What's the point of privacy?

[Matthew_Thepc]

I hate to interrupt such an interesting discussion (seriously - keep discussing about general privacy, it's interesting), but my question was really geared more towards advertisers tracking you (unless you guys were saying that it's "all related"?)

[chrisj1968]

I hate to interrupt such an interesting discussion (seriously - keep discussing about general privacy, it's interesting), but my question was really geared more towards advertisers tracking you (unless you guys were saying that it's "all related"?)

ok. It's all about tracking.. advertisers have locked me into the silver legacy in reno just because i searched it. I hate that. if i search something, let it go and leave me alone. If companies can follow you by where you go, why can't anyone else?

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

What's the point of privacy?

Firstly, there's a statutory right to privacy in many jurisdictions.

A right to privacy is explicitly stated under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

It didn't happen overnight. Our ancestors fought for it since the antiquity.

Secondly, some people are not particularly fond of the idea of corporations profiting from their private data without their knowledge or even consent, let alone compensation.

[srbeen]

What does that have to do with anything? What does that have to do with an individual's rights? Instead of these ridiculous hypotheticals that you and others think make points, why don't you actually reason out a philosophy talking about the concepts themselves.

If the only arguments you can come up with are worst case scenario what-ifs, then you have no argument. You're using a variation of the slippery slope fallacy, and if you need to learn what the word fallacy means, the Internet is here to help.

Here's a fun thought. For all the fondness Internet slacktivists have for the old Franklin quote:

Explain to me how privacy and anonymity are not examples of security. By demanding privacy and anonymity instead of a society where people can act and believe without persecution, you are accepting a measure of security and ignoring the need for freedom. Franklin would say you deserve neither.

Although his quote is catchy, its a false dichotomy. Freedom and security are not mutually exclusive. Privacy and anonymity ARE examples of security in place due to our freedoms. In my views these are securities from society, not for society, to protect you & everything you've done in society. Your job, your family, your friendships, your money. Depending where you are in society this likely changes, but if everyone was able to know what everyone else did at any time in their life, two things would happen. Society would rather quickly destroy itself due to revenge, or stagnate as nobody wants to offend anybody else. Just like when you use a realtor for buying/selling a house - they mediate the buy using privacy of the seller/buyer.

[TPreston]

I don't trust sleazy company's with my browsing habits, I don't trust them to use this information responsibly.

[Matthew_Thepc]

I don't trust sleazy company's with my browsing habits, I don't trust them to use this information responsibly.

what would you consider irresponsible use of the info?