Tea's been brining it up all over the place, so rather than going off topic, here's a thread.
I tend to listen to tech pundits, so I've been hearing a lot about the NSA's civilian data collection program, how 'you are the product' on Facebook and Instagram, etc etc.
I think there's two kinds of privacy to consider: Privacy from individuals, and privacy from institutions, I think we can't separate the two, but we do have different expectations from the two. I don't care what the government knows an out me, but I do care what my parents know.
Yes and no. - After death, ... it all means practically nothing to you anyway. So there's sure to be some 'no' in there no matter what.
--
Also, I'm sure medical/health records could be a sensitive topic as well.
In part, I also think of having the right to privacy as a form of trust/respect.
Quote from: Thunder-squall on 15, January, 2014, 01:36:35 AM
I don't care what the government knows an out me, but I do care what my parents know.
So you would prefer to trust a lot of people you personally don't know instead of your own parents?
Quote from: Wolf on 15, January, 2014, 09:26:03 PM
Quote from: Thunder-squall on 15, January, 2014, 01:36:35 AM
I don't care what the government knows an out me, but I do care what my parents know.
So you would prefer to trust a lot of people you personally don't know instead of your own parents?
"trust" is an unrelated issue. What I'm talking about is judgment. I don't know the government, and the government doesn't know me. I expect a 'live and let live' principle to be in place.
Quote from: Thunder-squall on 16, January, 2014, 03:06:14 AM
Quote from: Wolf on 15, January, 2014, 09:26:03 PM
Quote from: Thunder-squall on 15, January, 2014, 01:36:35 AM
I don't care what the government knows an out me, but I do care what my parents know.
So you would prefer to trust a lot of people you personally don't know instead of your own parents?
"trust" is an unrelated issue. What I'm talking about is judgment. I don't know the government, and the government doesn't know me. I expect a 'live and let live' principle to be in place.
Hm... You can never be too sure if they'll look you up when you are Friends with a target. (My guess is computers pick out the important stuff automatically, probably with the help of keywords.... Think of Facebook as one huge encyclopedia like Wikipedia... Like Google, but with ability to access all private stuff.)
Have you ever heard of LOVEINT? That's a problem when someone you know actually works for the Government.
From what I can tell about Facebook, is that there seems to be some variables or something that calculates how many interactions you made with each individual (In addition to vice-versa), so I'm sure with that type of data, it could help find who your closes friends could be. Although, I think it may be used mostly to show you stories from people you interact with more often... and etc.
One of my basic concerns for the Government is a hunger for power... The "What are they going to do next?" comes to my mind. While what they do now could seem trivial to some, how do you know when they go over the line? Also, how many people do you think are spies in our Gov't? I know there's a lot of them. And I wonder if this number is growing.
As long as the privacy goes, it all depends on your judgement and trust. Which person needs to know what about you and that you fully trust that person.
Quote from: Parloo on 20, January, 2014, 03:35:12 AM
As long as the privacy goes, it all depends on your judgement and trust. Which person needs to know what about you and that you fully trust that person.
So that means you want privacy to be
your decision. I.e. you get to decide who knows what about you. But for that to happen, you need to own your own private data, but when you engage in "free" stuff (like facebook), then your information basically belongs to facebook.
... I got no point. I'm just adding words to the topic so there's something to respond to. Apologies. I'll be back later when I can devote some mental power here.
well that is what i meant but things necessarily cannot be the way we want it and no need for apologies this is a forum we are discussing sharing our views you said what you thought was right
Would you guys be willing to pay a subscription for email, Facebook, or Skype if it meant you would control your own data? How much would you be willing to pay?
I'm guessing $0? For one, how could you verify that it was still private, and that they aren't just trying to hoard money? They themselves could think their privacy functions work well, when the Gov't (or others) could be sneaking behind back-doors and stuff.
