Privacy Rights in the Age of Technology
Read the article this discussion is about
- Starblade
- Franc28
- Franc28
- Starblade
- Franc28
- AgentSun
- LadyKelien
- Starblade
- Franc28
This archived discussion is "read only".
» Starblade - On privacy and intellectual property, and their mutual relation.
Why is it that many libertarians (not all of them, of course) think it's okay to acquire information from somebody without their consent, particularly if the person whose information it is did not protect their privacy sufficiently, but on the other hand they want to punish violaters of 'intellectual property' laws even when the person doing it isn't party to a genuine liscence agreement by means of private negotiation and the rules of contract? Isn't this hypocritical?Isn't intellectual property just a strong case of privacy legislation? I say it is, because both necessarily entail that a natural right is what is being protected, and because the means of protecting this right is is accomplished by the government by 1) making automatic conditions for the distribution of things with intellectual value that is to be automatically accepted by both parties, by 2) requiring that those not party to the general arrangement by consent of the creator be not considered to have a right to the intellectual value, and by 3) punishing anybody who makes such intellectual values capable of being acquired by the general public or by some underground market of some sort, and generally on the basis that anybody who has done so has done it by violating 1) or 2) of privacy or intellectual property rights.
In fact, I want to justify my accusation of hypocricy, by using one of your very own quotes: It is a meaningless excuse to support the arbitrary theft of some goods while keeping property of other goods. Don't you think that you should be held to this principle, at least in a moral context? If you, in one way, reject the idea that information and other types of intellectual values are owned by their creators, but at the same time promote this idea when it is a different issue being discussed, then aren't you being hypocritical?
Go ahead, try to argue your way out of associating privacy and intellectual property with one and another without engaging in some sort of fallacy or other mistake. I dare you. :P
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
-- posted by Starblade
» Franc28 - Hello Matt !
Welcome to the Libertarian column !Yes, that is a good point you raise. I think the issue hinges on the notion of "property". Intellectual property is misused in our society, but we agree that what a person produces, be it physical or intellectual, must be protected to a certain degree.
On the other hand, while privacy does concern our property, I don't think it's obvious at all that information about ourselves are intellectual property. Although I am not completely against privacy (who would ?), I don't see it as an alienable right. We admit that, for the purposes of police efficiency for example, some information about us has to be partly public. Of course, this can also lead to abuse, which is yet another matter.
-- posted by Franc28
» Starblade - Hello Franc.
In response to message posted by Franc28:That idea, that personal information should be made public, is an ugly idea. I'd much rather be taxxed 50% to give to stupid people who don't deserve it than to have even 1% of my personal life exposed to the whole world, because ultimately it will be those same undeserving stupid people who would see it.
Privacy is much more than material posession. It's the idea that you posess yourself. Without having a right to posess yourself, the idea of posessing other things is nonsense.
I believe that, in some sense, privacy needs to be protected as a property right. We need a consistent set of axioms dealing with privacy and intellectual property that don't deal with the two seperately, and furthermore take into account the consequences of implimenting them.
My idea would be to develop a kind of method which uses the idea that these things CAN be protected as a dynamic right to a static good rather than the other way around. Perhaps a way to define the enclosure of information, and other barriers to information, and treating them as inaliable rights. Such enclosures or barriers would have certain defining characteristics, would hold that producers and consumers, buyers and sellers, all had equal rights, and that neither one could force the other to trade information with eachother, or to either give or receive information. In fact, I'd very much like to collaborate with you on that, if that's at all possible. I already pretty much know what I want to do, but you could probably explicate the idea to a much better level than I could... or whatever the world goes there, cuz I think explicate is the right word but it might not be.
Also, thanks for clarifying about that whole thing with who wrote this, and it not being you. That helps.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
-- posted by Starblade
» Franc28 - Protocols
You seem to be talking about new trade protocols here, but I'm not sure where exactly you want to go. Do you want to make information-gathering not a necessary prerequisite to register for accounts ?I mean, I'm sorry if I'm not as enthusiastic as you are, but I don't think this is a central issue. We both agree that privacy is good and that our current governments are going too far.
