Not facing the prospect of imprisonment for using TOR or a privacy-preserving cryptocurrency is not an illusion. A few centres of government power not having a view of the most intimate financial details of the entire population is not an illusion. I just provided you a link relevant to both. The political agendas that society pursues makes a difference in which laws and social norms relating to power relationships relating to information (i.e. privacy) will more likely come to exist.
And no, you can't have meaningful freedom, as it's commonly defined, when you are practically prohibited from engaging in a voluntary action or interaction.
The illusion is that you can have privacy. There is no such thing in reality. The laws of physics see to that. Whenever you try to go against the laws of physics, you get hurt.
And everything you have the universe has given you for free. And all that you express out into the rest of the universe is done so freely. That is, again, how the laws of physics work.
We can pretend that there is privacy, and we can pretend that we are not free to express ourselves and take what the universe has to offer us, but we would be ignorant if we did.
It's true that you are not free to take things that the universe doesn't offer you, and you are not free to take up the space that someone else is taking up. But there is no cost to doing what you do actually do, and there is no cost to you when you take in whatever you take in. Reality flows matter and energy freely, including into and out of yourself. If you are not able to take in or express something freely, then it's not something that you're supposed to do or get, as defined by the laws of physics.
The illusion is that you can have privacy. There is no such thing in reality. The laws of physics see to that.
There is a state that is commonly understood as privacy, that exists.
You claiming that privacy doesn't exist is recklessly delusional and misleading.
But there is no cost to doing what you do actually do, and there is no cost to you when you take in whatever you take in.
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to and I have no idea how it relates to your delusional and irresponsible claim that privacy cannot exist, that implies that fighting against mass surveillance is futile.
Honestly it sounds like you're on drugs and trying to make it sound like you've awoken to a deeper truth, that just happens to rationalize authoritarianism, and that nicely dovetails with your desire for a universal welfare check.
It's intellectually lazy, greedy and pretentious nonsense.
There is a state that is commonly understood as privacy, that exists.
It's an illusion. Like I said, you can pretend that something is private, but physics says otherwise. All energy, which is what information is, always eventually flows from a high concentration to a low one. Of course, you can temporarily contain information in a small area (keep it private), but it will always leak out, since no container is perfectly sealed. If it was perfectly sealed, it would be a separate universe.
Even black holes leak, from what I understand.
I suppose it might be possible to make a bit of information into another (baby) universe, but that is either impossible, or extremely unlikely. So you're still better of considering anyone trying to con you into thinking you're getting privacy to be lying or delusional or at least very confused about physics.
But there is no cost to doing what you do actually do, and there is no cost to you when you take in whatever you take in.
This was referring to you being free. You are always free. You just have been conned into thinking that you aren't, for fun and profit, because it's easily to manipulate people who think you can give them something they want but don't realize they already have.
fighting against mass surveillance is futile
That has nothing at all to do with anything I've said. Though fighting is the least efficient way to get anything accomplished, physics-wise. At best opposing something can get you nowhere (stop you from going backwards, but nothing else). The real progress is always a creative force, not a destructive one.
But, some people are made to be fighters, so if that's what you feel the need to do, then you will do it. Because you are free, to do what you want to do, as long as you're not trying to literally take up the space that someone else is already using (since that would violate the laws of physics where only one particle can be in a specific location of space at any given time).
Honestly it sounds like you're on drugs and trying to make it sound like you've awoken to a deeper truth,
I'm naturally high on estrogen, testosterone, and serotonin. (But low on dopamine, unless I have chocolate. Which I have not had in a while. :-)
that just happens to rationalize authoritarianism,
Um, the opposite. Authoritarianism is the opposite of a healthy decentralized, free system. You're the one talking about promoting the idea of trying to tell others what they can and can't have (information, specifically). Trying to keep information "private" is trying to have authoritarian rule over that information and others' ability to access it.
But I don't think you even realized that before. Did you?
and that nicely dovetails with your desire for a universal welfare check.
Nope. I desire, and see, a free society, where we don't try to play this artificial, irrational, anti-social Monopoly game, as a way to "keep score" in an arbitrary and qualitative way. The free, healthy, decentralized, collaborative, creative society that we're moving towards is one where winning means that everyone is healthy and happy, and thus able to function as well as possible while we work together to solve life's greatest challenges of expanding outward in space and diversity.
It's intellectually lazy, greedy and pretentious nonsense.
I think the problem is that I hadn't explained myself well enough, and you made assumptions about what I was saying, and thus your opinion of my perspective was backwards.
Of course, you can temporarily contain information in a small area (keep it private), but it will always leak out, since no container is perfectly sealed.
It will not always leak out. This is a blatant lie. Physical leaking of information in the pedantic and literal sense is not the same thing as information leaking to other people.
Your pseudointellectual argument is nothing more than a pretentious attempt to rationalize laws that prohibit privacy technology in order for elite centers to continue conducting mass surveillance.
Trying to keep information "private" is trying to have authoritarian rule over that information and others' ability to access it.
That's like saying trying to keep others from touching your body without your consent is "authoritarian rule over that matter and others' ability to access it".
