- #31
Phrak
- 4,266
- 7
DanP said:
Wonderful dichotomy. Can you give me two counter examples: one of non-disclosure vs the other of hiding?
Why are we so obsessed with privacy?
- Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
- Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on society's growing obsession with privacy, contrasting it with historical norms where privacy was minimal. Participants note that modern communication and living arrangements have transformed neighbors and colleagues into virtual strangers, increasing the desire for personal boundaries. Concerns about online privacy are heightened by risks such as identity theft and the potential impact of social media on employment opportunities. While some individuals freely share personal information, others emphasize the importance of discretion and the need for privacy settings. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the tension between the benefits of online connectivity and the risks associated with oversharing in a digital age.
Wonderful dichotomy. Can you give me two counter examples: one of non-disclosure vs the other of hiding?
- #32
DanP
- 114
- 1
Phrak said:
Teenage brains are still very plastic, especially in the areas dealing with impulse control, social control and so on. It represents the very physiological basis and arguments for a "maturity gradient" as you call it.
Look into the research carried on by Dr. Jay Giedd.
- #33
DanP
- 114
- 1
Phrak said:
Can you clarify this question a bit ?
- #34
DaveC426913
Gold Member
- 23,998
- 8,145
Phrak said:
Sounds like the diff between passive and active.
Not telling the truth is different from telling a lie. Not volunteering that your used car has a cracked block is different from lying about it when asked directly.
- #35
Borg
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 2,293
- 5,008
DaveC426913 said:
And when you answer a different question, it's called politics.
- #36
Proton Soup
- 223
- 1
perhaps we found that privacy is preferable? privacy protects us from people that would harass, punish, or take advantage of us. some of our least private years are those we spend in high school, and also the years we suffer the most harassment. people that think others shouldn't expect privacy tend to either be bullies, the most popular, or more probably both. privacy is freedom as far as i am concerned.
- #37
joema
- 106
- 3
A teenage farm boy in the 1800s could meet his girlfriend behind the haystack and nobody would ever know unless they were physically seen. A factory worker required physical oversight. In general a telephone call or first class letter in 1900 was assumed to be private.Greg Bernhardt said:
Today, that teenager's real-time GPS location can be tracked by "parental monitoring" software on his cell phone. It can eavesdrop on his face-to-face conversations even if his cell phone is not in use. Under remote control, the mic can listen to sounds, the camera take pictures, and the audio of any incoming/outgoing call can be monitored in real time, without the cell phone owner knowing it. The software for this is widely available, and obviously can be used for non-parental situations: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/cell-phone-spying-software-leads-cyberstalking-nightmare/story?id=10020677
Today every keystroke of workers can be monitored and compared to a database of work output and efficiency. Their phone calls, emails and text messages are monitored and analyzed.
As email replaces paper letters, privacy is potentially lost. Either a family member or a government agency can intercept the email via various methods.
The physical location of anybody with a cell phone can be monitored by law enforcement, without a warrant, and regardless of whether the phone has GPS: http://www.newsweek.com/id/233916
Supposedly every cell phone call and email made by anyone on Earth can be intercepted by NSA satellites and the content evaluated by the Echelon computer network. No wiretap warrant is required for this since computers are doing the work, not people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence )
Increasingly sophisticated facial recognition software, coupled with ubiquitous public CCTV cameras allow tracking your movement.
Recent technological developments have made possible monitoring that George Orwell could not dream of when he wrote 1984.
It's misleading to think privacy in earlier eras was minimal, and people today are over-reacting. A farmer from 1800 would likely be horrified at the intrusive, invasive oversight possible today.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #38
brainstorm
- 568
- 0
Proton Soup said:
I recall a time before the patriot act when there was much ado about wiretapping and listening to phone calls. Wasn't Nixon's impeachment even about the hotel being "bugged?" The funny thing, imo, was that prior to the patriot act, the public discourse regarding privacy rights actually seemed to instill fear of one's right to privacy being violated. Once the government revoked the right, it was like "ok, I guess we don't have anything to worry about or protect anymore because big brother is here and now."
