Privacy

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Those of you who know me know that I am a big proponent of a verry efficient policing of our society. So much so, that I think it would be a good idea to install cameras pretty much everywhere… Including private homes. Now this ofcourse goes against the right to privacy we have by the constitution, so I would like you to consider this scenario, and tell me what you think.

The cameras that are everywhere are not being watched. They are running and the footage is being saved onto computers. For this forrum let us assume this process is secure, in that the defenses of this system are very good so no one can get in and steal a tape of you having sex or any other thing that you wish to keep private, and no one can tamper with the fotage so as to frame anyone. The only time the footage is ever viewed is when a crime occurs, say a murder. The time of death is discoverd by the coroners, and the footage at that place and that time is brought up to help in the investigation of the crime.

Such a system will obviously greatly help the justice system deal with crime, and thus I am sure this will be a verry effective crime deterent. Obviously the cameras can be destroyed, so some precautions should be taken for that. Verry well hidden cameras or even cloaking cameras, if the technology exists at that point, and such technology is not too far off by the way. Anyways, in our society today, enforcement of laws overides right to privacy to some extent, and so I do not see how this system is any diffirent. Seems to me the only people that will have any problems with this system are the ones planning on commiting crime, and anyone else that has a problem seems to be irrational to me. I dont see how anyone other than criminals can have any objection to this, thus I am hoping you all would either argue some objections, or just agree with me.

This system ofcourse would be verry unpleasent to those of us who have problems with some of the laws in our country. Such as drug use and other dumb laws, but I think thats a problem we should be taking up with the legislative branch, and we should be changing those laws, not supporting weaker enforcement so that we may get away with it. The only real objection I can think of is that such a powerful force could be dangerous in the wrong hands, but theres already much more powerful forces in existence that we seem to accept, that being militaries. So I just cant think of any legitimate objections, can you?

2

How many criminal homes do you think there are in the United states, and don’t you realize that if these cameras were slowly instituted, human nature would demand that any one of a suspicious nature would be watched. Have you ever read 1984, and don’t reply with any crap about how the cameras will only be watched if there is a crime commited. Thats bullshit, and if you were being honest with yourself you’d agree.

Ok I think I’ve calmed down. I know where you’re coming from, but under current circumstances, or even circumstances that may exist in 100 years, your idea is a failure, because it contridcts human nature. Law enforcement, if given that power would not simply allow itself to catch criminals after the fact, they would desire to premptively stop crime before it occured. Consider Minority Report in this instance.

I don’t know. There are so many things wrong with the topic you’ve created that I doubt I could convince you it was a destructive idea if you were standing in front of me. Even in a perfect world it would be a bad idea. Humanity deserves it’s freedom. Humanity desreves the benefit of the doubt, although I don’t think there should be any doubt involved if you consider those people that surpass the crowd. The people that don’t desire to kill, or otherwise swindle others so that they may be the beneficiaries of gain. And that is what you are occupied with with here is the actions of a few thugs; a minority of thugs and sociopaths that exist for a specific reason.

It’s very difficult to consider how to better society when you base your thoughts on actualities instead of ideals.

3

Human nature demands alot of things that we deny for the sake of civility. I understand it would be difficult to make a totally secure system, but it CAN definatly be done. The crap that it will only be watched if a crime is commited is not at all bullshit. How does the system work today? Police officers can crap on your privacy if they have probable cause or a warrent. They can break into your house, your car, go through any of your personal belongings. This same system can easily be applied to the videos. So if there is suspicion of a crime, just like it works now, an officer of the law goes to a judge and gets a warrent, and then he can go and watch the video. There is absolutely no diffirence. BUT, I can think of more problems with this warrent problem, such as a cop makes up a bullshit reason just so he can look into a hot girls house. Though I bet this problem can be addressed, even if the footage from cameras can be watched ONLY after the known commitment of a crime, such a system would greatly reduce crime.

Yes, humanity deserves its freedom, to a point. As in, humanity does not deserve my freedom to kill at will. Thats what the law is there for. And the more effectivly the law is enforced, the less criminals there will be, because with these cameras in place the chance of getting away with crime will be significantly reduced, thus reducing the incentive of criminals. Less crime = less suffering, as long as the laws are good, but thats another question, and I dont think anyone would argue we should not enforce SOME system of laws as well as possible.

I dont think humanity deserves the benefit of the doubt. The only reason we arn’t out killing, theiving, raping… whatever, is because we have societys with laws that are enforced to some extent. I am convinced that in an anarchy we would go crazy. The only reason people dont desire to swindle others so they me be beneficiaries of gain is because there are consequences.