You could probably get the same promise with a free service. (Chances are, it might be in a country that isn't partnered with the U.S. due to most known invasions coming from the U.S., I believe, that also has a smaller member-base/not well known compared to top tech companies. ; Even then, it would be a risk you'd take, even for putting data on your computer, period... assuming you could be given malware.
For example, there was a piece of Russian malware known as Kaptoxa, that was used to steal identities from POS points in Target, and many other companies... it was designed well enough to hide from anti-viruses, I believe. I heard about this on the news a few times.
So you care about privacy, but think it's a fight not worth fighting, since there's little hope of winning?
While I can't prove that paying for a service will guarantee your privacy, it at least increases the probability of it. Why? Because now companies have more of a choice. They don't *have* to sell your information, since they have another source of revenue. And if their sales pitch is "we offer privacy," then they're incentivized by the market to deliver on that pitch.
As I stated in my first post in this topic: My answer for caring about privacy is yes and no. (It used to be more of a 'yes' at one point...if I remember correctly... but now, I just place it in a gray area. And even then, I still like hearing about Americans getting more privacy.) ; And yeah, my guess is that there would be little hope in winning.
Does this topic also expand off of the internet? (Privacy in your room or bathroom, for example.)
Yes and no.
Under what conditions do you say yes to?
Under what conditions do you say no to?
Or are you replying to room and bathroom respectively?
Quote from: Thunder-squall on 22, January, 2014, 02:03:12 AM
Would you guys be willing to pay a subscription for email, Facebook, or Skype if it meant you would control your own data? How much would you be willing to pay?
No; $0.00
Quote from: Thunder-squall on 06, February, 2014, 09:03:46 PM
So you care about privacy, but think it's a fight not worth fighting, since there's little hope of winning?
While I can't prove that paying for a service will guarantee your privacy, it at least increases the probability of it. Why? Because now companies have more of a choice. They don't *have* to sell your information, since they have another source of revenue. And if their sales pitch is "we offer privacy," then they're incentivized by the market to deliver on that pitch.
Online privacy is more of a guideline than an actual rule. Most websites providing this type of service will reveal information if a user is involved in illegal activities. Sure that's a good thing, but it also shows 100% privacy isn't available even with those services.
The only way to have 100% privacy is.... there is no way! Because God's watching!
The only way to know you have 100% privacy from people is to not speak your mind or act even when you are alone. Oh, but wait. How do you know if anyone developed technology to read minds? You just assume no one has because everyone needed information from sources like websites to figure out crimes, etc.
But why are we talking about 100% privacy?
Because this topic is about privacy, and it's not off-topic.
Ah. Wait. I know you don't really care about privacy... but... let's look at this from another perspective.
If you were the owner of a business, would you care for the privacy of your user-base? (That's where trust can come into play, and you could risk losing business.)
Also, I did once consider the possibilities of gov't agencies being hacked...
http://threatpost.com/government-agencies-failing-at-basic-security-hygiene/104077
I still think talking about 100% privacy is stupid. Being 100% private means never talking to anyone, ever. It means living in a bubble that no one else can see into. No one can know you exist. And if you say that you're not going to care about privacy since you can never have 100% privacy, then does that mean you're not going to take efforts to raise your privacy higher than 0%? Do you walk down the street naked? No? Of course not.
Talking about 100% privacy is stupid.
I think I had in mind of keeping certain information 100% private... (It's been a couple days, so I can't say for sure... but I don't trust myself to be extremely specific.) But yeah, other than that... I guess you are right.
Walking down the street naked is disrespectful... so even if there wasn't a privacy issue there, I don't think decent people with a heart would do that in front of people anyway... (That, and to obey the laws of indecent exposure.)
---
Why not have a discussion on why we should have privacy... There's not a whole lot of things I can think of that would require it besides where you are, and identity stuff... (Since keeping those things private can help keep you from getting murdered or robbed... at least to a small degree.)
