pull down to refresh
50 sats \ 12 replies \ @elvismercury 5 Apr \ on: The Truth about Bank Privacy privacy
I wish there was a thing that did this but for all the key aspects of life -- e.g., your privacy from a telecom / ISP pov, from a corporate profile pov, etc. Put the pieces together.
There are still a lot of people who don't realize that privacy is pretty much an illusion (and who would be upset by that). The first step is admitting you have a problem, right?
reply
If you go to places like HackerNews, the "tech class" has now flipped. In 80s-90s the tech industry was dominated cypher-punk ethos....gpg....encryption...freedom, etc.
As younger workers came into those industries the attitudes have flipped 180. They now say "its no big deal" and even welcome the surveillance state.
4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Its hard to imagine a more blatant violation of the 4th amendment than the Banking Secrecy Act (and all that followed), however no one dares mention it.
reply
They now say "its no big deal" and even welcome the surveillance state.
I have a friend who's several years younger than me and he had an interesting perspective about lost privacy. His view was that privacy is an unnatural and possibly unhealthy human condition, that didn't exist in small tribes.
reply
10 years ago an acquaintance said the right to privacy violates the nonaggression principle.
Really ? Seriously?
I still don’t see it
reply
I could imagine an argument along the lines "If you put your information where I can see it, then I have no obligation not to look."
reply
But invasions of privacy are … invasive lol
reply
The point would be that you can't require other people to avoid seeing your information, because you don't own them or their eyeballs.
If you keep your information hidden on your property, then no one would have a right to violate your privacy.
It just seems like an example of "All rights are property rights."
reply
I should have been clearer.
I interpreted a right to privacy as what you describe in paragraph 2.
Of course I can’t control or require what people can’t see etc.
That seems like an extreme version of privacy rights.
My financial information is confidential except for the financial institutions that store my financial data.
Privilege with doctors and lawyers is not public information and I want to keep it that way
“All rights are property rights”
My initial thought is that does not sound so terrible
That's an interesting point. It's certainly true that the modern notion of privacy would have been nonsensical for most of human history, especially pre-agricultural history when humans evolved.
Not sure what to do with that knowledge, though.
reply
Yeah, me neither. It's not like there was some analogue of the modern panopticon back then, either.
reply
Crazy but logical
The keyword is tribe vs individual
I actually think it’s the opposite
What does your friend think of amendment 4?
reply
I imagine he's in favor, but it hasn't come up.
reply