4

Russiantank,

You say that you can’t see how anyone could have problems with this. Obviously, your mind is made up. It’s interesting that your observations have only to do the whats and hows and nothing about the principle of privacy. It’s true that constant surveillance would help solve obvious crime after the fact, but at what cost to human freedom? That you have a visual record of a particular event doesn’t mean you know anything. Words lie. Pictures lie. And yes, moving pictures also lie. The opportunities for abuse of such technology almost guarantees problems.

I really think you need to consider how such a technology like this could be abused by authority. As concordant noted, this would be 1984 in overdrive.

JT

5

Yeah… Russian man you have just got to be kidding. Maybe we should address the issues in our society which causes people to commit crimes in the first place, rather then stripping away peoples freedom, and living in a big brother hell. People are murdering other people, obviously something is wrong. What you are proposing would just be a big bandaid over a gaping wound. The root of the problems would still remain, and no doubt we would have plenty more. What comes to mind off the top of my head is that the majority of society would reject this and you would have some sort of major revolution… would prob be pretty nasty. Plus that old saying absolute power, absolutley corrupts, and thats pretty much what you are proposing.

6

Abuse of this power is definatly a problem, but like I said, the military is much more powerful than such a force could ever be, so do all of you suggest the disasemblement of militaries? The government in general is very powerfull, do you suggest disasemblement of governments? Are you thus a proponent of anarchy? Probably not, if I may speak for both of you tentative and rounder. Yet I realize there are measures such as checks and balances in both government and ide bet military to help with the problem of power corrupting, which I whole heartedly agree exists. I am sure then that measures can be implemented into my proposed system to do the same.

Tell you the truth, privacy is a very strange freedom in my opinion anyways. This will probably shock all of you, but I wouldn’t care if police was watching me every second of every day. I wouldnt care if some fat, horny cop was watching as I had sex, or whatever I was doing, as long as it was legal. The only thing I can think of being uncofertable with is if I was doing something that can get me into legal trouble, such as commiting a crime! And I actually believe this is the ideal… I think everyone should think this way, but thats obviously impossible at this point. I just dont see why privacy is so important. I dont think it is a valid freedom at all. And yet I wish to keep things private from the world, you know why? Because the world is intolerant. Because the things I wish to keep private are things that people will look down at me for. That is the only reason I see for privacy, because people love to hate. And THIS is the problem that shoud be addressed. If everyone was AOK with everything everyone else did, as long as it is within the law, then there seems to be no need for privacy. Just the fact that somebody watches me does not in any way make any of my actions feel uncomfertable. But the fact that somethings I do can lead to adverse opinions of me, as a result of retarted values, is enough for me to want to hide it. Example: Some gay couples want their privacy becuase if it comes out they are gay, they take a lot of shit from retarted people. Is that right? No, if no one looked down on them if they were gay, they shouldn’t have a problem with people seeing them make out. Truly, what is the point of privacy other than protecting yourself from the stupidity of others?

But that whole paragraph is beside the point. I really do believe that the system I proposed can be secure. And yes tentative, moving pictures can lie, just as any form of evidence can lie. Do you then suggest that we just stop prosecuting people for crimes, because nothing is for sure? The defensive measures of my proposed system, such that no one without legal access to footage can access it, and so that none of the footage can be tamperd with to allow framing, such measures would have to be as secure as technology will allow. Give me examples, of how such a system can be abused. And dont bring up 1984, though I read it a long time ago, it talked of a system that was corrupt all the way through. It was the surveilance of the people that gave the government power, but the laws being enforced were the real problem. And I think democracy to some extent prevents this from happening. Imagine if such a system was implemented RIGHT now, give me scenerios in which you think this system will be abused.

7

your one of them. people would find the spots that that dont have cameras, and commit all the crimes there. it would probobly increse crimes. lets say theres a man with a gun and hes hanging out in aa uncervalenced spot, a women he hates walks by, lets say hes waivering to kill her and in two feet she will have walked into view. this would force him to make a quick decisioin, and to take advantage of the uncervayed area. theres not enough cameras to cover the world, and even if there were there wouldnt be enough computers to hold the footage. and even if there were enough computers and camereras, you would have to be a robot to do somthing like that. THE CRIME YOU WOULD BE COMITTING WOULD BE WORSE THN THE CRIMES YOUR TRYING TO PREVENT.

8

Right… Galactic, Im sorry but thats the stupidest thing Ive ever heard…

It would cause more crime??? Wow… I really cant explain to you why you are wrong. I just cant do it… I cannot think that simply… Wow…

9

“the only reson we arent out killing nd raping is because of society” no. its because of human nature, human nature is good. the only reasons were out there killing and raping is because of society! russian tank- it baffles me how someone as knowledgable as you could consider such a plan.

10

So you suggest an anarchy galactic?

11

It looks like you have exposed yourself as an exhibitionist.Few people would feel comfortable being watched all of the time.

