No, you read TFA. Where does it say anything about in uniform? Are you familiar with the phrase "color of law?" It means doing something as if it were the law when it isn't. Like saying in the employee handbook that you can be fired for any fraternization, when in fact union organizing activities are protected. The ruling says the wording is fine, employees should automatically understand that union organizing can't be prohibited, so nothing illegal is going on and the company can keep saying you can't fraternize without qualification.
The no in uniform thing was about distributing literature, as it says in the ruling. You can't even find the word "uniform" in the article. The constitution doesn't apply, you are signing away your rights when you sign the contract. Otherwise the ruling couldn't have been upheld at all.
You really make almost no sense whatsoever, and I feel like you are responding in a knee-jerk fashion, as you obviously haven't even read the article yourself. Please. Go on, read it and point out which paragraph mentions the word uniform. Then read the ruling, rather than daveschroeder's unfortunate misrepresentation of it, and tell me where it talks about fraternization in uniform. Give me a page number. Go ahead. I'm waiting.
I read the link you provided, and you have misrepresented what it says. The issue of being in uniform relates to distributing literature while off duty, and that in fact was the only one of the three issues that was found illegal. So employees may distribute literature while in uniform. Nowhere does it talk about fraternizing in uniform. You have confused two seperate issues.
The ruling states explicitly that prohibiting off-hours employee fraternization somehow would be automatically understood to not cover issues regarding section 7 rights. How the employees would understand this, I'm not sure, and in fact the one dissenting opinion mentions this. Being understood by the employees, the employer has no need to mention it in the handbook. So 1b doesn't really do anything. They can't interfere with section 7 protected activity, but they can sure make it sound like you will be fired for it.
Most of the rest of the ruling you quoted has nothing to do with the issue portrayed in the article. It has to do with the other two parts of the case. You have obfusctaed the issue, either deliberately or through ignorance. It took me all of two minutes actually reading the ruling you so kindly linked to in order to find your error, so I can only assume that you prevaricate on purpose.
With one ruling, the NLRB has made labor unions illegal. This puts an incredible weapon in the hands of management. It will only be enforced when fraternization becomes a problem for the employer, as in the case of union orginizing. I don't expect it to have much of an impact in IT, though, as this industry is one of the least unionized, at least in the US. However, in companies where employement is not at-will, meaning they have to have cause to fire you, a policy like this could certainly be instituted and then selectively enforced to fire just about anyone.
The whole system just looks like it's returning to feudalism. Your lord and master can dictate all aspects of your life.
Nice one! You really got the rubes riled up with that one. The best trolls are the simplest and most believable.
Note to the gullible: no one really says "Let us pray" outside a church sermon. They say things like "Our prayers are with them," or "We should pray for them" instead. Every Christian knows how corny "Let us pray" sounds. YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Moral relativism is a philosophy that is impossible for human beings to espouse consistently.
It's not impossible, you just have to understand semantic levels. On the universal level, there is nothing that is good or bad. There is nothing outside the infinite with which to measure and judge the infinite. All morals are created inside the infinite, by circumstances inside the infinite.
For any given subset of the infinite, there is an absolute morality that applies to that subset. That morality may not apply to other subsets of the infinite. So morality is absolute for a given subset but relative between subsets.
We are humans. Naming things, defining them, putting the universe in to little easy to understand boxes is what we do.
But duuuuude The Cosmos is bigger than your little boxes, dude! You can't understand it, you just think you understand it, which means you don't understand it even half as much as someone like me, who refuses to understand it at all.
Therefore we should call this planet, and everything else in The Cosmos "Marflar."
I think if we want to do that we have to wear underwear on our heads and scan a bunch of pictures of girls from magazines into our computers using our printers during a thunderstorm.
You may want to google for "fairness reciprocity economic research." There is some amazing new research into human economic motivation going on now. Turns out the "selfish actor" theory is fatally flawed. We are selfish actors on a genetic level, but cooperation is built into our genes because it is a more effective strategy.
Anonymity is a form of privacy. It is contrary to my goal, but I am realistic and although I can't forsee any situations where it is needed, I can't see everything and there may well be need for compromise. Only Siths yadda yadda. As for authentication, what need is there for that when all information is free. If somebody else accesses your account, everyone will know. If a bad powerful person chooses to do something to you based on their knowledge, everyone will know. There will be no denying it, the facts are there. So how can someone act against the law, knowing their actions are being recorded at all times?