In the past, people feared "the evil eye." Or was it "catching someone's eye?" I can't remember. But basically, being seen meant being a target. And so in order to be safe, the idea either wasn't to be seen (like camouflage), or to disappear into the crowd (like zebras).
In today's tech realm, people are advocating that we get privacy through obscurity -- creating so much "noise" data that no individual can be picked out from it. I think that's like the Zebra example. I think that's still controversial enough that it can spark a conversation.
Noise data... and obscurity...
That makes me think of steganography... it's much better than Encryption because no one even knows anything is hidden. (Think of hiding you information in an image's binary data....)
That's a cool thing to bring up. And it reminds of how young kids seek out secrecy (if not necessarily privacy) for their games and such. I think keeping things secret helps people feel like they have more agency, or control over their lives... It's interesting that you brought up God before. God is often invoked as a sort of judgement, in the same way that our society judges us. Having a part of our lives that are secret may give us respite from judgment, and I think sometimes people just need that. They need mercy, in the face of strict rules.
Okay... but there is a difference between people and God. In my opinion. God is 'perfect', people are not. I could point out John 3:16... and say that God is Love, and loves us more than anyone else does... and bad things happen because we have free will. ... It is in my general opinion that religion and politics are debatable and can lead to needless arguments, therefore, I probably won't take a lot of time to discuss them.
Meh. Here on earth, God's had to make concessions for "the hardness of people's hearts," showing that no matter how pure or perfect may be in his own realm, that does not yet translate here. Here, the best God can do is inspire an ideal that we can strive for. And that ideal comes in the form of judgement that we place upon one another.
Basically, same diff. I'm not sure what you're pointing out.
Edit: Basically, the only way most people are reminded that "God's watching" is when other people remind them, since God's not in the business of punishing folks while they're actually alive.
What I was pointing out: John 3:16 is about God sending his son to die on the cross to pay for our sins. People still have the choice to accept the gift, though. ; There's also some other verse about being saved not by good works...
I sometimes have this idea that everyone thinks of "God" differently... and I also think it's hard to know really who he is by your own judgement. So I guess we can just summarize by saying everything that has been good in your life comes from God... But yes, there is definitely still justice...
I'm also convinced to believe even angels have a choice between good and evil. At least at one point. Our choice is now, while on this earth, I believe. (What's Love without free will?)
QuoteEdit: Basically, the only way most people are reminded that "God's watching" is when other people remind them, since God's not in the business of punishing folks while they're actually alive.
I could say not 100% true, but... who am I to say? ... Think of Karma as an example, if you want... In my opinion, it's really the people punishing themselves. If you go and shoplift, you will eventually get caught... That's you putting yourself is prison, for example. (Because you should have known better.) ; But there are cases where people are falsely accused, so...
And, why in the world did I change the subject to religion? o.o But since we are talking about it, have you ever heard of Touched By An Angel?. (Most every episode is about Monica (an angel case worker) having a case where she has to tell someone God loves them. These people usually have problems of their own that Monica and other angels have to help solve. And if I recall correctly, the problems often relate to death.)
Since we're on the subject.
Quote from: Thunder-squall on 12, February, 2014, 12:32:45 AM
Edit: Basically, the only way most people are reminded that "God's watching" is when other people remind them, since God's not in the business of punishing folks while they're actually alive.
God can keep people on the right path in ways they would never expect.
Quote from: Teawater on 12, February, 2014, 12:58:53 AM
I'm also convinced to believe even angels have a choice between good and evil. At least at one point. Our choice is now, while on this earth, I believe. (What's Love without free will?)
The Devil was an angel who rebelled, so I think they do. There is more information about that in the Bible.
For all intents and purposes, I'm an atheist. My reading on god would be similar to The Creative Process in the Individual by T. Troward (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10361) (old Christian dude who died circa the 1920s, public domain now, free ebook), though on it's own that's not an explanation for my following views:
WHAT GOD IS.