While it is true that privacy can protect against harassment and bullying, it may be less obvious that talk about privacy rights being potentially violated can also be a form of harassment or bullying. As an analogy, think about the psychological effect of having heavily armed police with dogs patrolling an area. It gives the sense that crime is rampant, which can have a chilling effect.
I think the internet has had a positive effect on people as far as fear of public visibility goes. If you would have told me ten or twenty years ago that I could post something on the "world wide web" that could be read by anyone anywhere, it probably would have given me stage-fright. I guess I would still be uncomfortable with being on youtube, but it's somewhat comforting knowing that so many people have their say online.
Still, I do avoid posting with my legal name to avoid the possibility that some crazy person decides to stalk me. Now where would I get the idea that anyone would ever do such a thing? Media perhaps?
- #39
turbo
Gold Member
- 3,157
- 57
Not at all true, sorry. Until 1970 in my home town, we had magneto-driven crank telephones and the operators in the next town ran the switchboard. They would neglect to jack out after connecting people with the party they called, and listen in on the conversations. One operator in particular seemed quite fascinated with conversations between my girlfriend and me, and when she was on-shift, she always tried to eavesdrop. She was very adept at jacking out and jacking back in really fast so that it sounded like one click instead of two if you weren't paying close attention. When she did that, my girlfriend and I started talking about her by name, using VERY insulting language. Then, we'd hear a single "click".joema said:
- #40
Max Faust
- 78
- 0
I think our more or less accentuated desire for "privacy" has very deep roots.
Essentially, I believe that it is an elaboration of a root instinct which follows from the human being's propensity for being a predator ape - and all predators seek towards stealth in a variety of ways, including that of wanting to hide your excrements. In other words: Feeling iffy about being "watched" is a matter of natural predator instincts.
Essentially, I believe that it is an elaboration of a root instinct which follows from the human being's propensity for being a predator ape - and all predators seek towards stealth in a variety of ways, including that of wanting to hide your excrements. In other words: Feeling iffy about being "watched" is a matter of natural predator instincts.
- #41
brainstorm
- 568
- 0
Max Faust said:
Maybe, but at some point humans develop power and desire to be able to traverse and act freely in public without spies hiding in the shadows around every corner. Hence laws and rights were conceived and institutionalized like public trials with explicit charges and due process, right to free public speech, right to be free of persecution, right not to be enslaved, etc. etc.
Enforcement of these rights require intolerance for their being disregarded in private. This is actually part of what led to the US civil war. Slavery became a private right of individual states on the basis of popular sovereignty (Kansas-Nebraska act) and Lincoln and other republicans decided not to tolerate privatizing states' rights to expand the practice of slavery.
I think freedom from persecution and harassment is more important than privacy. Privacy only protects people to the extent that they keep things secret. Without any checks and balances on how people can treat each other in public, privacy becomes little more than a consolation prize for public oppression.
- #42
Count Iblis
- 1,858
- 8
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7915369.stm" 
Last edited by a moderator:
- #43
joema
- 106
- 3
It's true casual eavesdropping on phone calls was common. I myself have lived in a house with a party line (most younger people don't know what that is). The practice was even depicted on various popular magazine covers: http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2009/08/15/art-literature/artists-illustrators/listentothis.htmlturbo-1 said:
However your *relative* privacy was still ensured by the volume of calls, coupled with the purely manual means of eavesdropping. Even if nosey, a single operator could only eavesdrop on a small fraction of the calls.