This still leaves the problem of the tyranny of the majority in a democracy, which is one conceivable reason for preserving some limited form of anonymity. One would hope that this problem could be solved in other ways, though.
Why do financial transactions need to be secret? The only reason I can think of is to screw over third parties in some way, and society has no incentive to protect a person's right to screw over third parties.
If you can come up with a good answer, I can come up with a solution. Bonded permanent anonymous identities. The identity is public, what it does is public, in case of malfeasance it is bonded, but there is no way to connect it back to a real person or company. So you can see that anonymous party X traded 50 widgets for $50 with anonymous party Y. I think this solves any potential secrecy problems while still preserving open access to information.
I didn't make it clear enough. I know that everything I do is selfish. I just think there is such a thing as enlightened self interest, and stupid self interest and I enjoy mocking the latter mercilessly. Cooperation is a more effective strategy than cooperation, but it requires withdrawel of reward from free riders. This is not coercion of cooperation, it is simply not allowing others to profit off my hard work. I'm only going to cooperate with other cooperators. If people don't want to help others, that's their business, but they would be hypocritical to expect others to help them.
Frankly I think Ayn Rand would despise most of the people who claim to follow her philosophy as "moth people." Most of them refuse to acknowledge how much help they are actually receiving from others in society, and how little they are giving back. They like objectivism because they can misinterpret it easily into something that makes them feel good for not caring about others.
I was not so much attacking her as her followers. If I wanted to attack her, I would call her works boring and long winded. Mark Twain said the same thing she did in about twelve pages in "What is Man?" and it was interesting and well written.
It's not that I don't agree with objectivism, it's just that I think it is too open to misinterpretation as an apologia for sociopaths.
Damn straight. You have hit the nail on the head as to the REAL problem with do gooders. I have always been a do gooder, and so I saw this first hand.
Arrogant sons-a-bitches go into some poor blighted community and start telling everyone there what they need to do to improve their poor, miserable selves. They don't listen, they don't ask questions. They are in it for all the wrong reasons and they don't really want to come up with a solution because they are profiting off the problem.
I actually have more respect for some selfish bastard who makes no excuse for his selfishness than deluded idiots like this (and yes, I know that this exactly is what Rand was talking about, okay? I like being contrary, so sue me. I can see from your posting history you wouldn't know anything about that, now would you?)
No, in fact I like having conversations with smart people who disagree with me more than I like having conversations with dumb people who agree with me.
I can tell when someone is a moron whether they agree with me or not. I think what we have here is a classic case of what psychologists like to call "projection." I dont agree with YOU, so I must be stupid. I think the laymans term for it is "Pot calling the kettle black."
Here's a concept for you: introspection. Means looking inside oneself honestly. I think it might help. I found it useful in a little process called GROWING UP.
Ahahaha. Good one. I'm in a trolling mood today. You got me.
I'm not morally superior to anyone, but I like making fun of people who use other people's philosophies as an excuse for their own worst behavior. Each kind of philosophy appeals to a different kind of asshole, and every philosophy appeals to some kind of asshole.
Look, I know I wasn't doing objectivism justice. See my other post in this thread where I admit to being a closet objectivist myself. I just don't like being associated with the term because I don't like most people who follow that philosophy. In my opinion, most of them are selfish pricks. I know that the Objectivists I have met have not been a staistical random sampling of the group, so maybe I am over generalizing.
I know I'm not the only one who has gotten the impresion that most objectivists want not just an excuse but a frickin medal for being selfish. If that isn't the impression the group wants to put out, maybe it should look into doing some better PR.
Or maybe I just like giving Objectivists a hard time.
I generally keep my Inner Troll locked up, but sometimes I have to let it out to play. Usually when the topic involves Ayn Rand or Libertarians. Oddly enough, not when it involves, say Creationsists or Republicans. I have too low an opinion of them to even try to troll them, but part of me thinks Randians and Libertarians should know better.
Yeah, pretty sure I read that, too. One reason Buddhism has done so little harm over the years is that Buddha lived a good long life and had time to make sure that at least SOME of his followers "got it." He also predicted that people would have to come along and clean house once in a while, tossing out all the misinterpretations that had built up over the years.
Reminds me of Monty Python's "Life of Brian."
Woman: He has given us... His Shoe! 1st Man: The Shoe is a sign. Let us follow his example. 2nd Man: What? 1st Man: Let us, like Him, hold up one shoe and let the other be upon our foot, for this is His sign, that all who follow Him shall do likewise. 3rd Man: Yes! Woman: No, no no! The shoe is... Youth: No. Woman: a sign that we must gather shoes together in abundance. Girl: Cast off... 1st Man: Aye, what? Girl: the shoe! Follow the Gourd!
