I view privacy in the context of information flow.
Information = power
I want to maximize my power as an individual without taking too much away from others. To do this I engage in the following strategy:
Limit the information powerful people can get about me. By doing so I limit their power and increase my own.
Increase the information I have about powerful people. By doing so I limit their power and increase my own.
For example, my objection to body scanners is simply in the context of information/power flow. When I get scanned, the information flows to government (or potentially a hacker). Both of these groups have more power/information than I do. They get a freebie from me - I get absolutely nothing in return. If this power disparity went away. I would have no problem with body scanners. Scan everyone, and publish info to everyone else, and I'll go through these all day without a complaint. The key word is "everyone". Those who are left out, gain power at the expense of everyone else.
It is a 0 sum game - or maybe more like a battle really. The goal is for for everyone to get their fair share. "Fair share" depends which group you belong to. If you are in the government, then Wikileaks is pure evil because they are taking your precious power away from you. If you are a simple citizen, Wikileaks is probably your friend.
The interesting twist is that there are two types of information. Information you want public and information you want private information. What I described above is an example of private information. For public it's the opposite; spreading it actually increases your power. You could almost give it polarity:
+information = public.... example: advertisement for a laptop you are selling
-information = private.... example: your paypal password
I am posting this under my real name because I'm pretty certain that I'm dealing with +information in this post. But I'm taking a risk.. I could be wrong though.
This is where neutral polarity comes in. It just means you are not sure if you want it to be public or not yet. Some people air on the side of caution, others take the risk. That's the real difference between the "twittering-facebookers" and "7-proxy-tin-foil-wearing-folks"
Slashdot Mirror
I view privacy in the context of information flow.
.... example: advertisement for a laptop you are selling .... example: your paypal password
.. I could be wrong though.
Information = power
I want to maximize my power as an individual without taking too much away from others. To do this I engage in the following strategy:
Limit the information powerful people can get about me. By doing so I limit their power and increase my own.
Increase the information I have about powerful people. By doing so I limit their power and increase my own.
For example, my objection to body scanners is simply in the context of information/power flow. When I get scanned, the information flows to government (or potentially a hacker). Both of these groups have more power/information than I do. They get a freebie from me - I get absolutely nothing in return. If this power disparity went away. I would have no problem with body scanners. Scan everyone, and publish info to everyone else, and I'll go through these all day without a complaint. The key word is "everyone". Those who are left out, gain power at the expense of everyone else.
It is a 0 sum game - or maybe more like a battle really. The goal is for for everyone to get their fair share. "Fair share" depends which group you belong to. If you are in the government, then Wikileaks is pure evil because they are taking your precious power away from you. If you are a simple citizen, Wikileaks is probably your friend.
The interesting twist is that there are two types of information. Information you want public and information you want private information. What I described above is an example of private information. For public it's the opposite; spreading it actually increases your power. You could almost give it polarity:
+information = public
-information = private
I am posting this under my real name because I'm pretty certain that I'm dealing with +information in this post. But I'm taking a risk
This is where neutral polarity comes in. It just means you are not sure if you want it to be public or not yet. Some people air on the side of caution, others take the risk. That's the real difference between the "twittering-facebookers" and "7-proxy-tin-foil-wearing-folks"