God, if he exists, doesn't concern himself with the plight of individuals. I think this is evident from our real world today, and also from his behavior in the scriptures. If he is concerned with our world, the only thing evidence would support is that he's concerned with the larger system as is the means for creating his kingdom of heaven on earth. The reason I think he's concerned with the larger system is because that fits in line with him "working in mysterious ways." The technical things to look at would be emergent properties or phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence), in which order seems to emerge from the chaos.
Leaving the obvious example of evolution aside, I think the human results of this can begin to be seen in the recent book "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined" by Steven Pinker (though I've only heard it discussed, and haven't yet read my copy). Essentially, what's changing isn't the nature of man, but the complex system in which man exists. And I do believe the systems we live in are super important, as demonstrated by "A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier," a memoir written by Ishmael Beah and published in 2007 (this one I did read). It's got a semi happy ending, of course, since the author was alive and well as he went on his book tour, but in the book you basically see how the social structures that protected these kids broke away into chaos.
Essentially, when it comes to law, the highest law secular society accepts is something they call "natural law," and this isn't something you can write down anywhere. It's synonymous with what religious types would identify as god's law, of god's justice. That father who accepted back the prodigal son with open arms? The lesson of that story wasn't that we should put into law the provision that people who abandoned us be celebrated upon return, but that within the gut response of our hearts, there may be god's sense of justice. So does this mean that people should always trust their guts? If they are wise, and their hearts aren't poisoned, then sure. And I think the end goal is that we create a world where people can be wise, and that their hearts may not be poisoned.
So the closest thing we have to god is this phenomenon that the world's getting more complex and full of life (call it increased entropy if you want). However, there's little reason to believe that this phenomenon is caused by something that has the various features which different religious groups identify as god. In fact, many people who share this hope for a better world do *not* believe in a god (such as myself), and many people who claim to be god fearing do not seem to share this hope or ambition for a better world -- so while I do have faith in the direction of the universe and what not, I'm not sure if there's some magical old guy on a cloud, and if there is, whether or not he's a good guy or a bad guy.
HOW PEOPLE KNOW GOD
The same way we know all things. We project. We anthropomorphise. There is literally no other ways for our brains to interpret these things. And so we know this creative spirit via something like 'love,' and all these other human experiences. The innovation of the new testament was that god was communicated as a person, which was easier for people to understand. But the historical Jesus was clearly a different guy than the storybook character in the bible. And so was that burning bush.
There's psychological and neuroscience stuff that better explain the 'religious' experiences people have.
TL;DR: I'm not sure what's the use of continuing to talk about mythology as fact (i.e. angels, demons, etc). I think we can use modern philosophy, science, and history to further our understanding of "god's will," and at least in the United States, an insistence of sticking with mythology has led religious groups to fight against science education, or even social justice. I mean, what do you make of a world where, in order to further God's will, you have to supposedly walk away from God? It's just messed up, is all it is.
UH, BACK TO THE SUBJECT
I actually had a point I wanted to make, which was on "agents" vs. the "system." I.e. when dealing with the crimes of people, do you investigate the individuals who did the crimes, or the system that led individuals to do the crimes? Obviously there's a bit of both, and the debate is called "agent vs. system" (at least that's what I call it). Basically, privacy (also the idea of god, incidentally) impacts the balance of agents vs. systems in a variety of weird ways. We'll talk about it if you want to.
I think atheist is not believing in a God.
I think impartial is when you are undecided.
QuoteI'm not sure if there's some magical old guy on a cloud, and if there is, whether or not he's a good guy or a bad guy.
I don't look at it that way... I think of him being everywhere... (You cannot see him with your own human eyes.) But I have heard that people see a cloud, or something...? (Is that during meditation or something?) I forget the details, but if this is so, I think that's him representing himself as a way of connecting with us, but not sure. ; And I would think of him as being a good guy because he created all things. ;
I would normally think prophecy (Ex: prophets telling you what is to come that no one else could ever predict) could prove there is a God, but, you can take it as you want... (If you do manage to look into prophets... do note that there is such a thing as false prophets.)
