacy.
But in many places the concept "privacy" is vague, without much explanation of why it's an important concept. And I would like to see more discussions about this concept.
I do like you saying "Privacy is exclusively cast as an individual / personal concept".
Individuals are the smallest unit in our society and has the least protection against larger groups of people (e.g. companies, governments, other powerful groups). Privacy would be one of the concepts as basis of "individual protection".
"we" as in everybody :-), in particular in our capacity of shaping legal frameworks and regulation
maybe there reason there isn't more discussion about something so deeply relevant is that we are already in a stage where what is being discussed is pretty much channeled and controlled.
I would imagine if somebody declared "your property ownership is dead, from now on you own nothing" there would be quite a bit more discussion about it.
maybe there reason there isn't more discussion about something so deeply relevant is that we are already in a stage where what is being discussed is pretty much channeled and controlled.
I would imagine if somebody declared "your property ownership is dead, from now on you own nothing" there would be quite a bit more discussion about it.
That would be too obvious.
The enemies these days will come with "justice" and "ensure your safety" and "save you from dangerous X". And hey just at a price of "a little" privacy and freedom!
The enemies these days will come with "justice" and "ensure your safety" and "save you from dangerous X". And hey just at a price of "a little" privacy and freedom!
The Tor project took a political stance a few years ago for no discernible reason at all.
To me, Tor is a software project that runs a network that allows users to be anonymous. Period. That anonimity can be used for good or evil, and everybody has a different sense of good or evil. Rebranding the project as a way to spread western liberal values is, in my opinion, overstepping the boundaries of what a software project should be.
(One can see an analogy between this change and the changes Mozilla took with their software. Unfortunately, there's no "better alternative" to Tor like there is to Firefox)
To me, Tor is a software project that runs a network that allows users to be anonymous. Period. That anonimity can be used for good or evil, and everybody has a different sense of good or evil. Rebranding the project as a way to spread western liberal values is, in my opinion, overstepping the boundaries of what a software project should be.
(One can see an analogy between this change and the changes Mozilla took with their software. Unfortunately, there's no "better alternative" to Tor like there is to Firefox)
To me this sounds completely bizarre. Why should a software project be apolitical and without values?
Tools like Tor or a web browser are not equivalent to a screwdriver or a knife. Google chrome is the way it is because Google does value money and power above people's privacy. The Macbook is not easily repairable because of Apple's values.
Tools do not exist in a vacuum, everything we do is political whether we like it it not. That's what political means, it amazes me how the meaning has been altered, especially in the US.
Tools like Tor or a web browser are not equivalent to a screwdriver or a knife. Google chrome is the way it is because Google does value money and power above people's privacy. The Macbook is not easily repairable because of Apple's values.
Tools do not exist in a vacuum, everything we do is political whether we like it it not. That's what political means, it amazes me how the meaning has been altered, especially in the US.
>Tools like Tor or a web browser are not equivalent to a screwdriver or a knife.
Only that they are. Tor is a software project that allows you to stay anonymous. You can use it to buy drugs, you can use it to whistleblow, you can use it to post intimate pictures of someone online, you can use it to circumvent the censorship of your government, you can use it to troll in forums. It's just a tool like a pen. Is a pen a political tool because you can use it to write the Mein Kampf?
>Tools do not exist in a vacuum, everything we do is political whether we like it it not.
It's precisely this attitude that is ruining the discourse in the west.
Only that they are. Tor is a software project that allows you to stay anonymous. You can use it to buy drugs, you can use it to whistleblow, you can use it to post intimate pictures of someone online, you can use it to circumvent the censorship of your government, you can use it to troll in forums. It's just a tool like a pen. Is a pen a political tool because you can use it to write the Mein Kampf?
>Tools do not exist in a vacuum, everything we do is political whether we like it it not.
It's precisely this attitude that is ruining the discourse in the west.
A pen maker is just as entitled (and socially obligated, in my opinion) to reflect on the uses of his tool as a software developer is, just as all tool makers are. Some tools are exclusively used for ill, some primarily used for ill, some dual-use, some designed for good and sometimes used for ill, some overwhelmingly good with occasional abuses.
Opiates are a tool, and the moral calculus of being involved in their industrial production differs from the production of pens. Guns are a tool, and the moral calculus of being involved in their industrial production differs from the production of pens. Some things are designed for apolitical reasons, and yet a politics emerges around their use. The Tiki Torch guys didn't build their product to be political, and yet when they saw their product used in political images in Charlottesville, they felt the need to restate their values, and acknowledged that their product had become enmeshed in politics. That's how things work.
Even the parent comment doesn't draw the distinction fully enough. Knives overwhelmingly serve a prosocial purpose, humans have an almost infinite need to cut objects, especially as it relates to food production. But the use of knives in the context of interpersonal violence does merit reflection, product updates, and an expression of values. I think knife companies should and likely do reflect on the full set of uses of knives.
None of this prescribes an answer to any given question, I am not the kind of person who thinks that someone should be forced to declare a particular thing. But your insistence that the process of the question itself is "ruining discourse in the west" is not a very thoughtful take.
If the makers of Tor have considered the myriad ways in which their tools are used and want to support some ways, disavow others, and design for or against others, I think that's great, and hardly ruining anything.