Yeah, occasionaly I come off that way. I just get a bug up my butt about something and write something completely flippant and then have to spend ten times as long explaining what I really meant. But MAN is it satisfying! I guess I just have to let my inner troll come out to play sometimes.;-)
No, the later is de-motivating. Avoiding pain soes not lead to adoptation of new behaviors, but squashing of old behaviors. Positive and negative reinforcement create new behaviors. Punishment and extinction inhibit beahviors. As for Mother Theresa, watch Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" for an interesting take on what a selfish, messed up, pain freak she really was. Also some other happy facts in that episode (Ghandi was a racist, and liked to sleep naked with young girls to 'prove' he had conquered sexual urges.)
Rand's fictional characters were Great Humans, but most of the people that I have met that espouse objectivism were incredibly selfish and just wanted to use it as an excuse to continue being selfish.
I'm actually an Objectivists who thinks objectivists are stupid, and a Libertarian who hates Libertarians. I can't believe I'm admitting this. I'm all for making charity voluntary, as long as I can verify who did and didn't help and publicly shame those who didn't. I'm not forcing anyone, but you can't force me to support those who don't help others. If I want to shout their names loudly in the middle of the street, I will.
And if I help people I'm going to make damn sure everyone knows about it. Not only so I'll get help in the future, should I need it, but because chicks dig a guy who has money to blow on charity. Smart chicks who are worth banging do, anyway.
Where do you propose all the people in 'event-prone' areas move to? You do know that you can't get insurance for some things in some places at any price, right? I say, let's invest in learning how to build things that don't fall down/blow over/float away and build those. Insurance is a scam. A clasic case of the problem the free market has in dealing with imbalances of information.
Then you are doing it because of the FEELING that being good/moral brings to you. May I suggest you go google for Mark Twain's essay, "What is Man?"
Read it and get back to us. Twain makes the argument so much better than Ayn ever could. Save you like 400 pages of BORING, and end up in the same place.
Go back and read what I wrote. I know for a fact that everything I have done has been for my own selfish reasons. I just like to think that my selfish reasons are more enlightned than some other people's. Helping people feels good because it is evolutionarily advantageous.
Making fun of people who don't help others feels good because it, too is evolutionarily advantageous. Obviously, my ancestors who made fun of lazy, stupid selfish people must have caught the eye of other cooperator types, and knowing that effective cooperation requires withdrawal of reward from free riders, they must have found that sexy. And cooperation is a very effective survival strategy.
I find Ayn Rand to be boring, her philosophy simplistic and most unfortunately, easily misinterpreted. It's mostly the people who use her philosophy as an excuse to be lazy selfish bastards that I have a problem with, but hey, lazy selfish bastards can use ANYONE's philosophy to be lazy selfish bastards. It's just that there is a continuum ranging from something like Scientology (easily misinterpreted, very little of actual worth) through Objectivism, Christianity, Sufism, to Taoism and Buddhism, both of which are hard to misinterpret as an excuse for selfish laziness and contain a great deal of useful information. But that's just my opinion.
I'm talking on a philosophical level. Privacy is a stopgap measure, designed to address an imbalance of information and power. Some people have a great deal more access to and ability to act on information. Privacy is a way of protecting oneself from abuse by these kinds of people. If everyone had equal access to information and equal ability to act on it, there would be no need for privacy. It took me a while to accept this, but the fact is that privacy is going away, we can fight to hold on to it, but it is going to go away. So what we really need to fight for is equal access to information. If there's not going to be any privacy, there shouldn't be privacy for anyone, any time.
Look, privacy isn't a right. Me watching you is a passive act, it does nothing to you by itself. You keeping me from watching you is an active infringement on MY rights. Until now, it has been in my best interest to make this compromise and give up my rights to look at anything I damn well please, because of the imbalance of power I mentioned. However, it no longer makes sense for me to support this artificial right, as the really powerful are no longer respecting this right and therefore it is no longer serving its intended purpose.
The only real right to privacy you have is to think your own thoughts. Any time you act, or say something, you are doing it in the world we share and I have a right to know how your speach or actions impact that world.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you read TFA. Where does it say anything about in uniform? Are you familiar with the phrase "color of law?" It means doing something as if it were the law when it isn't. Like saying in the employee handbook that you can be fired for any fraternization, when in fact union organizing activities are protected. The ruling says the wording is fine, employees should automatically understand that union organizing can't be prohibited, so nothing illegal is going on and the company can keep saying you can't fraternize without qualification.
