Should people have a right to privacy?

[Pattern-chaser]

We can change our rules if we choose to, but I take your point.

[Pattern-chaser]

Sorry, I didn't realise we were about to flip to the next page.

That is, folks subjectively feel it should be a right (even though it isn't).

And yet, if those folks decided it will be a right, they could make it happen. These folks are human, and 'rights' are created, maintained and enforced by humans, so it is entirely possible. I wonder if it will happen?

Kind of difficult to get the toothpaste back in the tube...

We can change our rules if we choose to, but I take your point.

[Good_Egg]

And yet, if those folks decided it will be a right, they could make it happen. These folks are human, and 'rights' are created, maintained and enforced by humans, so it is entirely possible. I wonder if it will happen?

Legal rights of privacy are created by humans making laws about it. Practical rights of privacy are created by humans enforcing their ideas of privacy on each other (whether or not laws exist). Customary rights of privacy are created by humans building a culture in which privacy is valued.

But to say that any of these rights should exist is to say that the moral right does exist.

Because saying "should" in the unconditional sense (rather than the conditional sense of "if you want a particular sort of society you should do this to bring it about") means that people ought to have privacy, I.e. it is a moral right.

[Sy Borg]

The thread title asks "Should...". Which I read as a moral question.

Yes.

----

In terms of practicalities, Lucky, I like your toothpaste analogy.

Personally, I have no problem with the collection of browsing data for targetted ads. It does not impact on me. Ads are annoying enough, so I'd rather they at least be vaguely relevant. Untargetted spam can be pretty offensive. Further, the information collected will be useful in developing AI and for future historians.

The issue to me is with the release of private information that can cause harm, eg. outing gay people, revealing the address or contact details of a person who has offended some online communities. In some cultures and subcultures, privacy breaches might involve outing atheists or those not deemed loyal to a "Supreme Leader". Information is indeed power, and the ethics of its use seem likely to become ever more pertinent.

[LuckyR]

The thread title asks "Should...". Which I read as a moral question.

Yes.

----

In terms of practicalities, Lucky, I like your toothpaste analogy.

Personally, I have no problem with the collection of browsing data for targetted ads. It does not impact on me. Ads are annoying enough, so I'd rather they at least be vaguely relevant. Untargetted spam can be pretty offensive. Further, the information collected will be useful in developing AI and for future historians.

The issue to me is with the release of private information that can cause harm, eg. outing gay people, revealing the address or contact details of a person who has offended some online communities. In some cultures and subcultures, privacy breaches might involve outing atheists or those not deemed loyal to a "Supreme Leader". Information is indeed power, and the ethics of its use seem likely to become ever more pertinent.

I agree with your analysis of what does and does not contribute to harm. But let's dig a little deeper. Where does the information about the gay person's sexualité reside (to be leaked from)? There is no governmental list of sexual preferences. It could be a frenemy who acts maliciously. That has very little to do with electronic information age tech. It could be the closeted gay person participated in the online gay community "anonymously" only to be unmasked. That has everything to do with electronic information age tech. First of all, the myth of anonymity in an extremely trackable and traceable medium. Never say or write anything online that you wouldn't say in public... because you ARE in public! These are not private conversations, neither are they anonymous.

[Sy Borg]

The thread title asks "Should...". Which I read as a moral question.

Yes.

----

In terms of practicalities, Lucky, I like your toothpaste analogy.

Personally, I have no problem with the collection of browsing data for targetted ads. It does not impact on me. Ads are annoying enough, so I'd rather they at least be vaguely relevant. Untargetted spam can be pretty offensive. Further, the information collected will be useful in developing AI and for future historians.

The issue to me is with the release of private information that can cause harm, eg. outing gay people, revealing the address or contact details of a person who has offended some online communities. In some cultures and subcultures, privacy breaches might involve outing atheists or those not deemed loyal to a "Supreme Leader". Information is indeed power, and the ethics of its use seem likely to become ever more pertinent.

I agree with your analysis of what does and does not contribute to harm. But let's dig a little deeper. Where does the information about the gay person's sexualité reside (to be leaked from)? There is no governmental list of sexual preferences. It could be a frenemy who acts maliciously. That has very little to do with electronic information age tech. It could be the closeted gay person participated in the online gay community "anonymously" only to be unmasked. That has everything to do with electronic information age tech. First of all, the myth of anonymity in an extremely trackable and traceable medium. Never say or write anything online that you wouldn't say in public... because you ARE in public! These are not private conversations, neither are they anonymous.

Yes, it's largely about rules of engagement at the personal level.

[LuckyR]

The thread title asks "Should...". Which I read as a moral question.

Yes.

----

In terms of practicalities, Lucky, I like your toothpaste analogy.

Personally, I have no problem with the collection of browsing data for targetted ads. It does not impact on me. Ads are annoying enough, so I'd rather they at least be vaguely relevant. Untargetted spam can be pretty offensive. Further, the information collected will be useful in developing AI and for future historians.

The issue to me is with the release of private information that can cause harm, eg. outing gay people, revealing the address or contact details of a person who has offended some online communities. In some cultures and subcultures, privacy breaches might involve outing atheists or those not deemed loyal to a "Supreme Leader". Information is indeed power, and the ethics of its use seem likely to become ever more pertinent.