Opiates are a tool, and the moral calculus of being involved in their industrial production differs from the production of pens. Guns are a tool, and the moral calculus of being involved in their industrial production differs from the production of pens. Some things are designed for apolitical reasons, and yet a politics emerges around their use. The Tiki Torch guys didn't build their product to be political, and yet when they saw their product used in political images in Charlottesville, they felt the need to restate their values, and acknowledged that their product had become enmeshed in politics. That's how things work.
Even the parent comment doesn't draw the distinction fully enough. Knives overwhelmingly serve a prosocial purpose, humans have an almost infinite need to cut objects, especially as it relates to food production. But the use of knives in the context of interpersonal violence does merit reflection, product updates, and an expression of values. I think knife companies should and likely do reflect on the full set of uses of knives.
None of this prescribes an answer to any given question, I am not the kind of person who thinks that someone should be forced to declare a particular thing. But your insistence that the process of the question itself is "ruining discourse in the west" is not a very thoughtful take.
If the makers of Tor have considered the myriad ways in which their tools are used and want to support some ways, disavow others, and design for or against others, I think that's great, and hardly ruining anything.
Haha that's what I was thinking when I wrote about the knife, but it didn't fit with what I had in mind very well.
I really like your comment and agree with what you've written, what I was going for (and failed to really spell out) is that by definition everything within the public sphere is politics. Everything that shapes or defines the relationships between groups or individuals is politics.
That's what one will find if he searches dictionaries for politics. But somehow the word has taken on new meaning and people manage yo argue nonsensically with it. I'm sure that people who argue like this against politics/things being political all have slightly different things in mind and noone understands the original meaning of politics.
I really like your comment and agree with what you've written, what I was going for (and failed to really spell out) is that by definition everything within the public sphere is politics. Everything that shapes or defines the relationships between groups or individuals is politics.
That's what one will find if he searches dictionaries for politics. But somehow the word has taken on new meaning and people manage yo argue nonsensically with it. I'm sure that people who argue like this against politics/things being political all have slightly different things in mind and noone understands the original meaning of politics.
> To me this sounds completely bizarre. Why should a software project be apolitical and without values?
Not all software projects, but certainly some software projects, specifically those trying to create infrastructure.
Over time, we have accumulated some wisdom that society is worse off when we try to politicize a bridge, so that only people with certain beliefs are allowed to cross the bridge, or make telephone calls, or use electricity, etc.
We want everyone to be able to make the telephone call and to cross the bridge. Even if they are going to commit a crime and the bridge helps them commit that crime. Even if they are not committed to western liberal values.
It is this type of apolitical treatment of infrastructure that provides numerous benefits necessary for the infrastructure to thrive:
1. You can't sue the bridge builder or telephone carrier if someone uses the infrastructure to do Bad Thing. This is necessary for the infrastructure to exist. Imagine if a telephone company had to worry about a kidnapper using their phones to make calls.
2. Much infrastructure becomes more useful as more people use it (network effects), in which case the infrastructure should not be fragmented where each tribe has to build their own rival infrastructure. It's more efficient for rival tribes to put aside their differences and have everyone use the same infrastructure. This is especially true in increasing scale situations.
3. Infrastructure that requires long term support and maintenance through a variety of different regimes will need to prove that it is not favoring one regime over another. For the bridge this can be government, but for a project like Tor, they will need the contributions of software developers that do not believe in the western liberal project together with developers that do. And certainly for users running exit nodes this applies as well.
Now against these benefits are the costs. Does it hurt you that your political enemy is allowed to also use the telephone to coordinate?
Well, from a pure power point of view, you would like to dominate and cripple them, but from the point of view of the infrastructure, no, them making a phone call does not prevent you from doing the same. So in that type of a situaiton, it's best to have a truce and say everyone is allowed to use and contribute to the infrastructure.
Now in some situations you can't have a truce because your hatred is so strong. Then you have war. That's when you deny your enemies access to your bridges while blowing up their bridges.
And they do the same to you.
But one thing about that state of affairs is that it's never good for infrastructure. When you politicize infrastructure, you get less of it.
So no, it's not a good idea to try to make everything political. This is true regardless of anyone's moral intuitions. It's an objective fact that society is better off when certain things are not politicized, especially infrastructure services.
Not all software projects, but certainly some software projects, specifically those trying to create infrastructure.
Over time, we have accumulated some wisdom that society is worse off when we try to politicize a bridge, so that only people with certain beliefs are allowed to cross the bridge, or make telephone calls, or use electricity, etc.
We want everyone to be able to make the telephone call and to cross the bridge. Even if they are going to commit a crime and the bridge helps them commit that crime. Even if they are not committed to western liberal values.
It is this type of apolitical treatment of infrastructure that provides numerous benefits necessary for the infrastructure to thrive:
1. You can't sue the bridge builder or telephone carrier if someone uses the infrastructure to do Bad Thing. This is necessary for the infrastructure to exist. Imagine if a telephone company had to worry about a kidnapper using their phones to make calls.
2. Much infrastructure becomes more useful as more people use it (network effects), in which case the infrastructure should not be fragmented where each tribe has to build their own rival infrastructure. It's more efficient for rival tribes to put aside their differences and have everyone use the same infrastructure. This is especially true in increasing scale situations.