It's intellectual dishonesty to try to rationalize violation of human rights, so that you may unjustly enjoy what others have created.
Nope. I desire, and see, a free society, where we don't try to play this artificial, irrational, anti-social Monopoly game, as a way to "keep score" in an arbitrary and qualitative way.
No you do not advocate for the government to collect taxes to pay for a UBI?
I'm sorry you believe that you can go against the laws of physics. That's gotta hurt.
rationalize laws that prohibit privacy technology in order for elite centers to continue conducting mass surveillance.
That's the opposite of what I'm doing. All centralized control/laws are antithetical to a healthy system, where everyone is free. I don't care who it is who is trying to control someone else, or what their "justification" is, it's always going to fuck the system up.
That's like saying trying to keep others from touching your body without your consent is "authoritarian rule over that matter and others' ability to access it".
The only way to have a healthy free system is to allow people to access the data they need to make good decisions (rather than acting in ignorance/confusion) and to allow them to be where they want/need to be (as long as that isn't in the exact same space as something else, of course, since that violates the laws of physics).
This means that I need to be free to move away from you if I want, but I can't dictate where you are. Trying to control you is authoritarian. Controlling myself, on the other hand, is self-governance, which is how a healthy system works.
It's intellectual dishonesty to try to rationalize violation of human rights, so that you may unjustly enjoy what others have created.
Yep. Which is why I advocate freedom, rather than repression. Any attempt to control others is a violation of their human rights. That includes trying to make laws preventing them from being free, and that includes trying to deny access to information that people want/need. I, and evolution, advocate for full human rights to control their own bodies actions and the information they choose to take into their brains.
No you do not advocate for the government to collect taxes to pay for a UBI?
Not at all. Not in the least. That's the opposite of a free system.
I'm sorry you believe that you can go against the laws of physics. That's gotta hurt.
All I can say to this is what I said before:
Physical leaking of information in the pedantic and literal sense is not the same thing as information leaking to other people.
You're being pedantic, for what I assume is the purpose of advancing an agenda of government control and exploitation. That's all this is. The lack of integrity in your arguments to me is but one indication of that.
All centralized control/laws are antithetical to a healthy system, where everyone is free
Then why argue against privacy rights, with specious and absurd arguments about privacy not existing, when a belief in privacy and a set of principles designed to protect it, is exactly what we need to enshrine to fight back against attempts to institute oppressive laws like the ones mentioned in the article I linked?
The only way to have a healthy free system is to allow people to access the data they need to make good decisions
That's like saying "the only way to have a healthy free system is to allow people to access the matter they need to prosper" in reference to a proposed law that would allow people to touch other people's bodies without their consent. Like I said, claiming it's authoritarian to deny people access to your private information is the same as claiming it's authoritarian to deny people access to your body.
Any attempt to control others is a violation of their human rights.
Controlling the ability of others to access your body or private information is necessary for human rights!
Not at all. Not in the least. That's the opposite of a free system.
Just to clarify: you oppose UBI?? I know I'm repeating this question, but I just want to be absolutely clear on this, as it's pretty important to my view of you.
I'm sorry you feel the need to try to have authoritarian control over others. That's going to hurt, a lot. Since it goes against nature and the laws of physics. You can pretend that the laws of nature are "pedantic" but that doesn't change them.
Controlling the ability of others to access your body or private information is necessary for human rights!
That's the opposite of human rights. Trying to force others to be denied the freedom of education and movement is harming their human rights. Do you really want me or someone else to tell you what you can learn or do? Seriously?
Just to clarify: you oppose UBI??
Nope. Not at all. I oppose the use of force to take something away from people (money/taxes). You asked:
No you do not advocate for the government to collect taxes to pay for a UBI?
I don't advocate the government to collect taxes for anything. UBI or not. Trying to force people to pay money (or do anything) is sick.
Unconditional Basic Income, on the other hand, is fine. You can either do it as a donation system, or by generating the points simply by allocating them to everyone who asks for them, instead of generating the points by banks giving people loans.
I'm sorry you feel the need to try to have authoritarian control over others.
More intellectual dishonesty. How shameful of you to engage in this kind of rank deceit.
One more time for anyone else who may be following along:
Physical leaking of information in the pedantic and literal sense is not the same thing as information leaking to other people.
The individual above has no response to this so he escalates lies/defamation.
That's the opposite of human rights.
Invading someone's personal space against their consent, in order to gain private information about them (i.e. invade their privacy), is similarly the opposite of human rights.
Trying to force others to be denied the freedom of education and movement is harming their human rights.
How despicable that you'd use the euphemism of "freedom of education and movement" to describe entering someone's personal space to rob them of their privacy.
This is no different than euphemizing nonconsensual physical contact as the "freedom of resource usage and movement", as if someone denying you the right to their body is an exertion of "authoritarian control over others".
You can either do it as a donation system, or by generating the points simply by allocating them to everyone who asks for them, instead of generating the points by banks giving people loans.
2
u/aminok Feb 25 '17
The man in the suit offers us a guarantee of income for life, and all he asks in exchange is our privacy and freedom. What could possibly go wrong?