This isn’t meant to start a war in the comments.

I have been thinking… Platforms that advertise encryption and unmatched privacy have almost always been used by bad actors that ruin it for everyone else. This leads to some sort of middle ground being set up that ends up being further from privacy than we’d like it to be.

I see the benefits of both situations, and am left wondering if we can even survive as a society if we were to have absolute privacy.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Edit:

I’m asking how we can navigate this conundrum in order to reach a common ground where we do NOT have to give up our precious privacy in exchange for security.

Nothing else. I’m sorry if my post didn’t reflect that.

  • Call me Lenny/Leni
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t believe in excessive monitoring, but I also think it’s weird we think of the lack of observation as a fundamental right. Too much privacy, I think universally, is any time we go out of our way to guarantee/fight for it.

    • AdminWorker@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The lack of observation has a clear effect on thoughts and behavior. There is even an English saying “when the cat is away, the mice will play”. I think that there is no such thing as " freedom of speech" or “freedom of assembly”, if a malicious actor is silent notes taking at all times.

      And because harvested data goes to the rich, or the cops who care about convictions more than the truth it is a reasonable assumption in my threat model that data observation is malicious observation.

      Also from a citizen development perspecrive, if your citizens are always watched, then they never develop the " moral muscle" and the only morality remains in the hands of those with the power to observe and enforce their will.