3. Infrastructure that requires long term support and maintenance through a variety of different regimes will need to prove that it is not favoring one regime over another. For the bridge this can be government, but for a project like Tor, they will need the contributions of software developers that do not believe in the western liberal project together with developers that do. And certainly for users running exit nodes this applies as well.
Now against these benefits are the costs. Does it hurt you that your political enemy is allowed to also use the telephone to coordinate?
Well, from a pure power point of view, you would like to dominate and cripple them, but from the point of view of the infrastructure, no, them making a phone call does not prevent you from doing the same. So in that type of a situaiton, it's best to have a truce and say everyone is allowed to use and contribute to the infrastructure.
Now in some situations you can't have a truce because your hatred is so strong. Then you have war. That's when you deny your enemies access to your bridges while blowing up their bridges.
And they do the same to you.
But one thing about that state of affairs is that it's never good for infrastructure. When you politicize infrastructure, you get less of it.
So no, it's not a good idea to try to make everything political. This is true regardless of anyone's moral intuitions. It's an objective fact that society is better off when certain things are not politicized, especially infrastructure services.
> So no, it's not a good idea to try to make everything political. This is true regardless of anyone's moral intuitions. It's an objective fact that society is better off when certain things are not politicized, especially infrastructure services.
Our difference lies in the definition of politics. I am not from the US and I hold to a more original definition, everything that has to do with how societies are structured, are governed and how they act is politics. Everything within the public sphere is politics.
In your example, building a bridge is politics, letting everyone through is politics. You can't make or unmake something to be political. It either is or isn't _by definition_.
Our difference lies in the definition of politics. I am not from the US and I hold to a more original definition, everything that has to do with how societies are structured, are governed and how they act is politics. Everything within the public sphere is politics.
In your example, building a bridge is politics, letting everyone through is politics. You can't make or unmake something to be political. It either is or isn't _by definition_.
> In your example, building a bridge is politics, letting everyone through is politics. You can't make or unmake something to be political. It either is or isn't _by definition_.
That's not a definition, it's a philosophical position. A very toxic one that leads to dysfunctional societies and stuff not working and not getting built as people argue over politics.
That's not a definition, it's a philosophical position. A very toxic one that leads to dysfunctional societies and stuff not working and not getting built as people argue over politics.
I dislike some of the things we heard from the project and the drama surrounding some parts of the community. But I also don't believe this statement is overly political. If it were, western liberal values are indeed superior to any alternatives having a different perspective on this. Granted, such a project was founded in a country with such values, so why not live by it?
I think Tor has to demonstrate that such values are what the project protects in order to stop it being blocked[0] as a tool for criminals.
[0] And/or the developers arrested: I’m so not a lawyer that I wouldn’t know even if I tried to read the actual statutes if that response was even possible in the USA
[0] And/or the developers arrested: I’m so not a lawyer that I wouldn’t know even if I tried to read the actual statutes if that response was even possible in the USA
can you explain why you think right to privacy and anonymity is a western liberal idea ? especially so since so many western liberal governments are adopting very harsh laws against privacy and anonymity
i would argue that it is simply a fundamental idea but sadly still a radical one, regardless on which part of the world you find yourself on
EDIT: by 'fundamental' i mean simply in the sense that the sentence, 'it is none of your business what i am thinking about', is fundamenal
i would argue that it is simply a fundamental idea but sadly still a radical one, regardless on which part of the world you find yourself on
EDIT: by 'fundamental' i mean simply in the sense that the sentence, 'it is none of your business what i am thinking about', is fundamenal
It is a western liberal idea because it is clearly laid out in the founding philosophical texts which were written in the west (thus western) and which provide the theoretical definition for the term 'liberal society'.
Examples include Hobbes, Locke ( all persons are endowed with natural rights to life, liberty, and property), the US' founding fathers writings and debates, the French national motto of Liberté, égalité, fraternité, ...
You are correct that many/all western liberal governments are adopting very harsh laws contrary to these principles.
This does indeed call into question if these are still liberal democracies/republics.
It is the sad state of man that very few social structures are able to adhere to the principles on which they are founded.
Examples include Hobbes, Locke ( all persons are endowed with natural rights to life, liberty, and property), the US' founding fathers writings and debates, the French national motto of Liberté, égalité, fraternité, ...
You are correct that many/all western liberal governments are adopting very harsh laws contrary to these principles.
This does indeed call into question if these are still liberal democracies/republics.
It is the sad state of man that very few social structures are able to adhere to the principles on which they are founded.
