121–130 of 226 posts
Not destroying our planet with GHG and rendering it inhospitable for millions of species, including humanity, is more important than a couple generations' data being spied on.
If you think privacy is the major concern of most people then no offence, but you've had a pretty privileged life. I doubt it's even the major concern of most people in Western countries due to unemployment, poverty, debt etc. let alone developing nations which have the real risk of actual famine and so on.
When those nations are solved from their immediate problems, they will also need to deal with privacy and these ethical questions. We just have a head start and we can already ask the the questions and find solutions for it.
If you think privacy is the major concern of most people then no offence, but you've had a pretty privileged life. I doubt it's even the major concern of most people in Western countries due to unemployment, poverty, debt etc. let alone developing nations which have the real risk of actual famine and so on.
If you think privacy is the major concern of most people then no offence, but you've had a pretty privileged life. I doubt it's even the major concern of most people in Western countries due to unemployment, poverty, debt etc. let alone developing nations which have the real risk of actual famine and so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The title uses the word "concept", you're replacing it with "concern" - the two words mean different things
Did you click on the article? Quoting from the top of the landing page, "It [privacy] concerns the very fabric of society." Writing about privacy as a concept isn't nearly the same thing as trying to draw legitimate concern to an important issue. An important issue, but inarguably neither the most pertinent concept or concern of our time - currently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same you can say about global warming. Is this immediate threat? This year? Next year? In 10 years? Violation of privacy might lead to the situation that someone will be unemployed forever because of something that he or she wrote 20 years ago on Facebook or employees managed to fetch data that a person was depressed, has many kids, etc. Massive abuse of privacy will lead sooner or later to some kind corporate versio…
It's not about immediacy of it, privacy will never be high priority to someone whose very day to day existence is uncertain and/or who already lives in a system with much worse human rights abuses, corruption and injustices (and that describes a big part of the developing world). Not saying that it's not the real threat, but it's the 1st world type of priority for many...
If you think privacy is the major concern of most people then no offence, but you've had a pretty privileged life. I doubt it's even the major concern of most people in Western countries due to unemployment, poverty, debt etc. let alone developing nations which have the real risk of actual famine and so on.
Health care -- it's too expensive
Wages -- Working a 40 and being able to make it in a reasonable, modest way.
Environment -- Things are changing rapidly, risk goes up, cost goes up
People are concerned about privacy, and it's important, but basic life is well above it on the radar.
Your comment seconded, the point being "most important" is very highly debatable, depending on what one may be experiencing.
And I would add, improvements on all those fronts would free people to get more involved, and that may well impact how well we can address privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always wondered how people who advocate for more open borders justify their position. Could you expand? Naively I would think regulating borders is an essential function in maintaining rule of law - undocumented workers are fodder for exploitation. But I'm honestly open to being wrong.
Of course you could always document them.
Now in terms of documenting people and this may be your original intent, to allowing them to work for a while, protecting somehow well, i think that there should be a good process for this. While i am in favor of giving good forms of asylum and aid, i am not convinced about any extreme like having totally open borders with immediate citizenship. This should be a process of at least 8 or more years i think. A process i see that would take into account a problem such as the following for world as it is:
I am concerned that if people entering into the country do so with the mindset of overturning their laws, to the disfavor of current citizens in it.
So on one hand those who open borders could desire to have a set of laws that are selfish towards their party (and no human party is totally unselfish), and gain votes by doing so in order to pass laws that may not benefit the current majority and perhaps even what is truly morally beneficial.
Further concerning, when we have a nation that has traditionally been both Democratic and Judeo-Christian, receiving and sponsoring an influx of we could say Muslim people who may express desire to gain a majority and could vote to impose thing like Sharia law.
From my impression the treatment and persecution seen in countries where there is a Muslim or most other majority towards Christians (or even their own people) is worse in forcing them to behave contrary to their principles than the Christian majority nations to Muslims.
God is good, sorry, i was just attempting to write a short reply about it being an interesting comment and then found these issues to wrestle with. Guidance un to Jesus Christ be to us all.
I wanted to like this essay, because I also worry about the loss of privacy today, but the goofy paragraph about borders turned me off. To believe that borders are conducive to peace sounds like a bad case of internet-brain.
I've always wondered how people who advocate for more open borders justify their position. Could you expand? Naively I would think regulating borders is an essential function in maintaining rule of law - undocumented workers are fodder for exploitation. But I'm honestly open to being wrong.
There are a number of good arguments for stopping undocumented workers but I don't think "keeping them from being exploited" is a very good one. Most undocumented workers in the US come from countries where their next best alternative is being exploited by cartels.
A much better solution is to overhaul our immigration system to make it effortless to get immigrants on the books and paying into our system while we deal with the much harder problem of finding them a forever home