🚀 go-pugleaf

Jeff Daiell, in response to Doug Borchard, writes:

> I would point out that the Census is a major invasion of privacy 
> in/of/by itself.  Data are supplied under threat of fine...

How is the government (as representatives of the society) to determine who
we are, where we are, how we doing, etc., in order to govern well without a
census?

Ah, you object to government on general principals as it violates free society.

So what is this right to freedom, this right to privacy?  Are they things I 
can touch, things I can hold in my hand like a stone?  If someone locks me up, 
does my right to freedom take the keys and release me?

It seems these things are not concrete and physical, but abstract and 
conceptual.  I suggest that they are socially, not individually defined, and 
relative, not absolute.  Does your right to privacy give you the right to 
violate someone else's rights as long as you do it in the privacy of your own 
home?  E.G., to spank a child?  Oh, that's not a violation of the child's 
rights.  Says who, you or the child or the local child protection groups?

I think it's good that you argue your conception of the right to privacy.
I don't think it's good if you think it to be the one, true, objective 
conception of the right that all others must accept.

Is this relevant to the computing and society conference?

I think so.  For instance, we have the hackers who believe in their absolute 
right to any information they can get their hands on.  I might think my right 
to privacy should cover the files on my computer, and that others should 
respect my privacy.  Well, then I should expend the effort to encrypt and 
protect my data, some would say.  Why should I need to spend my limited time 
and money to protect my rights?  Should I have to hire a bodyguard to walk 
down the street with me to enforce my right to be safe from assault?

A society doesn't function unless its members respect both the socially
defined rights of others and the limits on those rights, and are ready
to engage in a little give and take when rights inevitably conflict.  It
must be a reasonable price to pay for the benefits of participating in a
society or we would have all headed for the hills years ago.

Comments, anyone?

James Hess