> It is a western liberal idea because it is clearly laid out in the founding philosophical texts which were written in the west
i completely agree with this. however i think that today the phrase 'western liberal' is taken to mean as policies coming from brussels/washington, instead of ideas coming from the enlightenment period
it is also hard to divide judicial adoption of 'right to privacy' according to geography and political systems. for example, australia does not legally recognize the 'right to privacy' while russia does [0].
also curiously, as somewhat of an aside point, i just tried to find data retention laws in russia and this is best i could come up with:
"The Law on Personal Data simply provides that personal data should not be kept/processed for a longer period than is necessary for the purpose for which it is processed (unless longer processing and, in particular, retention periods are mandated by Russian law or by agreement of the data subject)."[1]
Of course this opens up the possibility for government mandated retenition, but do these laws exist? i would find it very surprising if they do not. does anyone here know? i am talking about written laws, not corruption or rule-of-law factors
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy
[1] https://www.dataguidance.com/notes/russia-data-protection-ov...
i completely agree with this. however i think that today the phrase 'western liberal' is taken to mean as policies coming from brussels/washington, instead of ideas coming from the enlightenment period
it is also hard to divide judicial adoption of 'right to privacy' according to geography and political systems. for example, australia does not legally recognize the 'right to privacy' while russia does [0].
also curiously, as somewhat of an aside point, i just tried to find data retention laws in russia and this is best i could come up with:
"The Law on Personal Data simply provides that personal data should not be kept/processed for a longer period than is necessary for the purpose for which it is processed (unless longer processing and, in particular, retention periods are mandated by Russian law or by agreement of the data subject)."[1]
Of course this opens up the possibility for government mandated retenition, but do these laws exist? i would find it very surprising if they do not. does anyone here know? i am talking about written laws, not corruption or rule-of-law factors
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy
[1] https://www.dataguidance.com/notes/russia-data-protection-ov...
Worse, by taking this position Tor has no idea what privacy is. Privacy is not anonymity.
Anonymity is the right to remain hidden independently of your communications. Privacy is the right to prevent disclosure.
If third parties can access your correspondence you have no privacy regardless of your anonymity. If anybody can assert your identity you have no anonymity regardless of your correspondence, if any.
The inability to separately define these terms sacrifices them both.
Anonymity is the right to remain hidden independently of your communications. Privacy is the right to prevent disclosure.
If third parties can access your correspondence you have no privacy regardless of your anonymity. If anybody can assert your identity you have no anonymity regardless of your correspondence, if any.
The inability to separately define these terms sacrifices them both.
> Tor has no idea what privacy is
This is unnecessarily inflammatory, and just makes it sound like "Tor doesn't see things as I do and therefore they are dumb".
Practically speaking, the question of privacy largely disappears if you are anonymous. The two terms are not orthogonal, even if they are also not identical.
This is unnecessarily inflammatory, and just makes it sound like "Tor doesn't see things as I do and therefore they are dumb".
Practically speaking, the question of privacy largely disappears if you are anonymous. The two terms are not orthogonal, even if they are also not identical.
I think the point being made is that Tor is using the word privacy here where anonymity would be, in their case, much more correct. My view is that privacy gives them a better emotive spin (as witnessed elsewhere here).
"Anonymity is a human right" is much more likely to be questioned.
"Anonymity is a human right" is much more likely to be questioned.
I would say the terms are mutually exclusive only because there is no expectation of privacy where a party is anonymous. This is reinforced against online communications in a very practical application by presence of digital certificates.
> I would say the terms are mutually exclusive only because there is no expectation of privacy where a party is anonymous.
But as an end-user, do you really care about privacy if you are already anonymous?
I can think of situations where you would. But for most scenarios, it seems to me that anonymity renders privacy a moot question. At least that's the case for me --- therefore I also think that the statement "the terms are mutually exclusive" is fairly meaningless, at least for my own online activity.
My intuition is a lot of "regular" people (i.e. the non-hackernews crowd) would see it the same way...
But as an end-user, do you really care about privacy if you are already anonymous?
I can think of situations where you would. But for most scenarios, it seems to me that anonymity renders privacy a moot question. At least that's the case for me --- therefore I also think that the statement "the terms are mutually exclusive" is fairly meaningless, at least for my own online activity.
My intuition is a lot of "regular" people (i.e. the non-hackernews crowd) would see it the same way...
Your logic assumes the remote party in a transaction has no privacy considerations only because you yourself have anonymity. In a very practical sense it means they are not likely to disclose things to you.
Even still would you really be willing to give out all your financial and sexual preferences to a stranger even if you are anonymous? I suspect most people would continue to harbor reservations.
Even still would you really be willing to give out all your financial and sexual preferences to a stranger even if you are anonymous? I suspect most people would continue to harbor reservations.
I see it more as a soft trade-off, than something that has hard limits. The more I trust my own anonymity, the less I worry and care about the privacy at the other end. And the more willing I would be to give out details that could come back and bite me if my anonymity was blown.
I see it more as Stockholm Syndrome to the web’s client server model. People are willing to abandon privacy to a web server out of convenience but that doesn’t sound emotionally appealing so they give up and pretend what they have is good enough.
My take is: Privacy is when people know who you are but not what you are doing. Anonymity is when people know what you are doing but not who you are (some people will argue this is pseudonymity but I disagree with them in a practical context). Basically Batman is "anonymous" and Bruce Wayne is "private".
There is also a difference between truly anonymous (where no connecting identity is established between different events) and what I'll call a form of pseudonymity (where an identity is constructed, with or without a known connection to one or more real identities, and that identity builds its own reputation). I do not consider Batman "anonymous" unless he does something without revealing that it was Batman who did it. Batman is pseudonymous, simply because "he" is a known identity, whoever may ever be behind it at any given time.
