/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>4851

Listen, man, you can't fix stupid with reason. Most people WANT everyone on facebook to know what they're doing and what is happening to them because it's big news or something. They don't care that facebook or the government has their whole life on file because they don't think about how much is known about them by people who, for the most part, will never affect them.

Remember that the NSA was set up as a shadow organization in the first place, it was never meant to be publicly known and was never made under any idea of legality. If it was made illegal, it would still be around regardless. The only things which can counter this mass spying is people taking personal measures to block the spying. Most people just don't give a fuck, and that's life.

>>4852

Wait, let me put this out there: I actually don't have "concrete" reasoning for why the government should stop spying on people lives.

I do know about NSA employees spying on private people lifes and shit, and I know this is a natural outcome, but I wanted a rebuttal like "Privacy makes people less virtuous" or "Privacy makes people stop saying what they like to say". One of the big complaints is that some of our arguments aren't actually logical, like "Saying you don't need privacy is like saying you don't need free speech"(quote form Snowden right there, it fails logical examination due to not upholding the relation between one thing and another). I need an argument as to why privacy is important as free speech. And I need it before 2018 year which is both a long and a short time table.

>you can't fix stupid with reason

Yeah but as I noted in the OP, I want a argument for SMART people. Like a good goddamn one that proves that privacy is affecting their lifes right now.

If there isn't such blockbuster then I'm actually fucked with the masses AND smart people.

>>4853

My uncle is one of those people who says, "I would rather have the government spy on everything I do, and know my medical history, than to have another German plane crash suicide," and he is a manager with normalfag hobbies and interests. It's the pedophiles, the gays, the deviants, the atheists, and the adulterers who oppose the creep of big brother without requiring principles. So the key to reform is to appoint scumbags as our leaders and managers, so they can get caught up in scandals and realize they need to make it so they can hide from the masses.

Tl;dr: just use tails and watch the world burn

>>4855

>the atheists,

Havin a giggle.

Anyways your argument that only degenerates would want less surveillance needs a citation. I mean yeah, in a way they want less surveillance to protect themselves, but smart people can pull it off too.

I am growing a bit disenfranchised with I have found, which amounts to this: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3111&context=lcp

A paper about how privacy has been ignored by philosophers.

I don't mean to say that we might have a problem but we might have a problem.

>>4851

read cryptoanarchists

I dunno what's most emotionally resonant, so let's play a few tunes and see which one works.

1.

Legally, you do have something to hide. Estimates are 3-7 felonies a day, due to a bloated law code. In most cases they're not enforced, but if the government suddenly decides it doesn't like you, there's barrels of rope to hang you with.

2.

Bunch of rioters saying it's okay to punch nazis. Only, they get to decide who is a nazi or not.

How this plays out practically is, if they have your life on file, they find something to demonize that grabs you and not them, demonize it, and now you're a nazi.

3.

You do have something to hide. Nobody is perfect, but humans are such that we all have to pretend. If the government decides it doesn't like you, it drags your dirt into the light, but not their own, making it seem like you're particularly dirty.

4.

So look, basically with sufficiently low privacy, the government can just nail anyone it feels like nailing. Zero privacy is equivalent to jailing political prisoners and letting the king have the power of life and death. Historically, governments uniformly abuse their power.

No privacy takes away the fun games of min/maxing which requires the keeping of secrets.

You should read Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault. In it, he describes the Panopticon, a kind of prison built upon the principle of permanent surveillance of the prisoners, and the effects it has on the psychology of the inmates. It should be a good starting point for what you are looking for.

Has everyone gone mad?

This is such a simple thing. If the government becomes an enemy of the people, it's only through their abuse of privacy that they are able to censor, inhibit or suppress dissent.

Has no one read 1984? Or ever heard of civil disobedience?

>>5155

>Has everyone gone mad?

No, just Slothful.