The Paradox of Privacy

We’ve had all these statutes  protecting information about people: financial, medical, and the like, in the name of protecting their “privacy”.  But I’ve always known there are TWO kinds of privacy.  And Jeffrey TooBin has just illustrated the difference.
It was only a matter of time before something like this happened!   The kind of privacy I’m talking about is the  basic knowledge we all have, even though we very seldom talk about it: Everybody does certain things we don’t want anybody else to SEE us doing.  Solitary pleasures: picking our noses, scratching our asses, urinating and defecation, and: masturbating.  Fiddling with our privates is, indeed, the final bastion of privacy.

In Dave Eggers ’ great book the Circle,  which I heartily recommend,   The stalwarts of the company representing a thinly disguised Google live by the slogan: Privacy is Theft.  People go “transparent” meaning everything they do, all day and night long, is live-streamed to..millions.  The one exception is they may turn off the camera when they go to the bathroom. I really dk why stop there.

Notice Toobin isn’t apologizing for exposing himself, nor for beating off in front of the world.  Smart guy!  The time will catch up with him.  At the rate things are going, by next month everybody will feel free to emulate him.  Zoom zoom!

8+
avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar

11 thoughts on “The Paradox of Privacy”

  1. I do not understand why he received any criticism at all from any Democrats, journalists or other Leftists.   They have been promoting a coarsening of standards and have embraced every imaginable or unimaginable sexual act, ever since the dawn of the Enlightenment.

    1+
    avatar
  2. Hypatia:
    Notice Toobin isn’t apologizing for exposing himself, nor for beating off in front of the world.  Smart guy!  The time will catch up with him.  At the rate things are going, by next month everybody will feel free to emulate him.  Zoom zoom!

    We’ve already gone down this road and it was a dead end.

    When webcams were new (1996), there was Jennicam.

    19-year-old Ringley installed a webcam in her college dorm room and provided images from that cam on a webpage.

    At times during the first couple of years of JenniCam, Ringley performed stripteases for the webcam.

    But wait, there’s more:

    She did not wish to filter the events that were shown on her camera, so sometimes she was shown nude or engaging in sexual behavior, including sexual intercourse and masturbation.

    How did this exhibitionist end up?

    Since the end of 2003, Ringley has avoided having a presence on the Internet and on social media and tries to stay out of public spotlight.

    The topper is that she ended up married to a guy named Johnson.

    5+
    avataravataravataravataravatar
  3. A prophetic and under-appreciated view of privacy in the age of ubiquitous surveillance is David Brin’s The Transparent Society, published in 1999 (it remains in print, and is also available on Kindle).  I read it in 2003, which is before I started reviewing books I read, so I don’t have a canned review at which to point you, but the essential message is the following.  The cameras are coming: they’re becoming so cheap (remember, this was published more than two decades ago, when most public Internet access was via dial-up), the processing to monitor them, and the storage to keep everything forever are declining in price even faster, so it is inevitable that before long everything that happens in every public place (and in many private spaces, such as workplaces) will be monitored and archived.  (Even visionary Brin did not anticipate people paying to install surveillance devices in their houses, called “smart speakers” and the like.)

    Now, what he argues is that given that the cameras are coming (and now, mostly here), who do you want to be able to monitor them?  The FBI?  Gag me with a post-hole digger!  His answer is, everybody.  All of these camera feeds and archives should be open source and available to anybody with the bandwidth and tools to mine them.  If the Man wants to snoop on us, then turnabout’s fair play.  There’s more of Us than Them, and we already have vastly more computing power and will soon have far more network bandwidth with 5G.

    Based on this idea, in April 2016, I proposed the following on another Web site.

    My view is that if they want to snoop on every aspect of citizens’ lives, then turnabout’s fair play. Put cameras and microphones in all federal offices and taps on all their phones. These would be browseable by anybody. There would be no need to require them to archive it: this would be accomplished by citizen snoops using their own Big Data resources. There would be national security exemptions for, say, military officers of O-6 and above and civilians GS-15 and above, based upon access to sensitive information. Worker bees at CIA, NRO, and NSA would not be exempt. All elected officials would be subject to this citizen oversight.

    I’d call it the “Surveillance Reciprocity Act of 2017”. I had hoped to see President Paul sign it, but that is not to be.

    These ideas are explored in more depth in a book I’m currently reading, Assassin, by Doug Casey and John Hunt.  Although I’ve exchanged E-mail on several occasions with co-author John Hunt, I don’t believe it was I who got him thinking along these lines.