People in certain situations require anonymity for privacy. Anonymity is a tool of privacy, not always necessary but certainly necessary in some circumstances.
Privacy is choosing who knows what about you. Anonymity is a tool to do things in front of some people without them knowing who you are. Clearly if you don't want those people to know that you (your real identity) does those things, you require anonymity to maintain privacy in that respect.
> If third parties can access your correspondence you have no privacy regardless of your anonymity.
This is false. For example, a citizen in a repressive authoritarian regime can only protest the government "publicly" so long as they are anonymous. You can let all the world know that Anonymous4321 (if you have real anonymity) thinks the government is bad on Twitter and even leak government secrets. Sure, the protest will not be "private" in the sense that it is public, but the privacy angle is that nobody knows that the individual is involved in such activities: they can show up to work at the government the next day after leaking details about the government and nothing will happen to them. Clearly, from the perspective of their real identity, their leaking and protest activities remain "private" from the government even though the government very publicly is aware of the protests and leaks.
In the scope of TOR, it clearly helps individuals maintain privacy. I want to keep which sites I visit unknown to even my ISP; that is clearly your version of privacy. On the other end of the connection, I don't want the website operator to know who I am either; this is your version of anonymity. To me those are both just different aspects of the notion of privacy defined by: choosing who knows what about me--with that choice defaulting to knowing nothing about me.
Privacy is a broad category, anonymity is a piece of it, necessary only in some circumstances but generally desirable as a default. You can choose to give up your identity, you cannot choose to take the knowledge back from someone.
Privacy is choosing who knows what about you. Anonymity is a tool to do things in front of some people without them knowing who you are. Clearly if you don't want those people to know that you (your real identity) does those things, you require anonymity to maintain privacy in that respect.
> If third parties can access your correspondence you have no privacy regardless of your anonymity.
This is false. For example, a citizen in a repressive authoritarian regime can only protest the government "publicly" so long as they are anonymous. You can let all the world know that Anonymous4321 (if you have real anonymity) thinks the government is bad on Twitter and even leak government secrets. Sure, the protest will not be "private" in the sense that it is public, but the privacy angle is that nobody knows that the individual is involved in such activities: they can show up to work at the government the next day after leaking details about the government and nothing will happen to them. Clearly, from the perspective of their real identity, their leaking and protest activities remain "private" from the government even though the government very publicly is aware of the protests and leaks.
In the scope of TOR, it clearly helps individuals maintain privacy. I want to keep which sites I visit unknown to even my ISP; that is clearly your version of privacy. On the other end of the connection, I don't want the website operator to know who I am either; this is your version of anonymity. To me those are both just different aspects of the notion of privacy defined by: choosing who knows what about me--with that choice defaulting to knowing nothing about me.
Privacy is a broad category, anonymity is a piece of it, necessary only in some circumstances but generally desirable as a default. You can choose to give up your identity, you cannot choose to take the knowledge back from someone.
Tor is a tool that enables privacy. It makes sense that its creators would believe in privacy.
Would you expect a gun manufacturer to be apolitical, or would you expect them to support the right to self-defense?
Would you expect a gun manufacturer to be apolitical, or would you expect them to support the right to self-defense?
A lot of people don't know what privacy is. They use the argument 'I have nothing to hide'.
But that is not what privacy is about. Privacy is your ability to control what others know about you.
A lock on a toilet does this. The ability to hide your IP address does this.
A lock on a toilet does this. The ability to hide your IP address does this.
“Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”
― Edward Snowden
― Edward Snowden
Paraphrasing this for pop culture shock:
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care if someone watches you take a shit because you eat healthy food." - LocalH
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care if someone watches you take a shit because you eat healthy food." - LocalH
And it goes well beyond technology, I’ve long felt that the biggest problem with income tax wasn’t the tax itself but the audacity that anyone needed to know what my private income was, let alone to treat me differently under the law based on my income.
The 4th amendment was penned back when you would have had to physically search my house or business for paperwork to learn anything about my financial books, I really believe that the original authors intended for me to mind my own business and the government and everyone else to mind theirs.
Freedom was free agency to exist and thrive in the land, unmolested and protected from encroachment from others by the government, rather than being a subject of the nation and a pawn of the government.
Taxes were something taken at ports during import/export, now not only is the representative system turned upside down but the federal tax collectors have turned inward.
The federal government was suppose to be an entity of management for external foreign relationships and mediation between states, now it’s getting close to mandating individuals to which private bathrooms they are allowed to invade.
The 4th amendment was penned back when you would have had to physically search my house or business for paperwork to learn anything about my financial books, I really believe that the original authors intended for me to mind my own business and the government and everyone else to mind theirs.
Freedom was free agency to exist and thrive in the land, unmolested and protected from encroachment from others by the government, rather than being a subject of the nation and a pawn of the government.
Taxes were something taken at ports during import/export, now not only is the representative system turned upside down but the federal tax collectors have turned inward.
The federal government was suppose to be an entity of management for external foreign relationships and mediation between states, now it’s getting close to mandating individuals to which private bathrooms they are allowed to invade.
> A lock on a toilet does this
I found that this one doesn't work on Americans, they have some crazy 2 inch gap around the door haha
I found that this one doesn't work on Americans, they have some crazy 2 inch gap around the door haha
In America, privacy, like so many basic rights, is freely available to those who can pay for it.