Plus having Big Brother watching everyone it order to make them behave will have other negative effects. This teaches only an extrinsic motivation for good behavior. Avoid doing bad because you will get punished if you do so is a childish morality. A well develop person will internalize right and wrong and avoid doing wrong because of their intrinsic motivation. A generation instructed under they camera’s eye would fail to develop this internal motivation. If they ever moved out of the watchful eye what would keep them from doing wicked deeds? Nothing.

It is one of the benefits of owning property. Private Property - Keep Out. Owning property is more of a burden and less beneficial if you take away privacy.

Speaking on behalf of shy people, let me tell you it would bother the hell out of us.

See Minority Report, either the book or the movie.

12

it just occured to me that there are probobly alot of authority positions being filled by people just like russian tank. knowledgable people just itching to harness nature. i compleatly agree with rounder " it would cause a major revolution"…is that where the future is heading? harnessers vrs harness-e’s? its starting to look that way, maybee society needs to get fucked with that hard, it would be a wake up call to stop taking all this bullshit. russian im not convinced your even alive, but ill give you an example of crime this would cause.- All sorts of underground rebel freedom fighter gangs would form. no one would wont to work for the government if it was constantly under attack… knowing who the criminals are doesnt do you any good if you cant outnumber them.

13

no im not suggesting an anarchy. im suggesting a society that doesnt twist and warp child brains. but if it came i down to eithier cameras in homes or anarchy. i think i would choose anarchy, at least temporarily. if the government became the criminals, you couldnt stop them by following their rules.

14

Haha, Xanderman, do you look down on me now that im an exibitionist? J/K

Ahh, Xanderman, yes, you are absolutely right about it only teaching an extrinsic motivation, but the alternative is to dumb people down I believe. You say a well developed person will internalize right and wrong… but what is right and what is wrong. Who makes that decision. Basicly I dont believe in morality, I dont believe that anything is right and wrong. Thus when right and wrong are tought, it is always arbitrary. There is nothing to internalize other than social norms. Thus the only valid motivation can be threat of punishment. The rest is basicly brain-washing. Im sure you have heard me talk of this before.

When you say “moved out of the watchful eye” do you mean left the society or found a place where the cameras wern’t watching. If it is the latter, there is still significant threat of punishment, as long as it is an operational society. If you mean move out of the society, then they can indeed do anything they want, even what you call “wicked”. Only if they do these wicked things to people in any society, that society will punish them, because they are a threat to that society. The only people they can safely be wicked towards is people that are not protected by a society. That is why it is inevitable that societies formed and will persist, because there is always some one out there stronger than you, and the only way to protect yourself from them is through numbers, ie: joining a society.

Good point about private property. Though I wonder, if everyone was accepting, and tolerant of others’ behavior, would we relish our private property as much?

Do you think you are shy because you were born that way, or because you were brought up that way? And if the latter, do you think, again, if we learned to accept all legal behavior, that we would have shy people? I dont know the answers to those question. If indeed it is genetic, then there is nothing to do, but if the latter, I would bet shyness is a consequence of an intolerant society.

If by minority report, you mean that the creator of a system knows how to get around the system, then you are right. But the bad guy in that movie still got the shaft, because there was a detective using other methods other than the pre-crime method. I dont suggest the cammeras are the ONLY form of evidence, I suggest they supplement the process. A lawyer or a crime scene investigator probably know alot better how to manipulate the justice system to get away, but the system still works. Other than the point of a system being suceptible to its creators, Minority Report has nothing to do with what I propose. Minority Report dealt more with destiny and how innocent people were being punished because they still had a choice to not commit the crime. My idea is just to increase the threat of being cought AFTER commiting a crime, not to actually predict the future…

15

Straw-man fallacy! Straw-man fallacy!

16

Speak for yourself, man! I wouldn’t kill,rape, or steal even if it were legal to do so. My conscience is my guide, not the law. If a law is unjust, I will not follow it. Isn’t sodomy still illegal in some states? Could the cops then bust down your door if you’re caught on film getting a BJ or having anal sex?

First the cameras, then the thought police…sounds like a nightmare.

17

Shyster, why wouldn’t you kill rape or steal? I am sure you believe it is wrong and would feel very bad about doing such things, but I assure you those feelings are mostly a consequence of how you were brought up and our social climate. So imagine if you will that you are plunged into an anarchy. You said that if murder and the rest are legal, but I believe such a society is imposible. It wont last very long if at all. Thus lets say the world suddenly collapses into anarchy, and you with your morals and values are a part of it. Because you have been brought up such that you cannot bring yourself to do those things, I say you are at a great disadvantage in terms of survival and obtaining pleasure in life.