I agree with your analysis of what does and does not contribute to harm. But let's dig a little deeper. Where does the information about the gay person's sexualité reside (to be leaked from)? There is no governmental list of sexual preferences. It could be a frenemy who acts maliciously. That has very little to do with electronic information age tech. It could be the closeted gay person participated in the online gay community "anonymously" only to be unmasked. That has everything to do with electronic information age tech. First of all, the myth of anonymity in an extremely trackable and traceable medium. Never say or write anything online that you wouldn't say in public... because you ARE in public! These are not private conversations, neither are they anonymous.

Yes, it's largely about rules of engagement at the personal level.

So separate from electronic communications, friends betraying one another's trust to keep secrets. Very important, but nothing new.

[Sy Borg]

Yes.

----

In terms of practicalities, Lucky, I like your toothpaste analogy.

Personally, I have no problem with the collection of browsing data for targetted ads. It does not impact on me. Ads are annoying enough, so I'd rather they at least be vaguely relevant. Untargetted spam can be pretty offensive. Further, the information collected will be useful in developing AI and for future historians.

The issue to me is with the release of private information that can cause harm, eg. outing gay people, revealing the address or contact details of a person who has offended some online communities. In some cultures and subcultures, privacy breaches might involve outing atheists or those not deemed loyal to a "Supreme Leader". Information is indeed power, and the ethics of its use seem likely to become ever more pertinent.

I agree with your analysis of what does and does not contribute to harm. But let's dig a little deeper. Where does the information about the gay person's sexualité reside (to be leaked from)? There is no governmental list of sexual preferences. It could be a frenemy who acts maliciously. That has very little to do with electronic information age tech. It could be the closeted gay person participated in the online gay community "anonymously" only to be unmasked. That has everything to do with electronic information age tech. First of all, the myth of anonymity in an extremely trackable and traceable medium. Never say or write anything online that you wouldn't say in public... because you ARE in public! These are not private conversations, neither are they anonymous.

Yes, it's largely about rules of engagement at the personal level.

So separate from electronic communications, friends betraying one another's trust to keep secrets. Very important, but nothing new.

It gets more serious when it's workmates or competing small businesses.

[LuckyR]

I agree with your analysis of what does and does not contribute to harm. But let's dig a little deeper. Where does the information about the gay person's sexualité reside (to be leaked from)? There is no governmental list of sexual preferences. It could be a frenemy who acts maliciously. That has very little to do with electronic information age tech. It could be the closeted gay person participated in the online gay community "anonymously" only to be unmasked. That has everything to do with electronic information age tech. First of all, the myth of anonymity in an extremely trackable and traceable medium. Never say or write anything online that you wouldn't say in public... because you ARE in public! These are not private conversations, neither are they anonymous.

Yes, it's largely about rules of engagement at the personal level.

So separate from electronic communications, friends betraying one another's trust to keep secrets. Very important, but nothing new.

It gets more serious when it's workmates or competing small businesses.

Can be. But if you had to pick a time to get outed, then you would pick now.

[Good_Egg]

But if you had to pick a time to get outed, then you would pick now.

One or two particular types of secret are less damaging if made public now, yes.

But on the other hand , the ability to retrieve other people's past indiscretions is greater now than in previous times. Potential employers can access your past conversations and youthful opinions because they were expressed online. And have a greater incentive to do so because of the possibility that they will "go viral" in future.

That seems to me an issue that potentially affects everyone.

[Pattern-chaser]

But on the other hand , the ability to retrieve other people's past indiscretions is greater now than in previous times. Potential employers can access your past conversations and youthful opinions because they were expressed online. And have a greater incentive to do so because of the possibility that they will "go viral" in future.

That seems to me an issue that potentially affects everyone.

Yes, our present situation puts a new complexion onto an older problem. Indiscretions can spread, sometimes virally, and they can't be got rid of. And so the 'right' to privacy, if there is one, takes on much greater import.

[LuckyR]

But on the other hand , the ability to retrieve other people's past indiscretions is greater now than in previous times. Potential employers can access your past conversations and youthful opinions because they were expressed online. And have a greater incentive to do so because of the possibility that they will "go viral" in future.

That seems to me an issue that potentially affects everyone.

Yes, our present situation puts a new complexion onto an older problem. Indiscretions can spread, sometimes virally, and they can't be got rid of. And so the 'right' to privacy, if there is one, takes on much greater import.

Well it is a perfect storm: no legal right to privacy, easier access to information and greater ability to spread this information, plus folks thinking they're anonymous when they say stuff, yet they're generally very traceable.

[Sy Borg]

But on the other hand , the ability to retrieve other people's past indiscretions is greater now than in previous times. Potential employers can access your past conversations and youthful opinions because they were expressed online. And have a greater incentive to do so because of the possibility that they will "go viral" in future.

That seems to me an issue that potentially affects everyone.

Yes, our present situation puts a new complexion onto an older problem. Indiscretions can spread, sometimes virally, and they can't be got rid of. And so the 'right' to privacy, if there is one, takes on much greater import.

Well it is a perfect storm: no legal right to privacy, easier access to information and greater ability to spread this information, plus folks thinking they're anonymous when they say stuff, yet they're generally very traceable.

And add to that a sense of entitlement by those eager to expose others. How about the Rebel Wilson situation with the Sydney Morning Herald journalist complaining that Rebel had gazumped him on the story by outing herself before he planned to do so.