Someone could be smoking weed or worse use their smart phone on company time.
> They use the argument 'I have nothing to hide'
That """argument""" is what people without any experience, just come out a cave hours ago, could put in their head. Under Pol Pot, people had to hide eyeglasses. And this is just an example that stands for many other instances.
That """argument""" is what people without any experience, just come out a cave hours ago, could put in their head. Under Pol Pot, people had to hide eyeglasses. And this is just an example that stands for many other instances.
But are there examples that are more salient to your average civilian with non-controversial politics that lives in a developed democratic nation?
> average civilian
Why should the average be relevant. Phrased this way, it seemed that the object of concern are the grayest.
> with non-controversial [positions]
Are those who decide what takes the label of "controversial" reliable?
Why should the average be relevant. Phrased this way, it seemed that the object of concern are the grayest.
> with non-controversial [positions]
Are those who decide what takes the label of "controversial" reliable?
Basically, I'm looking for something that will resonate with "the average Joe," so to speak. Talking about people in dictatorships or people who are political extremists, yes those people need privacy. But how can you convince the average Joe that they need it too?
> Are those who decide what takes the label of "controversial" reliable?
No -- but the average person who finds themselves squarely within the Overton window will not find that concerning.
> Are those who decide what takes the label of "controversial" reliable?
No -- but the average person who finds themselves squarely within the Overton window will not find that concerning.
Joseph McCarthy.
A lock on a toilet doesn't prevent anyone knowing what you're doing in there, to a very high degree of certainty. If privacy is "what others know about you" then "you have bodily functions" seems to be something else other than privacy.
Well the next thing I would ask is their bank account credentials...
I see an important part of the debate is recognising there are two distinct parts to privacy
Secrecy is where you prevent others from having knowledge of a piece of data, or explicitly share it with a limited set of others whom have the same ability to shield the knowledge.
This is not privacy obviously.
1. loss of control of knowledge. This is often the bit we worry about. We want to keep control over our data and data about us. But mostly this ship has sailed. Even if there was some reduction in tracking cookies and so on, the usefulness of widespread data collection (from traffic warnings to epidemiology) is enough for most of us to want those benefits in society
2. loss arising from others knowledge or use of data
To me this is the kicker. The use by others of our non-secret data-about-us should be at the level of medical data - held and used in the patients best interests.
We are entering a world of trolley problems - from how to code driverless cars reactions to what is an is not acceptable use of private data.
We need to recognise there is huge upside value in the tracking that happens now (and I hope we will see those benefits whatever) but there are pollution-like downsides and we can massively limit those.
The cost benefit analysis should make society judge the loss of a few million(#) in advertising revenue worth this
(#) I am dubious about the value assigned to privacy-breaching tracking to drive advertising versus say using the words people type in a search alone to give them a result.
Secrecy is where you prevent others from having knowledge of a piece of data, or explicitly share it with a limited set of others whom have the same ability to shield the knowledge.
This is not privacy obviously.
1. loss of control of knowledge. This is often the bit we worry about. We want to keep control over our data and data about us. But mostly this ship has sailed. Even if there was some reduction in tracking cookies and so on, the usefulness of widespread data collection (from traffic warnings to epidemiology) is enough for most of us to want those benefits in society
2. loss arising from others knowledge or use of data
To me this is the kicker. The use by others of our non-secret data-about-us should be at the level of medical data - held and used in the patients best interests.
We are entering a world of trolley problems - from how to code driverless cars reactions to what is an is not acceptable use of private data.
We need to recognise there is huge upside value in the tracking that happens now (and I hope we will see those benefits whatever) but there are pollution-like downsides and we can massively limit those.
The cost benefit analysis should make society judge the loss of a few million(#) in advertising revenue worth this
(#) I am dubious about the value assigned to privacy-breaching tracking to drive advertising versus say using the words people type in a search alone to give them a result.
I think the medical data example is interesting. Right now where I live medical records are kept in physical cardboard form only in the name of patient confidentiality. So in effect if you go to a new doctor, or get into the ER unconscious they'll have no on-hand data on who you are, what are your allergies or pre-existing conditions. They might actually accidentally kill you over privacy ideals.
Yes. But we lack two things to make that paper to digital move convincing
1. A clear unambiguous security framework (HSM, FIDO, on disk encryption, standard terminology for roles access etc) that is just as common as HTML. There are so many competing strategies here let alone implementations that we just really need one winner that everyone can just drop in to their industry CRM / HR app whatever
2. Legal framework around private data that has social benefits baked in, but limits the crappy side.
3. Stop thinking we can solve the rest of the worlds problems (with technology). There is a tendency for say crypto or tor to think it will create another Arab Spring and whole world will be free. A far far better bet is to build our democracies better, clean out our corruption and uneven playing fields, to make a free and fair society that is just so damn enviable, others have to follow.
Anyway enough of that.