    6+
    avataravataravataravataravataravatar
  4. If that is all Toobin has, he should call in Slo’ Joe Biden and share lowered expectations.  As for Ringley…did the Wayback machine immortalize anything way back there?

    “Dr.” Jill has an Ed.D. (a submitted lesson plan plus purchased good will from the granting Department). She’s a Biden!

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  5. True what JW says, but this phenom is sump’n a little different than the government invading our most private rituals.  (That makes me think of the phrase “sacred precincts of the matital bedroom”. Which I read in some court opinion about anal sex or the like.  But the phrase for me conjures up some Naughty Policewoman cosplay…oh never mind. 🤣)
    Here’s my point: Toobin WANTED to share  this moment of self-affirmation, or, at the very least, he isn’t sorry he did. it was the equivalent of a “hot mic” moment where a political figure (supposedly) accidentally reveals his true feelings about a particular issue.
    well…idk, I reckon this crap is all cultural.  I had a Chinese  friend who said she wanted to throw up every time she saw people blow their noses and then put the hanky back in their pockets…and that despite the notorious filth of Chinese cities. ButI think eliminating the  idea, the concept, of privacy, is a step, toward , yuh: communism. With a small C.  It will be much easier to turn us all into a faceless hive if we are convinced we no longer even have  the right to shield from public gaze those areas of our bodies of which our first parents famously  became  “ashamed” as soon as they knew good from evil. Pissed as He was, God took pity on them and clothed them.  Individuals  on the Left would strip themselves again.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  6. Hypatia:
    Pissed as He was, God took pity on them and clothed them.  Individuals  on the Left would strip themselves again.

    Hyp, if you penned the Hypation Version Bible. Why, I would read it ! 😉

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  7. Kevin Schulte:

    Hypatia:
    Pissed as He was, God took pity on them and clothed them.  Individuals  on the Left would strip themselves again.

    Hyp, if you penned the Hypation Version Bible. Why, I would read it ! 😉

    Thanks,  dear Kevin!  I venture there are several in the Mischief who would burn it💀👿😱🤗!

    2+
    avataravatar
  8. I just looked up the story about Our First Fashions, and was thrown into hysterics by a debate  I found about whether God actually killed animals😢  to get those “skins” with which He clothed Adam and Eve. Lotsa exegesis about that, incredibly to me, since right after that  we have the Cain and Abel story,  the entire mis en scene  of which is that God preferred flambéed meat to grilled veggies.  What fools these mortals be….

    2+
    avataravatar
  9. Hypatia:
    It will be much easier to turn us all into a faceless hive if we are convinced we no longer even have  the right to shield from public gaze those areas of our bodies of which our first parents famously  became  “ashamed” as soon as they knew good from evil. Pissed as He was, God took pity on them and clothed them.  Individuals  on the Left would strip themselves again.

    Good observation.

    Since the Left views us as animals anyhow, that is entirely in keeping with their longstanding effort to return us all to Noble Savage subsistence farming.

    0

  10. Hypatia:
    I just looked up the story about Our First Fashions, and was thrown into hysterics by a debate  I found about whether God actually killed animals😢  to get those “skins” with which He clothed Adam and Eve. Lotsa exegesis about that, incredibly to me, since right after that  we have the Cain and Abel story,  the entire mis en scene  of which is that God preferred flambéed meat to grilled veggies.  What fools these mortals be….

    I have seen that also.  I think it comes from a misguided notion that God should be nice, and also prudish.

    Once sin entered the world, then death followed immediately.

    2+
    avataravatar
  11. MJBubba:

    Hypatia:
    I just looked up the story about Our First Fashions, and was thrown into hysterics by a debate  I found about whether God actually killed animals😢  to get those “skins” with which He clothed Adam and Eve. Lotsa exegesis about that, incredibly to me, since right after that  we have the Cain and Abel story,  the entire mis en scene  of which is that God preferred flambéed meat to grilled veggies.  What fools these mortals be….

    I have seen that also.  I think it comes from a misguided notion that God should be nice, and also prudish.

    Once sin entered the world, then death followed immediately.

    But death was there anyway, right?  We weren’t gonna live forever, or why does God  panic and say: get ‘em outta here before they eat the fruit of the Tree of Life—which incidentally He had NOT forbidden?  He didn’t care if we became immortal, so long as we didn’t possess the ONE faculty which makes a god: the discernment between good and evil.

    0

Leave a Reply