The no in uniform thing was about distributing literature, as it says in the ruling. You can't even find the word "uniform" in the article. The constitution doesn't apply, you are signing away your rights when you sign the contract. Otherwise the ruling couldn't have been upheld at all.
You really make almost no sense whatsoever, and I feel like you are responding in a knee-jerk fashion, as you obviously haven't even read the article yourself. Please. Go on, read it and point out which paragraph mentions the word uniform. Then read the ruling, rather than daveschroeder's unfortunate misrepresentation of it, and tell me where it talks about fraternization in uniform. Give me a page number. Go ahead. I'm waiting.
I read the link you provided, and you have misrepresented what it says. The issue of being in uniform relates to distributing literature while off duty, and that in fact was the only one of the three issues that was found illegal. So employees may distribute literature while in uniform. Nowhere does it talk about fraternizing in uniform. You have confused two seperate issues.
The ruling states explicitly that prohibiting off-hours employee fraternization somehow would be automatically understood to not cover issues regarding section 7 rights. How the employees would understand this, I'm not sure, and in fact the one dissenting opinion mentions this. Being understood by the employees, the employer has no need to mention it in the handbook. So 1b doesn't really do anything. They can't interfere with section 7 protected activity, but they can sure make it sound like you will be fired for it.
Most of the rest of the ruling you quoted has nothing to do with the issue portrayed in the article. It has to do with the other two parts of the case. You have obfusctaed the issue, either deliberately or through ignorance. It took me all of two minutes actually reading the ruling you so kindly linked to in order to find your error, so I can only assume that you prevaricate on purpose.
With one ruling, the NLRB has made labor unions illegal. This puts an incredible weapon in the hands of management. It will only be enforced when fraternization becomes a problem for the employer, as in the case of union orginizing. I don't expect it to have much of an impact in IT, though, as this industry is one of the least unionized, at least in the US. However, in companies where employement is not at-will, meaning they have to have cause to fire you, a policy like this could certainly be instituted and then selectively enforced to fire just about anyone.
The whole system just looks like it's returning to feudalism. Your lord and master can dictate all aspects of your life.
I suppose if we go to Mars someone will have to invent a new breakfast drink. May I suggest calling it Poon(tm)?
Nice one! You really got the rubes riled up with that one. The best trolls are the simplest and most believable.
Note to the gullible: no one really says "Let us pray" outside a church sermon. They say things like "Our prayers are with them," or "We should pray for them" instead. Every Christian knows how corny "Let us pray" sounds. YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Moral relativism is a philosophy that is impossible for human beings to espouse consistently.
It's not impossible, you just have to understand semantic levels. On the universal level, there is nothing that is good or bad. There is nothing outside the infinite with which to measure and judge the infinite. All morals are created inside the infinite, by circumstances inside the infinite.
For any given subset of the infinite, there is an absolute morality that applies to that subset. That morality may not apply to other subsets of the infinite. So morality is absolute for a given subset but relative between subsets.
Hope that clears things up.
We are humans. Naming things, defining them, putting the universe in to little easy to understand boxes is what we do.
But duuuuude The Cosmos is bigger than your little boxes, dude! You can't understand it, you just think you understand it, which means you don't understand it even half as much as someone like me, who refuses to understand it at all.
Therefore we should call this planet, and everything else in The Cosmos "Marflar."
It's a... Oh, wait, it is a moon. My bad. Just a moon everybody, no need to panic.
I think if we want to do that we have to wear underwear on our heads and scan a bunch of pictures of girls from magazines into our computers using our printers during a thunderstorm.
You may want to google for "fairness reciprocity economic research." There is some amazing new research into human economic motivation going on now. Turns out the "selfish actor" theory is fatally flawed. We are selfish actors on a genetic level, but cooperation is built into our genes because it is a more effective strategy.
Anonymity is a form of privacy. It is contrary to my goal, but I am realistic and although I can't forsee any situations where it is needed, I can't see everything and there may well be need for compromise. Only Siths yadda yadda. As for authentication, what need is there for that when all information is free. If somebody else accesses your account, everyone will know. If a bad powerful person chooses to do something to you based on their knowledge, everyone will know. There will be no denying it, the facts are there. So how can someone act against the law, knowing their actions are being recorded at all times?