1. A clear unambiguous security framework (HSM, FIDO, on disk encryption, standard terminology for roles access etc) that is just as common as HTML. There are so many competing strategies here let alone implementations that we just really need one winner that everyone can just drop in to their industry CRM / HR app whatever
2. Legal framework around private data that has social benefits baked in, but limits the crappy side.
3. Stop thinking we can solve the rest of the worlds problems (with technology). There is a tendency for say crypto or tor to think it will create another Arab Spring and whole world will be free. A far far better bet is to build our democracies better, clean out our corruption and uneven playing fields, to make a free and fair society that is just so damn enviable, others have to follow.
Anyway enough of that.
We should probably take worldwide action with regard to biometrics and tracking. Face recognition and tracking should be completely outlawed, just like biological weapons.
Meanwhile, at the intersection of crypto & biometrics: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'
https://decrypt.co/84277/snowden-slams-sam-altman-worldcoin-...
https://decrypt.co/84277/snowden-slams-sam-altman-worldcoin-...
Sam Altman is behind the eyeball crypto? I didn't know that...
That's like outlawing knifes instead of murder. We should outlaw what the tech is used for, not the tech itself. Doing the later will just mean companies switch to other equally effective technology.
"It's not face recognition, it's a gait and hair identification system! We're breaking no laws..."
Certain technologies are simply too abusable to be unrestricted. In fact, many technologies only exist to do things we consider wrong, so we outlaw them. Granted, many times these laws are not well enforced.
Why?
I think the better approach is to take steps to stop the centralisation of power. Breaking up the mass media corporations, regulating ownership of media, introducing proportional representation and more direct democracy, abolishing the domestic intelligence services, etc.
Trying to ban technology just because it _could_ be used for bad things seems as misguided as it is ineffective. The security agencies and authoritarian governments can just ignore those agreements anyway.
I think the better approach is to take steps to stop the centralisation of power. Breaking up the mass media corporations, regulating ownership of media, introducing proportional representation and more direct democracy, abolishing the domestic intelligence services, etc.
Trying to ban technology just because it _could_ be used for bad things seems as misguided as it is ineffective. The security agencies and authoritarian governments can just ignore those agreements anyway.
Capitalism, for lack of a better term, makes conglomerates and winners, in the sense of huge multinationals. Breaking a huge corporation up doesn't really solve anything. Where's Ma Bell?
- sent from my post-Bell breakup cellular connection but still totally Bell. (Southwestern... Some DNS responses still show SWBC!)
- sent from my post-Bell breakup cellular connection but still totally Bell. (Southwestern... Some DNS responses still show SWBC!)
I'd add autonomous weapons to that list. They all sound like absurd restrictions, then you imagine from the perspective of a different landscape where those were actually prevented. Then it starts to be unconscionable that the annual body-count from these technologies is accelerating.
I'm not sure the "Privacy is a human right" argument really holds water. Privacy is a good thing, and people should be able to control their data. But what the UDHR says about it is neither here nor there. It's non-binding and no government takes it entirely seriously. No corporations have ratified it, so it couldn't bind their behaviour anyway.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is somewhat binding, but the U.S. has so many reservations and opt-outs that it has little impact on domestic law.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is somewhat binding, but the U.S. has so many reservations and opt-outs that it has little impact on domestic law.
Saying something is a human right seems roughly equivalent to saying sentient beings should not abridge another sentient being's right to something, not that any particular corporation or government accepts or practices it.
Human slavery was once completely legal in the United States, and before the declaration of human rights existed, and we could still call that a human rights violation.
Human slavery was once completely legal in the United States, and before the declaration of human rights existed, and we could still call that a human rights violation.
It still is if you are a prisoner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_Stat...
And why does the US have one of the highest per capita incarceration rates on earth?
23¢ an hour, maybe?
23¢ an hour, maybe?
But now that everybody's information is on the market, privacy has computable cost, who will pay for your privacy?
In general, he advent of information age had turned explicit many formerly implicit costs. I think a similar argument may be made about freedom, it has a cost and somebody has to pay for it (this is my way to reason about the seeming rise of autocracy).
In general, he advent of information age had turned explicit many formerly implicit costs. I think a similar argument may be made about freedom, it has a cost and somebody has to pay for it (this is my way to reason about the seeming rise of autocracy).
Does anyone know why the tor browser doesn't let users change the guard/entry node and why the guard nodes are often located in the same country as the user? As a dictator who hates free speech and has full control over the tor guard nodes in my country, doesn't this make my job easier?
In my opinion it's the most important and the most neglected one. General population doesn't care because it doesn't understand how does the Internet and related technologies work and "has nothing to hide". So legislators don't care much either and violate it routinely.
The question about privacy is not about hiding, it is about sharing. It is not that I have nothing to hide, I just do not have anything I want to share, especially unknowingly.
Good point. But apparently most of the people don't care.
A recent study found that younger generations said that it was easier to leave their partner than to leave a company that did not respect their privacy [0]. It is easy to adopt the mindset of 'privacy nihilism'[1]: your data is out there and you cannot escape it. Yet that same aforementioned study also noted that 75% of Americans were concerned about online privacy.