By contrast today's communications are subject to massive, indiscriminate interception. Some observers believe every word of every phone, fax and email message is intercepted and analyzed for content, regardless of whether the origin address is on a watch list: http://mediafilter.org/caq/echelon/
In addition to government monitoring, today a parent or suspicious spouse can surreptitiously bug a cellphone using monitoring software. Even if the target phone isn't activated, every sound in the vicinity is relayed to the person monitoring, along with real-time location. There's a good argument we have less privacy today than people in earlier eras.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #44
Proton Soup
- 223
- 1
Max Faust said:
that's an interesting thought. so people who place less value on privacy might be expected to be less like predators and more like prey. perhaps the privacy averse would be more likely to exhibit prey traits like herding, and make lots of noise and commotion when they sense a predator in the vicinity, so as to warn the others.
- #45
Max Faust
- 78
- 0
Proton Soup said:
I believe so, yes.
Herd behaviour would include such things as an instinctual drive towards "the middle ground", i.e. safety in numbers by virtue of *averaging* your position within a moving mass, so as to not position yourself with vulnerability, and also making lots of commotion and displaying "upset" behaviour (like monkeys in a treetop) when you spot a perceived danger (such as a leopard underneath). But these are of course only metaphors.
Oswald Spengler waxed a bit on this in his "Untergang des Abendlandes" - and it's hard to not say he's right when you consider humanity's consistent denial of the consequences of the exponential function; applied to population growth, pollution, etc. - but anyway, the point in this context is how predatorial animals feel uncomfortable when being "watched" (because it constitutes a threat that they know very well, since the act of fixating a prey animal with your eyes is what predators do).
- #46
Proton Soup
- 223
- 1
i like metaphors. they're like little privacy fences obscuring my thoughts.
- #47
DaveC426913
Gold Member
- 23,998
- 8,145
No, they are little fences obscuring your thoughts. If they were like little fences obscuring your thoughts, they'd be similes.Proton Soup said:
- #48
brainstorm
- 568
- 0
Excellent summation of reactionary behavior among humans. I don't think it's a metaphor because, after all, humans ARE animals - primates specifically. These behaviors are described in sufficiently general terms to apply to both humans and other animals. Top-quality social science, imo!Max Faust said:
- #49
Max Faust
- 78
- 0
brainstorm said:
What worries me isn't as much our status as stupid animals - which is obvious - but our propensity for confusing our *image* of reality with reality itself. This may very well be an evolutionary shortcoming of the whole "brain" experiment.
- #50
DanP
- 114
- 1
Max Faust said:
Well, if you feel like one, you are one.
- #51
brainstorm
- 568
- 0
Max Faust said:
It is true that without consciousness and imagination there would be no "image" of reality to distinguish from reality itself. Likewise there would be no philosophy of realism, which creates an impediment to critical recognition of disparities between reality imagery and reality effects or alternative (unrealistic) ideas. It's funny to me that every innovation in knowledge or practice is always construed as "unrealistic" prior to its inception. Realists have trouble grasping that there is a necessary gap and lag between reality and its imagery and philosophy.
Actually, though, it's not really a shortcoming that humans confuse reality imagery from reality effects because no animal actually has the capability of perceiving reality directly. Studying animal behavior closely reveals that animals are synthesizing sensory data with expectations as well, in the cautious way they respond to stimuli and approach problem-solving.
I would say it is actually an astounding level of intelligence that allows for the possibility of distinguishing between reality imagery and reality effects. When I say "reality effects," do you realize I mean non-representational experiences, i.e. sensory perceptions and experience prior to cognition? If you were to try to deal directly with reality without generating and negotiating imagery to assist you, I think you would be in pretty sad shape.
On the other hand, when first becoming aware of the radical distinction between reality imagery or realism ideology and reality itself, it is easy to fall into a sort of paralysis. If you doubt all your cognitive imagery and ideas because they are not direct reality, you would either have to reset yourself to go back to regarding your imagery as reality or you have to develop the ability to act on tentative and conflicting information, which requires somewhat more of a balancing act.
Anyway, this is one of those topics that should probably be restarted as a new thread. Why isn't there a button to automatically start a new thread and link it from a current post. That would make it much easier to avoid hijacking threads, I think.