-- posted by Franc28
» AgentSun - Re: Protocols
this issue gives a lot to think about. on one hand, no one wants their private information being put out there for anyone to see. while on the whole, the chances of a lot of people seeing your information are large, the bigger question is "who is interested?" some people just look prime for identity theft, whether they have a lot of credit cards, like to do a lot of online transactions, or just look normal enough to pick on.the matter is not who sees your information, it is who is interested in your information. companies are getting criticized for giving information to third parties. there are reasons why these third parties want your information so badly. those with malicious intent, on the other hand, would rather just pick on John Doe or Jane Doe and have some fun. I'd rather that John or Jane Doe not be me or anyone else I know, but the possibility is always there.
The article is very right about one thing though: Americans would rather ignore privacy issues for the sake of convenience. Ordering something from amazon.com is a lot easier than hunting down the best bargain at Barnes and Noble and Borders. sometimes stores online have better prices. One doesn't have to drive anywhere, it comes to them. And sometimes, there are collectible things that one can only get online. On the whole, the public would not give up online shopping or more inconveniece in instant shopping for the sake of a safer profile.
-- posted by AgentSun
» LadyKelien - Re: Re: Protocols
In response to message posted by AgentSun:Ill put my two cents worth in here. I believe that there is a line when it comes to privacy that should not be crossed and some lines that need to be. Goverment agency's sharing information about criminals expecially those that prey on the defenseless like our elderly and children should be a given. It helps the safety of us all.
I do not however beleive that free trade is in any way hampered by company's respecting their clients and their clients information. Why do companys sell our information? Because then they can make more money. I am not the least bit concerned about idenity theft. The idiot who choice my husband and myself for such a crime would quickly find there was very little he could accomplish pretending to be one of us. When you have 6 kids and live on less than 40,000 dollars a year its hard to have anything anyone would want anyway.
It is simply that a company can make money selling my information to other companys that could then try to harass me into buying their product that bugs the crap out of me. Its also the idea that someone out there knows every book I purchase every thought I might have that bugs me. Its nobodies business but my own if I want to read an Anne Rice book, play D & D or if one of my children is having issues with bed wetting. If I choice to share that information with a company then it is my choice. If another company choices to share that I bought a book on potty training with Johnson and Johnson who then starts sending me free samples of pull ups that I refuse to use causing an increase in our landfills then all I can do is ask myself if this is worth keeping my snail mail carrier in a job.
Im not much of one on consperiacy theories but perhaps this whole free trade of information stuff stems out of the post offices need not to become obsolete. LOL
-- posted by LadyKelien
» Starblade - Re: Protocols
In response to message posted by Franc28:Well, it's not a central issue, but it's still an important one. One that might make or break the libertarian party.
I'm not talking about 'trade protocol' in the sense of a government mandated one. I mean one where the persons themselves construct it, within the boundaries of their rights, and which retains government protection for the extent of its natural viability.
Also, what do you mean 'register for accounts'? What do you mean 'information gathering'? What do you mean 'necessary prerequisite'? You're not defining your terms here.
I do believe, though, that some methods of information, or other 'intellectual valuable' gathering can be made illegal for private members of society, and public, on the grounds of it being a kind of property violation, and to the extent that such gathering is not necssary for public protection, and furthermore that sensistive information not be released to the public until conviction.
I'll explain here. Suppose one not only values the sanctity of an intellectual valuable, but pursues, via means of private action, a course which not only acts to gain or keep the sanctity of information, but accomplishes it in some form, either directly as is proovable, or by establishing a kind of fool proof system. Now isn't that something obtained? Now without having to worry about abstract ideas of what might constitute as 'theft', we just have to say that a kind of initiation of force with respect to information has occurred, and the government will then protect it.
Basically, I want IP to be protected by contract and technology/procedure rather than in ways that cause conflicts of interest to emerge because of the general sloppiness of the notion of a static right to a dynamic valuable as contrary to the well prooven method of having a dynamic right to a static valuable. That is, I want to bring information and intellectual valuables back into the realm of a dynamic right to a static good where we can then proceed to enforce the system without a conflict of rights.
You understand what I'm saying?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
-- posted by Starblade
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.