I'm also guessing you don't believe in life after death. (Ever heard of stories where people are dead, and somehow, they come back to life to tell their experiences?)
I'm an atheist. I may be also be a poet, but I distinguish between the poetry that is real, and poetry that one must make real.
@ Depictions of god: Islam's got a pretty interesting view, in that they try not to depict god at all, because any depiction would be false. "My Name Is Red" by Orhan Pamuk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Red) is an interesting historical fiction that hits on this. It's a murder mystery, actually. Set among artists who work for the Sultan, and who must follow the philosophies of their time.
The prophet and cloud stuff you talked about has been studied by a whole host of researchers. You can find out more about if you want to, but I'm not going to push the issue since I know you depend on your beliefs. I will say that if you like mythology, anything related to Carl Jung is pretty cool.
I actually only believe in that of Christianity... and I don't care for the other mythologies...
Either way, how can one go not believing in at least one lie? I bet everyone does it without even knowing it. This'll have to be mine, if that's the case.
But then, how do we define life, anyway? Is believing in Science a lie itself? Or is it a mere illusion of what is truth?
And I guess that's all I have to say...
@ lies: BlindSight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight_(Watts_novel)) is a hardcore science fiction novel which asks interesting questions about what it means to be alive, and what is the true reality.
TL;DR: Everything's a lie.
Except, I still believe in the presence of truth. (Not saying it's anyone else's belief, though.)
I'm guessing context is an important factor in that...
What if believing everything's a lie happens to be a lie?
It is a lie. Because as you said, everything includes nothing, and if nothing is a lie, then everything must be true, but that means that nothing must also be true (because everything includes nothing), so...
Actually. It could be true. Or it could not be true. I'm leaning more towards one than the other.
Quote from: Teawater on 12, February, 2014, 05:18:49 PM
I actually only believe in that of Christianity... and I don't care for the other mythologies...
Why did you chose that one over the other ones?
If I said the obvious answer... it would be because that's the religion my family believes in.
QuoteActually. It could be true. Or it could not be true. I'm leaning more towards one than the other.
If you believed that everything is a lie, wouldn't it be true that you believe that? Or not?
I'm guessing you don't, because if you did believe your theory was true, you would contradict yourself. (Sort of.)
|| = This is infinity. Space can be divided for an eternity... Or... we could start from the right |, go anywhere you want. (Like around the world.), and end at the left |.
( truths / lies ) or (lies / truths) will give you what? Infinity?
none of that made any sense. But truth be told, I'm just playing with you. I'm not really interested in conversations where the best someone can contribute is "maybe it is, maybe it isn't." That's just lame, and maybe this thread gave you an idea of just how lame it is.
Quote from: Thunder-squall on 12, February, 2014, 07:12:12 PM
I'm not really interested in conversations where the best someone can contribute is "maybe it is, maybe it isn't."
But, but... isn't that the answer to everything!?
It's not about getting the answer, but enjoying the journey. Pulling the answer out at every step is like... premature ejaculation.
That's a pretty amazing definition. I never realized you had that view on these conversations...
please please don't take this seriously
conversations really get me excited.
being totally serious
Ah. thunder_squall just playing... I started to suspect that as well... I'm not sure if you noticed I was playing along too.. a little... but hey, it's conversation... better than nothing.
Awkward... Moving on:
Did you know that the erased data on your cell phone can be salvaged? Getting rid of your phone in person may be a better idea than turning it in for a discount on a new phone. I've heard that some companies sell the old phones.
How can it be salvaged?
When you delete something, is it like being left in ROM/RAM, and the reference pointer is simply removed? Could you max out the data with a bit of random files hoping to overwrite the garbage data?
Essentially, yes. The entry in the file list for the file is erased, but the data is still there. Even if you overwrite it, the physical medium still has some risidual charge left over that can be pieced back together with the right equipment. It takes several rewrites of that sector before the risidual charge becomes useless for advanced data recovery techniques.