And there are more reasons to believe that attitudes to privacy are changing for the better. Research by Demos found that half of young people in the UK said they were either extremely or very concerned by 'online privacy'.[2]
Arguably the biggest obstacle to privacy is the effort it requires. People perceive reclaiming privacy to be far harder than it actually is. But for most, privacy is achievable. As individuals, we have the ability to chose which services we use. You might just want to switch to a few more privacy respecting alternatives, using Startpage instead of Google, or ProtonMail instead of GMail. Sites such as Privacy Guides, of which I am a team member, showcase tools and knowledge to protect your privacy. It is surprising how few steps it can take to massively increase your privacy.
[0]https://www.securitymagazine.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F...
[1]https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/the-a...
[2]http://demos.co.uk/press-release/demos-young-voters-concerne...
And there are more reasons to believe that attitudes to privacy are changing for the better. Research by Demos found that half of young people in the UK said they were either extremely or very concerned by 'online privacy'.[2]
Arguably the biggest obstacle to privacy is the effort it requires. People perceive reclaiming privacy to be far harder than it actually is. But for most, privacy is achievable. As individuals, we have the ability to chose which services we use. You might just want to switch to a few more privacy respecting alternatives, using Startpage instead of Google, or ProtonMail instead of GMail. Sites such as Privacy Guides, of which I am a team member, showcase tools and knowledge to protect your privacy. It is surprising how few steps it can take to massively increase your privacy.
[0]https://www.securitymagazine.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F...
[1]https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/the-a...
[2]http://demos.co.uk/press-release/demos-young-voters-concerne...
Just saw this reddit post the other day:
https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/comments/qfk0zj/if_youre...
https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/comments/qfk0zj/if_youre...
What does that mean?
"The core principle of Tor, Onion routing, was developed in the mid-1990s by United States Naval Research Laboratory employees, mathematician Paul Syverson, and computer scientists Michael G. Reed and David Goldschlag, to protect U.S. intelligence communications online."
I believe individual privacy should have an inverse relationship to individual power. The more power an individual wields through wealth, and possibly fame/influence, the less expectation they should have of privacy.
According to one of my lawyer friends, there is a subtle difference between US law and EU law regarding privacy:
In the US, if you don't protect it and you lose it, it is your fault.
In the EU, No one can lawfully take it away from you.
In the US, if you don't protect it and you lose it, it is your fault.
In the EU, No one can lawfully take it away from you.
I find it kind of ironic that I'm getting an access denied when trying to view the blog post on my VPN (hosted by OVH) that I'm using specifically to protect my privacy (certificate pinning at work)
Payment options are only credit card and PayPal... Wtf? Lost my donation
They also allow cryptocurrencies. [0]
[0]: https://donate.torproject.org/cryptocurrency/
[0]: https://donate.torproject.org/cryptocurrency/
There do exist anonymous credit cards. They are oftentimes limited (e.g. max 150€ in Europe), but they are available.
This is a losing battle to be had individually. I don't have the time and energy to regain my privacy. Where do like-minded individuals gather to cooperate?
I agree that Tor should be modernized. This move will definitely encourage a lot of people to try Tor. After all, privacy is our human right.
I don't even think it needs to be modernized as it has become quite easy to use, even the standard configuration provides some protection*. It needs to be popularized. But for that you must offer a good explanation to common people why their data is worth so much in aggregation and that they might not want to share too much. Far more difficult problem than making it more accessible on the technical side.
* and some disadvantagse to privacy if the number of users is low.
* and some disadvantagse to privacy if the number of users is low.
> The United Nations codified that in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Article 12 states that, “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with their privacy” and that “everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
the united nations also promises the right to affordable housing... where's my fucking house Blackstone?
the united nations also promises the right to affordable housing... where's my fucking house Blackstone?
I just get a page that says I’m not authorized to access this page. Privacy to the max!
'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.'
Even just dignity implies privacy, and not being sold as cattle (selling the app with a userbase definitely qualifies).
Even just dignity implies privacy, and not being sold as cattle (selling the app with a userbase definitely qualifies).
I hope that more apps can embed tor in the future to hide client unique identifiers (primarily IP, which is city-level geolocation) from services.
Trusting Apple with your strongly-ID-linked payment cards for iCloud subscriptions to hide your IP from backend services is sort of a contradiction.
Trusting Apple with your strongly-ID-linked payment cards for iCloud subscriptions to hide your IP from backend services is sort of a contradiction.
I agree, even though my IP is part of a huge bank out of Dallas, and driving to the DC and back would take 16 hours.
But that's neither here nor there.
But that's neither here nor there.
CovidSafe begs to differ
medical privacy as well or..
"Human" being the keyword here. You're no longer considered "human" if you have gotten the vaccine, since what has been injected into you is patented. You are no longer considered a human, and you have given up your human rights. You are now, by definition, part of the Transhumanism global agenda.
[deleted]
As companies share more information with governments, they are able to learn more and more about their citizens. Take Facebook, a company that Laura Poitras described as 'a gift to intelligence agencies'[1]. Facebook allows governments to arrest people planning to participate in protests before they have even begun. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Our privacy is eroding. As a society, we are beginning to accept this lack of privacy as normal: and this is extremely dangerous. Privacy provides a place for us to be ourselves, to express ourselves in new ways without fear of being watched by preying eyes. If we lose privacy then we lose this ability to experiment, and, more importantly, we lose our power.
[0]https://aeon.co/essays/privacy-matters-because-it-empowers-u...
[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/23...