Privacy

[ICantSpellDawg]

Does real privacy exist?

Is privacy a dying concept? Is it more vibrant than ever? Do you believe in it?

[Fragony]

yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesssssssssssssssssssssssss it bloody is, no offence to you but the dutch christian party is packed with absolutely pervers control freaks it´s getting more then a little bit scary.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Naturally... I do not even see why this issue needs a poll - a discussion thread would be just as fine, as it would seem to me that most would unanimously concur that privacy is on decline. Such is the effect of technology.

[Strike For The South]

Naturally... I do not even see why this issue needs a poll - a discussion thread would be just as fine, as it would seem to me that most would unanimously concur that privacy is on decline. Such is the effect of technology.

You hit the nail on the head. Technology makes everything smaller, including personal space.

[Aemilius Paulus]

You hit the nail on the head. Technology makes everything smaller, including personal space.

More like I donned the robes of Cap'n Obvious. Everyone knows that, which is why I said that the topic is so straightforward that even without the poll we could easily gauge the opinion of the Backroom.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't know, I'm not a historian.

We live in our own houses, used to be married couples would live with their parents in a tiny house. How's that for privacy?

Texting someone is more private than talking on the phone.

On the one hand, a picture of you doing something amusingly foolish can be seen by millions, but on the other hand more people live in cities which have less of a "everyone in the little town knows who you are and what you did last night" feel.

[Thermal]

Privacy is cut off at every corner of our lives, thanks to new laws, thanks to people like suicide bombers and drug smugglers etc. Society is a lot more honest in general to and people are more than willing to gossip (whats a secret nowadays) However I don't believe privacy is redundant or an outdated thing, how can it be...

[Aemilius Paulus]

We live in our own houses, used to be married couples would live with their parents in a tiny house. How's that for privacy?

That is a socioeconomic factor. Not technology or cultural factor, which change and evolve under the influence of history. I mean, the former evolves likewise, of course, but it can do it on its own, as opposed to technology which..

Aghh, this is getting too contradictory...

Texting someone is more private than talking on the phone.

Yeah, but intercepting the signal is easier than ever before...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Personally, I don't believe in privacy.

I think that everyone should know everything about everyone else in the long term. Complete transparency.

On the one hand, personal lives are opened up under the microscope to a greater extent than ever before. On the other hand, people are given less and less license to invade others personal space and punish for anti-social behavious

There was a time when taking a girl into your house overnight who wasn't your wife could get you pulled out of bed, tarred and feathered. today, in spite of what some might like to do to you for such an act, you are protected under the law for some of the most despicable acts, even in the workplace.

Is the new privacy complete transparency without the fear of social reproach? Could it be that our sense of privacy is a vestige of a time when it mattered for our social preservation?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Personally, I don't believe in privacy.

I think that everyone should know everything about everyone else in the long term. Complete transparency.

On the one hand, personal lives are opened up under the microscope to a greater extent than ever before. On the other hand, people are given less and less license to invade others personal space and punish for anti-social behavious

There was a time when taking a girl into your house overnight who wasn't your wife could get you pulled out of bed, tarred and feathered. today, in spite of what some might like to do to you for such an act, you are protected under the law for some of the most despicable acts, even in the workplace.

Is the new privacy complete transparency without the fear of social reproach?

Right, that's a good point. The less things that need to be kept a secret, the less you have to worry about your privacy (in effect, the more privacy you have). And our society is many times more accepting than it used to be.

[Cronos Impera]

Personally, I don't believe in privacy.

I think that everyone should know everything about everyone else in the long term. Complete transparency.

On the one hand, personal lives are opened up under the microscope to a greater extent than ever before. On the other hand, people are given less and less license to invade others personal space and punish for anti-social behavious

There was a time when taking a girl into your house overnight who wasn't your wife could get you pulled out of bed, tarred and feathered. today, in spite of what some might like to do to you for such an act, you are protected under the law for some of the most despicable acts, even in the workplace.

Is the new privacy complete transparency without the fear of social reproach? Could it be that our sense of privacy is a vestige of a time when it mattered for our social preservation?

Privacy leads to ownlife and ownlife leads to thoughtcrime, sometimes even facecrime.

Bring the telescreen into your home. You could always enjoy watching and being watched on your sofa scratching inside your nose (you can always get little balls), scratching your back or just having a fart spree and everyone will know.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Privacy leads to ownlife and ownlife leads to thoughtcrime, sometimes even facecrime.