Are there any free apps used for managing memory to help get rid of such data?
I don't know, they're often referred to as "file shredders" though. I would expect a good one to require root access so it can actually work with the storage space on the lowest level without being filtered through the operating system.
wait till we get time-travel. Then there'll be no privacy for anyone ever.
^ Wouldn't that only be if anyone knows where to find you and what to look for? Even so, with so much history available, I would think it'd take way too long to go over it all.
Privacy by obscurity...
In the future, we'll have search engines whose jobs it is to find out everything, ever, before or even regardless of whether anyone wants to know that information. I figure we'll have physical versions of our online web crawlers time traveling back through history to figure absolutely everything out.
I think it's less likely that UFOs are an alien race finding us, and more likely just us from the future sending us bots to gather information.
So we have no privacy, regardless of whether or not anyone cares.
But we actually do have privacy... Just not from those that have the ability to gather logs on the past.
If such technology was made, how come we don't know about it? Hmm? Surely people from the future would go to the past and hand this technology to us? Or maybe that'd create a TIME PARADOX....
I think the Street View maps on Google is enough for saying no one has privacy... You can view the front of everyone's house on there from back in 2012. Although, they do blur out sensitive stuff like license plates, people's faces(?), contents in trash, and what not...
Is it really useful to say "we have privacy from person A, but not from person B?" What difference does it make?
If you walk naked down the street, you don't say "hey, at least people on Mars don't know I'm naked, so at least I have *some* privacy"
That's technically true, but I think we're talking about privacy from *everybody,* in this case.
@1: A big difference? - Person A loves you, Person B is your best friend and knows you're cheating on Person A?
@2: But you might say to a friend: "My mother would be ashamed of me if she saw me at the strip club."
@3: I was replying at "So we have no privacy" when I said that, so I maybe I slipped? (Since there was no mention of an individual being labeled in that sentence.)
--> If you don't have privacy from Person A, and Person A is capable of telling Person B, then you don't have privacy from Person B as well. Follow that chain, and eventually you don't have privacy from anyone.
(Those above were versions of the same questions and the answer's no. When someone says "your mom would be ashamed if," the only way you have privacy is if you can prevent that someone from knowing as well. Otherwise he/she could just tell your mom, and you basically have no privacy form your mom)
Summary:
-Trust & Friendship
-Rumor? / Validate information from original source.
-Blackmail
-Two people sharing the same secret
-People who gossip don't deserve secrets.
-Science & Life, and how all things may naturally never go away concept idea.
-Most secrets are probably not that important, and most of them may not be important enough to keep hidden for secrecy?
Quotethe only way you have privacy is if you can prevent that someone from knowing as well
That would be the most logical approach... but to reword that a bit:
Quoteone way you have privacy is if you can prevent that someone from telling someone
That doesn't come without a risk, though... (It's not proven privacy, but trusted privacy.) It's usually best if they have something to lose if they gave away the secret...
In my first example, what are the chances Person B would tell Person A if Person B values trust and friendship with you?
There's also a chance that if they told, that message could come back to you one way or another. For one, Person B couldn't know who would come to you when they tell the secret. There's also a chance that what Person B says may be assumed as a rumor. (It's a different perspective when someone else tells the story.) In some circumstances, people may actually need to come to you in order to validate the rumor. Especially when your integrity may be viewed as being greater than your friend's.
There's also the effective blackmail if trust/friendship wasn't valuable. You tell my secret, I tell yours...
And how about things where two people are co-partners sharing a secret where both would be affected had the secret been exposed?
If your friend hasn't told you secrets other people have been keeping, there's a chance you can rely on that friend to at least a small degree.
Science/Life itself may already know everything...