This still leaves the problem of the tyranny of the majority in a democracy, which is one conceivable reason for preserving some limited form of anonymity. One would hope that this problem could be solved in other ways, though.
Why do financial transactions need to be secret? The only reason I can think of is to screw over third parties in some way, and society has no incentive to protect a person's right to screw over third parties.
If you can come up with a good answer, I can come up with a solution. Bonded permanent anonymous identities. The identity is public, what it does is public, in case of malfeasance it is bonded, but there is no way to connect it back to a real person or company. So you can see that anonymous party X traded 50 widgets for $50 with anonymous party Y. I think this solves any potential secrecy problems while still preserving open access to information.
Hey, this is slashdot. Bazooka is about the smallest piece I pack around this place. Anything less won't get you noticed.
I didn't make it clear enough. I know that everything I do is selfish. I just think there is such a thing as enlightened self interest, and stupid self interest and I enjoy mocking the latter mercilessly. Cooperation is a more effective strategy than cooperation, but it requires withdrawel of reward from free riders. This is not coercion of cooperation, it is simply not allowing others to profit off my hard work. I'm only going to cooperate with other cooperators. If people don't want to help others, that's their business, but they would be hypocritical to expect others to help them.
Frankly I think Ayn Rand would despise most of the people who claim to follow her philosophy as "moth people." Most of them refuse to acknowledge how much help they are actually receiving from others in society, and how little they are giving back. They like objectivism because they can misinterpret it easily into something that makes them feel good for not caring about others.
I was not so much attacking her as her followers. If I wanted to attack her, I would call her works boring and long winded. Mark Twain said the same thing she did in about twelve pages in "What is Man?" and it was interesting and well written.
It's not that I don't agree with objectivism, it's just that I think it is too open to misinterpretation as an apologia for sociopaths.
Damn straight. You have hit the nail on the head as to the REAL problem with do gooders. I have always been a do gooder, and so I saw this first hand.
Arrogant sons-a-bitches go into some poor blighted community and start telling everyone there what they need to do to improve their poor, miserable selves. They don't listen, they don't ask questions. They are in it for all the wrong reasons and they don't really want to come up with a solution because they are profiting off the problem.
I actually have more respect for some selfish bastard who makes no excuse for his selfishness than deluded idiots like this (and yes, I know that this exactly is what Rand was talking about, okay? I like being contrary, so sue me. I can see from your posting history you wouldn't know anything about that, now would you?)
No, in fact I like having conversations with smart people who disagree with me more than I like having conversations with dumb people who agree with me.
I can tell when someone is a moron whether they agree with me or not. I think what we have here is a classic case of what psychologists like to call "projection." I dont agree with YOU, so I must be stupid. I think the laymans term for it is "Pot calling the kettle black."
Here's a concept for you: introspection. Means looking inside oneself honestly. I think it might help. I found it useful in a little process called GROWING UP.
Ahahaha. Good one. I'm in a trolling mood today. You got me.
I'm not morally superior to anyone, but I like making fun of people who use other people's philosophies as an excuse for their own worst behavior. Each kind of philosophy appeals to a different kind of asshole, and every philosophy appeals to some kind of asshole.
Look, I know I wasn't doing objectivism justice. See my other post in this thread where I admit to being a closet objectivist myself. I just don't like being associated with the term because I don't like most people who follow that philosophy. In my opinion, most of them are selfish pricks. I know that the Objectivists I have met have not been a staistical random sampling of the group, so maybe I am over generalizing.
I know I'm not the only one who has gotten the impresion that most objectivists want not just an excuse but a frickin medal for being selfish. If that isn't the impression the group wants to put out, maybe it should look into doing some better PR.
Or maybe I just like giving Objectivists a hard time.
I generally keep my Inner Troll locked up, but sometimes I have to let it out to play. Usually when the topic involves Ayn Rand or Libertarians. Oddly enough, not when it involves, say Creationsists or Republicans. I have too low an opinion of them to even try to troll them, but part of me thinks Randians and Libertarians should know better.
Yeah, pretty sure I read that, too. One reason Buddhism has done so little harm over the years is that Buddha lived a good long life and had time to make sure that at least SOME of his followers "got it." He also predicted that people would have to come along and clean house once in a while, tossing out all the misinterpretations that had built up over the years.
Reminds me of Monty Python's "Life of Brian."
Woman: He has given us... His Shoe!
1st Man: The Shoe is a sign. Let us follow his example.
2nd Man: What?