First of all, your property will be stolen, even if youre a big strong guy and have big old guns in your house to protect yourself, I assure you there is someone out there stronger and with bigger guns, and if you are misfortunate enough to encounter any such person, you would be lucky to survive, but they will surely take everything you own, and you will not be able to do anything about it. How then will you survive with no money or belongings? Well you could go about living with your morals or values, or you could find someone weaker than you and steal all of their things, you can even murder them if you like so thy dont try and come after you. And evryone around you will be raping. So you could try the old dating method, or you could just go out and rape someone yourself, much easier to satisfy yourself that way dont you think?

Dont be alarmed, basicly, the point is that your moral system will greatly hinder your survival and persuit of pleasure in an anarchic state. I cannot see how anyone can disagree with this. I would bet that if you were thus plunged into such a situation, you would adapt and abandon your morals, or you would die fast or suffer long. Thus, such a state would only be beneficial for the strongest out there, the most fit to survive. They will rule and you will get the shaft. It would thus be in your best interests to prevent such a situation, and there seem to be only 2 methods to acomplish this.

  1. Society, organized government, a system you are a part of that protects you from any one stronger than you, at least to some extent. (In our societys today the smartest and strongest still have an advantage, but it is much better than an anarchy)

  2. Convince absolutely everybody that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, so on so forth. Make it so everybody would not want to do those things, as you feel, so even if there is no state to protect you, everybody will get along just fine, because everybody is completely moral and they share your morals.

Guess what, #2 is IMPOSIBLE! Unless there is some brainwashing tool developed that completely eliminates any such desires from everyones brains, someone out there will figure out that doing all those immoral things will be beneficial to them as long as there is no consequence. The moment there is consequence, then we have a state, a society, a government. Thus I believe #1 is the only realistic possibility.

Again, I agree that the laws have to be fine-tuned, and a democracy allows this to happen. But you say sodomy being illegal is unjust, well Ide bet someone out there believes raping being illegal is unjust, so he says the same things as you, its unjust, so im not going to obey it. The fact remains that ALL laws have to be enforced and as well as possible. There also MUST exist an outlet to change the laws, so as to prevent the government from having all the power, as is the case in 1984. It wasn’t the surveillance that was the horrible part of that book, it was the fact that the goverment told the people how to act, not the other way around, as is somewhat the case with a democracy. Thus the 1984 comparisson is the straw-man fallacy. Explain how what I said is at all a straw-man fallacy, because it isnt and I will prove it if you respond.

18

No I will just take care to shield my own eyes so I don’t see too much. :astonished:

Or simply provide some guidance. Help children in their own moral development. I don’t see how learning to made moral decisions would descrease intelligence.

That is a foolish idea. Right and wrong are not arbitrary. Point to any society where random murder is perfectly acceptable? Where is indiscriminate theft good? Where is shoddy workmandship lovingly endorsed? Who encourages all of their children to be completely disloyal, unreliable and faithless?

Morality may not be absolute, but it is also not arbitrary.

If everyone was completely tolerate and accepting of everything and everyone then we would have no problems whatsoever. And if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

I was born shy.

Another principle behind my reference to Minority Report was that corruption begins at the top. Who will guard the guards themselves?

19

Murder and theft are not acceptable not because of morality, but because they are not conducive to a functional society. A society where murder is accepted will quickly kill itself. A society where indiscriminate theft is accepted will never progress, or it will be dictatorship, that will inevitably fall because people will rise up against oppression. Thus one could say that murder is wrong, in terms of the society’s sucsess. And since societies are inevitable as I have pointed out in my previous post, these laws are inevitable. But it is not the people’s job or moral obligation, or anything to uphold their society. Quite the opposite, it is society’s job, by definition to keep order among its people. It IS peoples obligation to do what is in their best interest, well, not really obligation, we have no choice about it. I believe, and I think I did a very good job providing evidence for this throughout my previous posts on this site, that people act in the persuit of pleasure, not by choice, its just the way we are. SO, the better the laws of a society are enforced, the more our interest dictates to us to be lawfull citizens.

Like I said in the previous post, morality can be a big hinderance in some situations. The alternative is to just be a big egoist, but luckily, an egoist in a very well enforced society is no diffirent than a moral person, they are even better off, because if the society crumbles, the egoist does not have the hinderance of morality.

But your point about Minority Report applies to every powerfull entity. Who gaurds the military from overthrowing the government?

20

What is the substance of morality if not the rules of behavior? Morality is operational rules and guidelines that are taught until they become habits, so that we engage in them with a minimum of thought.

What is it that makes people rise up against oppression?

At what point does a society exist as an entity independent of its members?

And is the way that we ARE also the way we OUGHT to be?

I am seeing you say that the unpleasant consequences of disobeying law will make us obedient to the law, unless we are being oppressed in which case we will rise up against that. Interesting ideas you have there.

Rules would be a hindrance in any game during which the other players are operating as if were no rules.

What is the intrinsic relationship between egotism and morality? Do you see egotistical people are always immoral?

Who indeed?