Quote from: A post I made on another inactive forumScience & Life
By the way, I don't think Atheist is really Atheist if you look at Science itself as your God. (If that makes sense.) Although, that might be a bit different. (Science is not exactly a living being... Or is it? Since we happen to be alive ourselves.) Maybe it could be a different type of living? Similar to how Plants live differently than humans/animals? Or maybe it's both types...? Hm... I could assume that everything around you has life, but it may not be the type of life you might be thinking.... For example... bacteria... and how mold got on food... etc.
How would you know that Science knows all the things about you, etc? -- Perhaps it's the evidence left behind that are a reminder of history. (For example, we are always shedding hair/skin which is DNA.)
Does History Ever Truly Disappear?
Do you think it could be possible that every event in life is still stored somewhere even in the present? (At least somewhere... even if it is completely hidden away from humans.) For example, there are some tools that can assist humans in seeing what they normally couldn't. Heat detectors, x-rays, microscopes, night-vision goggles, sonar, changing sound frequencies, to name a few. And every thought that you might have may even be in your sub-concienceness. It'd be really interesting if humans could ever find a way to pick up on thoughts people may have had dozen of years ago. Although, quite difficult because the molecules might be broken up too much? ... We only ever have a limited amount of knowledge about Science, anyway. And it's not like one can decrypt/read DNA. (Aside from using them for matching identities and stuff...) That's just assuming that DNA is more than what you might think?
The future
Maybe it might seem bazaar to most, but I do wonder if future events could be stored in a similar encrypted fashion... (Especially if all things are pre-determined/Can only be lived once.) ...but they would be even harder to figure out. Think of it like loading a file to RAM, if you delete the file, only the reference pointer is removed, and the rest remains garbage data, etc. RAM would represent the past/present, while ROM would represent the future.
Why does Science even exist?
So if Science knew how to put you on the Earth, and had the ability to make you feel life, as well as giving you free-will, then what does Science want from you? Maybe one could say that Science is trying to find new ways to engage with itself.
I'm guessing that in the end, it's fair enough to say that even though people may value their privacy, it's not really as important as it may seem? Sometimes the truth is the best way to know if people still feel the same about you. Knowing how to keep from being "tortured" when you do tell the truth would be more important, in my opinion.
Is there even any real reason to keep a secret of anything an average citizen might have from anyone? If it is something negative, I think they have the potential to 'haunt' you. (Haunt=frequent)
Some ideas I had for reasons:
-Temporary time period to rethink.
-Trust, since it's someone else's secret.
-Respect, if it happens to be too terrible for some people to hear. (But still, examining your body can reveal many things like Cancers/etc. that you might not know about.)
-If it's something wide-spread and dangerous. (But still, if you think of things that could go wrong, maybe not. For example, a lab with chemicals... if the chemicals put you out, you have no partner to call 911. That means you'd die.)
-Your assets/wealth. (Which can include your personal information.) (Although, revealing this may make it easier to set up traps to catch more criminals in the act!)
Most of that doesn't hold up. If there's anything there you'd actually want me to spend time responding to, then highlight it. But I think you already know most of the answers to that stuff, and I kind of feel like I'm just going through the motions, rather than participating in any real conversation.
I sense I was starting to stray off this topic:
QuoteIs it really useful to say "we have privacy from person A, but not from person B?" What difference does it make?
The point I was trying to prove is that there is an indirect difference here.... Whatever your "doesn't hold up" means...
-If you've only told one person, and you find out they tell... you get the opportunity to take action.
-Some privacy may be automatic... A person might avoid uninteresting topics others might think of as spam, or it could be a "long story," and the person doesn't feel like talking about it.
I get the feeling this is one of them "Maybe it is, maybe it's not" type of topics... (When you no longer care who knows what, because life doesn't have a true value.)
And now, this topic is boring....
"Privacy is about keeping sensitive information out of the hands of everyone..."
I would say that privacy is about having control over your own personal information, and being able to decide who you give it to. You may choose to give your personal information to others — it's about choice and control, not necessarily all-encompassing confidentiality. This follows the principle of "informational self-determination."