1st Man: Let us, like Him, hold up one shoe and let the other be upon our foot, for this is His sign, that all who follow Him shall do likewise.
3rd Man: Yes!
Woman: No, no no! The shoe is...
Youth: No.
Woman: a sign that we must gather shoes together in abundance.
Girl: Cast off...
1st Man: Aye, what?
Girl: the shoe! Follow the Gourd!
Yeah, occasionaly I come off that way. I just get a bug up my butt about something and write something completely flippant and then have to spend ten times as long explaining what I really meant. But MAN is it satisfying! I guess I just have to let my inner troll come out to play sometimes. ;-)
No, the later is de-motivating. Avoiding pain soes not lead to adoptation of new behaviors, but squashing of old behaviors. Positive and negative reinforcement create new behaviors. Punishment and extinction inhibit beahviors. As for Mother Theresa, watch Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" for an interesting take on what a selfish, messed up, pain freak she really was. Also some other happy facts in that episode (Ghandi was a racist, and liked to sleep naked with young girls to 'prove' he had conquered sexual urges.)
Rand's fictional characters were Great Humans, but most of the people that I have met that espouse objectivism were incredibly selfish and just wanted to use it as an excuse to continue being selfish.
I'm actually an Objectivists who thinks objectivists are stupid, and a Libertarian who hates Libertarians. I can't believe I'm admitting this. I'm all for making charity voluntary, as long as I can verify who did and didn't help and publicly shame those who didn't. I'm not forcing anyone, but you can't force me to support those who don't help others. If I want to shout their names loudly in the middle of the street, I will.
And if I help people I'm going to make damn sure everyone knows about it. Not only so I'll get help in the future, should I need it, but because chicks dig a guy who has money to blow on charity. Smart chicks who are worth banging do, anyway.
Where do you propose all the people in 'event-prone' areas move to? You do know that you can't get insurance for some things in some places at any price, right? I say, let's invest in learning how to build things that don't fall down/blow over/float away and build those. Insurance is a scam. A clasic case of the problem the free market has in dealing with imbalances of information.
Then you are doing it because of the FEELING that being good/moral brings to you. May I suggest you go google for Mark Twain's essay, "What is Man?"
Read it and get back to us. Twain makes the argument so much better than Ayn ever could. Save you like 400 pages of BORING, and end up in the same place.
Go back and read what I wrote. I know for a fact that everything I have done has been for my own selfish reasons. I just like to think that my selfish reasons are more enlightned than some other people's. Helping people feels good because it is evolutionarily advantageous.
Making fun of people who don't help others feels good because it, too is evolutionarily advantageous. Obviously, my ancestors who made fun of lazy, stupid selfish people must have caught the eye of other cooperator types, and knowing that effective cooperation requires withdrawal of reward from free riders, they must have found that sexy. And cooperation is a very effective survival strategy.
I find Ayn Rand to be boring, her philosophy simplistic and most unfortunately, easily misinterpreted. It's mostly the people who use her philosophy as an excuse to be lazy selfish bastards that I have a problem with, but hey, lazy selfish bastards can use ANYONE's philosophy to be lazy selfish bastards. It's just that there is a continuum ranging from something like Scientology (easily misinterpreted, very little of actual worth) through Objectivism, Christianity, Sufism, to Taoism and Buddhism, both of which are hard to misinterpret as an excuse for selfish laziness and contain a great deal of useful information. But that's just my opinion.
I'm talking on a philosophical level. Privacy is a stopgap measure, designed to address an imbalance of information and power. Some people have a great deal more access to and ability to act on information. Privacy is a way of protecting oneself from abuse by these kinds of people. If everyone had equal access to information and equal ability to act on it, there would be no need for privacy. It took me a while to accept this, but the fact is that privacy is going away, we can fight to hold on to it, but it is going to go away. So what we really need to fight for is equal access to information. If there's not going to be any privacy, there shouldn't be privacy for anyone, any time.
Look, privacy isn't a right. Me watching you is a passive act, it does nothing to you by itself. You keeping me from watching you is an active infringement on MY rights. Until now, it has been in my best interest to make this compromise and give up my rights to look at anything I damn well please, because of the imbalance of power I mentioned. However, it no longer makes sense for me to support this artificial right, as the really powerful are no longer respecting this right and therefore it is no longer serving its intended purpose.
The only real right to privacy you have is to think your own thoughts. Any time you act, or say something, you are doing it in the world we share and I have a right to know how your speach or actions impact that world.