Bring the telescreen into your home. You could always enjoy watching and being watched on your sofa scratching inside your nose (you can always get little balls), scratching your back or just having a fart spree and everyone will know.

Dream come true. I can't wait to be arrested for pre-meditated future thoughtcrime with negligent facecrime.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Right, that's a good point. The less things that need to be kept a secret, the less you have to worry about your privacy (in effect, the more privacy you have). And our society is many times more accepting than it used to be.

Right. I'm not saying that morality would die. If anything I beleive it would be strengthened. You simply would not do something that could result in a dissolution of something else that you wanted more - because it would. There would be no ifs ands or buts about it. You could enter more honest agreements that way.

I don't believe we are talking about thought crime or a death of flattery and overstatement, but we are talkign about verification. You could still tell your wife she looks good in a certain dress, even though you might be thinking that she is a landmonster. Thinking is not doing.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The what do you guys think of Norway's decision to open up all tax records?

[ICantSpellDawg]

The what do you guys think of Norway's decision to open up all tax records?

Like it.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Like it.

It sounds nice, and to a point, it was. But no one foresaw the consequences of kids/adolescents/young adults taunting each other at schools, or jealous and bitter neighbours...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It sounds nice, and to a point, it was. But no one foresaw the consequences of kids/adolescents/young adults taunting each other at schools, or jealous and bitter neighbours...

Well, you might as well ban rolexes and porsches if that really concerns you.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, you might as well ban rolexes and porsches if that really concerns you.

Well, I might also be a person who values moderation in most things I do. Is banning those things that practical? Not really. Is not releasing tax records, as all nations do, so difficult? On the contrary, releasing costs and takes more effort than simply keeping them closed. Not secret, but closed.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, I might also be a person who values moderation in most things I do. Is banning those things that practical? Not really. Is not releasing tax records, as all nations do, so difficult? On the contrary, releasing costs and takes more effort than simply keeping them closed. Not secret, but closed.

Fair enough. I don't have a particular opinion on the tax records, you made it sound as if the consequences were dire though.

[Aemilius Paulus]

the consequences were dire though.

I have no idea actually. The Economist, with their liberal stance, did not favour it, and I found that rather disturbing, meaning that it has to be pretty far left-radical for them to reject it.

[Samurai Waki]

Well, less privacy makes my job a heck of a lot easier. Although, 2nd Amendment Supporters should be having a fit about the lack of government transparency.

[Dîn-Heru]

The what do you guys think of Norway's decision to open up all tax records?

The tax records are open because of tradition, however it used to be that you had to go to tax-office to look through them (if I remember correctly it was so that you could check and see if you were taxed fairly compared to your neighbors). These days it is distributed to the media who puts them online with all sorts of fancy search possibilities.

The reason they give is that it supposedly foster debate around the tax system and that it helps catch tax evaders.

First of all the only numbers shown are income, tax amount and wealth. It does not show what has been deducted and so on, ie there is not enough information given to actually be able to debate the system...

Secondly, I can't remember hearing about a single person having been caught for tax evasion due to the information in the lists. (I don't have time to check the newspapers, so I might be wrong but I doubt it)

Basically all the media do with the lists are making top 10 lists of who has the greatest wealth, income and so on. Not critical journalism, which is the supposed reason for making the lists available to the media. To sum up it is used for social pornography and nothing else.

Now, I don't mind the list being available to the public, what I mind is how its currently done. If it were to go back to the old system of only being available at the tax office (and given to the media, but not posted online by them to generate visits to their sites) I would not have a problem with it.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Does real privacy exist?

Is privacy a dying concept? Is it more vibrant than ever? Do you believe in it?

That's none of your business.

[Husar]

Isn't it funny that a lot of people who work in the IT business seem to be the ones most concerned about (their own) privacy?

There has never been privacy before God, if you believe in God, anyway.

I'm not too worried about a loss of privacy although sometimes having it feels a bit more comfortable.
You also need privacy for banking for example, I wouldn't want everyone to have access to my bank account.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The tax records are open because of tradition, however it used to be that you had to go to tax-office to look through them (if I remember correctly it was so that you could check and see if you were taxed fairly compared to your neighbors). These days it is distributed to the media who puts them online with all sorts of fancy search possibilities.

The reason they give is that it supposedly foster debate around the tax system and that it helps catch tax evaders.

First of all the only numbers shown are income, tax amount and wealth. It does not show what has been deducted and so on, ie there is not enough information given to actually be able to debate the system...

