964 Likes, 18 Comments - @reddit on Instagram: “Edward Snowden returned for another incredible AMA and with a single answer summed up why we need…”
Tag: rights
Karma
Sebastian Greger (Sebastian Greger)Privacy first, compliance second.
Why does it seem like the debate about privacy has become moral? And whose morals? There is no such thing as a natural right to privacy. There is no natural right to anything. Natural rights were an invention of the European Enlightenment, mere social (and legal) constructs.
Rights only exist because of laws. What is the intention of this law? Can we ever agree on a universal legal definition privacy? What if our cultural understandings of privacy are so far removed from each other that we can’t even have a meaningful conversation on the topic?
“The meaning of Karma is in the intention. The intention behind the action is what matters. Those who are motivated only by a desire for the fruits of action are miserable, for they are constantly anxious about the results of what they do.”
The “right to be forgotten” is really the “right to ask that information be misplaced.”
The “right to be forgotten” implicates real-life concerns about what and how much information is available to governments, corporations, policymakers, and the public. This right is at the heart of our ongoing online privacy debates: How much information do we have to share with others, and how can we control what others know about us?
But complete information, including that which one may prefer misplaced, is also about making good decisions. And while the Internet Archive does not present a complete or uniformly accurate picture of the Internet, it is nonetheless a useful tool that helps us get there. Deleting information from the searchable Internet, whether Girkin’s first-person radical boasting or third-person smear campaigns, even for good reasons, can also be viewed as a modern way of burying evidence. In an information-driven economy and society, that is a serious matter. Indeed, thorough evidence and information, or the lack thereof, can have impact far beyond the individual, as it is a necessary prerequisite to good decision-making.
The “right to be forgotten” is really the “right to ask that information be misplaced.”
The “right to be forgotten” implicates real-life concerns about what and how much information is available to governments, corporations, policymakers, and the public. This right is at the heart of our ongoing online privacy debates: How much information do we have to share with others, and how can we control what others know about us?
But complete information, including that which one may prefer misplaced, is also about making good decisions. And while the Internet Archive does not present a complete or uniformly accurate picture of the Internet, it is nonetheless a useful tool that helps us get there. Deleting information from the searchable Internet, whether Girkin’s first-person radical boasting or third-person smear campaigns, even for good reasons, can also be viewed as a modern way of burying evidence. In an information-driven economy and society, that is a serious matter. Indeed, thorough evidence and information, or the lack thereof, can have impact far beyond the individual, as it is a necessary prerequisite to good decision-making.
