Sure, but what exactly is "privacy" ? That's the debate.
No sane person believes that there aren't really nasty, organized criminals in the world, and no sane person believes that said criminals have a right to absolute privacy, including e.g. (the moral equivalent of) search warrants.
I grew up in a time/place where organized crime was rampant, and if you looked at the wrong person you could be killed. It was time of racism-by-default, thievery-by-default, a lack of investment in R&D, science or infrastructure, and the opposite of a meritocracy. It was an "invasion" of their privacy that ended that era, and now we can comfortably watch Scorcese movies about it over an internet those people would never have invented or invested in.
> No sane person believes that there aren't really nasty, organized criminals in the world, and no sane person believes that said criminals have a right to absolute privacy, including e.g. (the moral equivalent of) search warrants.
That's just a strawman.
Plenty of sane people believe that the threat of criminals doesn't outweigh the threat to individual liberty posed by the state. Additionally, plenty of sane people wouldn't support a ban on locks and safes because it makes it harder to search criminals.
I'm pretty sure I have my sanity in check, and I don't think there's any reason for the government to require private enterprise to break encryption to ease prosecution. It should be hard or impossible for governments to spy on their citizens.
Not only is privacy a fundamental right within a society but it is fundamentally necessary to the advancement, and thus long term survival, of any society.
Wrong. Society is just a social construct, but your right to independent thought and agency, which is powered by privacy, are fundamental to the human experience.
There are no rights in the first place without a society. The entire concept of "a right" is meaningless if it isn’t in the context of a social contract.
asah|2 years ago
No sane person believes that there aren't really nasty, organized criminals in the world, and no sane person believes that said criminals have a right to absolute privacy, including e.g. (the moral equivalent of) search warrants.
I grew up in a time/place where organized crime was rampant, and if you looked at the wrong person you could be killed. It was time of racism-by-default, thievery-by-default, a lack of investment in R&D, science or infrastructure, and the opposite of a meritocracy. It was an "invasion" of their privacy that ended that era, and now we can comfortably watch Scorcese movies about it over an internet those people would never have invented or invested in.
duped|2 years ago
That's just a strawman.
Plenty of sane people believe that the threat of criminals doesn't outweigh the threat to individual liberty posed by the state. Additionally, plenty of sane people wouldn't support a ban on locks and safes because it makes it harder to search criminals.
I'm pretty sure I have my sanity in check, and I don't think there's any reason for the government to require private enterprise to break encryption to ease prosecution. It should be hard or impossible for governments to spy on their citizens.
neop1x|2 years ago
f6v|2 years ago
barnabee|2 years ago
blitz_skull|2 years ago
Sharlin|2 years ago
mihaaly|2 years ago
The only place where privacy has meaning is in the company of other people. Including society as a kind of group of people.
Aachen|2 years ago
(Russia was finally kicked out after continuing what they started in 2014, but their pledge was a joke anyway, or wishful thinking at best).
jdthedisciple|2 years ago
Care to elaborate on your thinking? Genuinely interested.
deadletters|2 years ago
SpaghettiCthulu|2 years ago