Secondly, I can't remember hearing about a single person having been caught for tax evasion due to the information in the lists. (I don't have time to check the newspapers, so I might be wrong but I doubt it)

Basically all the media do with the lists are making top 10 lists of who has the greatest wealth, income and so on. Not critical journalism, which is the supposed reason for making the lists available to the media. To sum up it is used for social pornography and nothing else.

Now, I don't mind the list being available to the public, what I mind is how its currently done. If it were to go back to the old system of only being available at the tax office (and given to the media, but not posted online by them to generate visits to their sites) I would not have a problem with it.

According to their gov't, the only reason was to show just how transparent Norway is . I doubt people will sift through millions of records for inconsistencies... It would make a man mad... But of course, the hidden purpose is to irk the wealthy. Now they will come under closer scrutiny than ever, and through that, through the guilt and shame, they can be perhaps brought to some sort of proactive action...

[Kralizec]

If this poll is an indication, then no, because I can't see who voted what.

But yeah, it is. My feelings about it are pretty ambiguous. I'm generally not that worried about the government keeping track of things, what I am worried about is being forced to divulge sensitive information after wich they accidentily leak it to a third party.

[Dîn-Heru]

According to their gov't, the only reason was to show just how transparent Norway is . I doubt people will sift through millions of records for inconsistencies... It would make a man mad... But of course, the hidden purpose is to irk the wealthy. Now they will come under closer scrutiny than ever, and through that, through the guilt and shame, they can be perhaps brought to some sort of proactive action...

Disclaimer: I am Norwegian, I am just studying in Melbourne at the moment.

The tax lists have been available online for many years know, the previous conservative government restricted (limited) how long the media were allowed to post them online, then the social-democrats and their partners came back and reversed that supposedly to increase transparency.

Every year there are headlines of the richest people paying nothing in personal taxes and having no income. And it is mostly the same people over and over. Does this cause a debate over how the tax system works, no, it simply feeds into the notion that we have to get the rich (uncritically). As I said in my previous post what the list show are income, tax paid and wealth. It does not show how these numbers were reached, so even if a billionaire have no income and pays no tax it does not mean he/she has actually done anything wrong in the eyes of the law (even if it seems unfair to a person who see the government taking a big bite out of their paycheck).

(Also, Norway is a small country, 4,5 million, it should not be that hard for the government to get the rich people to pay more in taxes if they really wanted to seeing as they know who they are...)

Like I said, I don't mind the lists being public, I do mind them being posted online as they serve no purpose other than feeding into a voyeur mentality of spying on your neighbors. Relating to the actual topic, your financial situation is your own business (and in this case the government's), not something that everybody with access to internet have a right to know...

[CountArach]

It sounds nice, and to a point, it was. But no one foresaw the consequences of kids/adolescents/young adults taunting each other at schools, or jealous and bitter neighbours...

Yes because I am sure those teenagers have nothing better to look at on the internet.

[HopAlongBunny]

Actually you've never had any real privacy in your lifetime.

Anyone with a bank account on which they make any transaction divulges sufficient information to more people than they can count. The "hard-copy" for each and every exchange passes through (conservatively) a dozen hands. The information is stored on networks that can be accessed and distributed internationally. And it's pretty much always been that way.

The fact you think you have any privacy at all rests on certain ppl doing certain jobs every day and not "crossing lines" so to speak. With digital transactions (on-line, debt-card, electronic chequing, credit card....) you surrender sufficient information to have -yourself- recreated a thousand times.

It works on trust....rather scary...

[Major Robert Dump]

Public information, which used to mean walking your butt down to the courthouse and getting stuff for 50 cents per page, is now easiluy available online.

Anyone on this forum, for 35 dollars, with your name and birthday, I could get every home you have ever lived in with utilities in your name, every criminal record, voting record, UCC record, bankruptcy record, special license record, vehicle registration, drivers license and the names and phone numbers of all the neighbors in your previous and current residences should I desire.

It's called data mining of public info, and in a few states its up to their supreme courts because although i copuld get all that info with a little footwork, some comapny is taking advantage of the free aspect and hitting counties and cities up for a broad ton of records and making profit from it.
'

Anyway, like I said, 35 dollars, and I could have your life. It's what I do for a living, and it pays very well.

So NO, we don't have privacy in the traditional respect. If you want to stay inside and never leave the house and never use the computer and keep every utility in someone elses name, then yes you have privacy. If you are a normal, independent adult, then no you do not.

Seriously, someone try me. Tell me your real name and birthday and see what I can find out. It's so available I don't even care about protecting my identity anymore in the internet age because it is a lost cause. I assume the .ORG knows everything about me.