Does an average person need total privacy, though? When I hear total privacy, I think of someone so remote that not even the state knows much about him. I find it unobtainable and I struggle to find a legit reason why you would want to do, outside of doing illegal activities, obviously.
2 Likes
Your point is understandable, but the desire for total privacy isn’t just about hiding illegal activities—it’s about preserving fundamental freedoms and autonomy. Privacy is a cornerstone of individual liberty, and its importance is deeply rooted in the values that shaped the founding of America.
The Founding Fathers understood the importance of privacy. The Fourth Amendment, for instance, protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, reflecting the idea that people have a right to be secure in their personal spaces. The concept of privacy goes beyond the physical—it extends to your thoughts, beliefs, and activities. It’s about having control over your personal information and deciding who gets to access it.
In today’s digital age, privacy is more crucial than ever. Data is constantly being collected, often without our full awareness or consent. This information can be used to manipulate, profile, or even discriminate against individuals. For instance, companies can track your online behavior to target you with specific ads or political messages, subtly influencing your decisions. Governments, too, can misuse data, leading to surveillance states where citizens’ freedoms are gradually eroded.
Wanting total privacy isn’t about hiding something illegal; it’s about maintaining a space where you can think, explore, and express yourself freely without fear of being watched, judged, or controlled. In a world where everything is monitored, your autonomy is at risk. Privacy allows you to keep your individuality intact and resist undue influence from both corporations and the government.
So, while total privacy might seem extreme, it’s actually a safeguard for our freedom and dignity, ensuring that we remain in control of our own lives.
2 Likes
But none of this requires total privacy, in my eyes. It requires some privacy, not complete, total privacy. Again, when I hear total privacy, I hear privacy against everyone and everything. You, and only you, know even somewhat basic things about yourself. I guess we have different definitions here for total privacy.
Your distinction between some privacy and total privacy is valid, and it’s true that the term “total privacy” can be interpreted in different ways. When I mention total privacy, I’m not suggesting an absolute state where no one knows anything about you—that’s not realistic or necessary for most people. Rather, it’s about having control over your personal information and deciding the extent to which you share it.
The level of privacy someone desires can vary depending on their context and values. For instance, some people might prioritize protecting their online activities from corporate tracking, while others might focus on shielding their financial or medical information. Total privacy, in this sense, isn’t about cutting off all connections; it’s about ensuring that you have the choice to limit access to your information, especially when it comes to sensitive areas of your life.
It’s also worth considering that what might feel like “some privacy” today could be at risk of erosion over time. As technology advances and more of our lives are digitized, the boundaries of privacy are constantly being challenged. What seems like a reasonable level of privacy now might be insufficient in the future if we’re not vigilant.
In short, total privacy doesn’t mean living off the grid or in complete isolation. It’s about having the ability to control what parts of your life you share and with whom, protecting your freedom, autonomy, and dignity in an increasingly connected world. We may have different views on what “total privacy” means, but at its core, it’s about preserving the ability to make those choices for yourself.
3 Likes
What is legal and what is not is seen by “some services” as it suits their agenda. I know several people who have been visited because they liked the wrong post or the wrong video. But of course you can also bury your head in the sand and keep telling yourself: I have nothing to hide anyway.
3 Likes
In today’s digital age transparency is more crucial than ever. It’s not just about having privacy. It’s about understanding what data they are collecting and what they are doing with it? It’s about understanding how the platform works and what protections are there to keep ones individual information out of others hands. It’s about what protections are built in to stop criminal activity and protections for individuals whether they be adults, teenagers or children. I have no issue with data being accessed if required by legal authorities investigating criminal matters or possible criminal activities. I don’t care what platform it is they should ALL have the same requirements under law. That is how we can protect those who are vulnerable and also have protections for our individual privacy. The biggest issue is big tech is exploiting ones data for the almighty $.
5 Likes
Wanting privacy, especially against the prying eyes of myriad government agencies, has nothing to do with finding “legit” reasons for it. The only thing I value more than privacy is time.
3 Likes
This is a valid argument *if and only if* geolocation and age (as in “current day and age”) are taken into account. Rather than thinking this way and considering anyone looking for “total privacy” as someone with malicious illegal intent or a sick paranoid individual, consider a scenario that tomorrow a dictator forcibly takes governance of your state/country and simply freedom of expression becomes illegal.
In that sense, looking for something private enough to mask illegal activity suddenly becomes extremely reasonable and obviously essential. It’s just that most of us have become so comfortable benefiting from our circumstances and privileges that we often forget there’s been places where and times when “total privacy” matters A LOT!
5 Likes
I never trusted Telegram for the simple reason that they advertised themselves as a privacy-focused service while a lower encryption standard by default than WhatsApp. Sure their “secret chats” were E2E encrypted, but nobody used those.
As for Pavel Durov’s arrest, if the allegations against him are true then he was a complete idiot. If law enforcement issue a subopoena for data which is relevant to a criminal investigation, then you’re obliged to turn it over. Due to their lack of E2E encryption, Telegram had the ability to turn over a lot more information than WhatsApp or Signal in relation to people sharing CSAM on the platform - which they allegedly failed to do. A 10 year old could have explained to them why this was not a tenable situation, and I don’t blame France for arresting Durov under those circumstances (assuming of course they were correct about Durov’s lack of cooperation). The arguments about freedom of speech etc are basically a red herring IMO, since allowing speech on your platform does not absolve you of a responsibility to cooperate with law enforcement if that speech relates to criminal activity. Telegram is no different to any other platform - e.g. if someone decided to plan a bank robbery on forum.endeavouros.com, @Bryanpwo would be obliged to comply with any warrant/subpoena from Dutch police and hand over the relevant user’s account details and IP address.
Basically Pavel could have made his life a lot easier if he implemented proper E2E encryption on his platform. Why he didn’t do this is a matter for endless speculation.
3 Likes
I can well imagine that the required cooperation with the authorities was not just about preventing crimes (this is always a pretext), but rather about large-scale planned eavesdropping attacks on Telegram users who have become disagreeable. I live in a country where this is the wet dream of our intelligence services.