undefined | Better HN

0 pointscoremoff2y ago0 comments

This declaration uses the word "privacy" once, and doesn't define it - and that's what we're seeing here and elsewhere.

Also, what does it mean to free from arbitrary interferrence with privacy? Interferrence implies more than observation, in my view.

0 comments

jruohonen2y ago

> This declaration uses the word "privacy" once, and doesn't define it - and that's what we're seeing here and elsewhere.

So is the word "life" mentioned also once. Do we need to argue also about that? Declarations and constitutions are not supposed to include rigorous definitions. See also:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12...

coremoffOP2y ago

This discussion isn't about the word life, it's about privacy; I'm sure the question of "life" will become harder if we end up creating sentient AGI...

Privacy in this discussion can mean different things, where there are definite overlaps, but also distinction:

* privacy of action (being sure that no one is watching what I'm doing) * privacy in communication (being sure that my priviliged information isn't compromised)

We should be concerned with the second; the first is already lost

uoaei2y ago

We should be concerned with those who pretend that historical precedent is a thing when it comes to questions of ethics, indeed anyone who conflates ethics with legalistic frameworks.

IMO the largest barrier to progress today is that too many people think the point of laws is to dictate ethics. This leads them to believe that legal things are good and illegal things are bad, and then you get horribly circular arguments like those above.

1 more reply

jruohonen2y ago

If you want a philosophical debate, we can start from this classic (see particularly Section B):

https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

jruohonen2y ago

> This declaration uses the word "privacy" once, and doesn't define it - and that's what we're seeing here and elsewhere.

So is the word "life" mentioned also once. Do we need to argue also about that? Declarations and constitutions are not supposed to include rigorous definitions. See also:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12...

coremoffOP2y ago

This discussion isn't about the word life, it's about privacy; I'm sure the question of "life" will become harder if we end up creating sentient AGI...

Privacy in this discussion can mean different things, where there are definite overlaps, but also distinction:

* privacy of action (being sure that no one is watching what I'm doing) * privacy in communication (being sure that my priviliged information isn't compromised)

We should be concerned with the second; the first is already lost

uoaei2y ago

We should be concerned with those who pretend that historical precedent is a thing when it comes to questions of ethics, indeed anyone who conflates ethics with legalistic frameworks.

1 more reply

jruohonen2y ago

If you want a philosophical debate, we can start from this classic (see particularly Section B):

https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse