Privacy, Secrecy, and Lies

[Ten oz]

My thoughts on the following are not entirely flushed out so please bare with..

 

Is there any value for society as a whole in privacy, secrecy, and lying? Following the Sony hacks many people felt due to the private nature of the emails Amy Pascal and others should be absolved publically of criticism. Following Julian Assange's wiki leaks the argument was made that such breaks in secrecy endangered people. And of course wealth individuals and corperations feel it is their free speech right to out right lie and climate science and the environment. Is any of that true?

Sony Hacks were happened during a time when across the United States minority were protesting unequal treatment. A national debate was being had about whether or not racism still existed in a meaningful way. Some of the hacked emails showed high level managers of a large multinational company dicussing race in a manner that would never be done publically. Is there value in society knowing the truth or does the individual's right to privacy trump that?

Millions have been killed or displaced in the global were on terror. Errors have been made and people have been mislead. Jullian Assange exposed some of that. However by doing so arguably endangered forces still in the field. Which value is greater: society knowing the truth of war or the security that secrecy helps create?

As for Climate Change denial; when is a lie just lie? There is differences in opinion and then there is just straight up denial because one party or the other doesn't want to live with the conclusions of the truth. Is there any benifit?

 

I am not on a soapbox. I honestly am not sure how I feel about these examples. I would not want my emails read nor do I want other nations to get a strategic advantage over my country do to leaks. However both are self serving. Perhaps society would be better off if it were completely open. Then again such openess would create advantages for the worst amongst us.

[fiveworlds]

However by doing so arguably endangered forces still in the field. Which value is greater: society knowing the truth of war or the security that secrecy helps create?

 

 

If you want to be the good people and you believe that what you are doing is right then what is the reason for secrecy? Sure don't say things like battle plans etc but realistically if the government were spying on its public and they are afraid to tell people that they are. That they feel the necessity to hide in the shadows then are they good people?

 

 

Then again such openess would create advantages for the worst amongst us.

 

 

That is not necessarily true. Many people in certain states are for the death penalty some states are not. You have to accept that people should have some right to choose instead of doing things without their knowledge. Such secrecy implies that the people were going to make the wrong decision if given the choice and the fact is that they have no idea what the people would have decided because they never bothered to ask.

[Ten oz]

@ Fiveworlds, on some level wouldn't that change the behavior of those looking to do bad if they know who was observing and when? Also sometimes agencies are looking to connect the dots. Reading my emails to find someone else who may have spoken to the person they are after. Too much openness may close that pathway off.

At the same time I do see a problem with society not knowing what it's government is doing in realtime. We tend to find out the truth after the fact, if at all. That lag has cost more lives than any leak every has.

[fiveworlds]

@ Fiveworlds, on some level wouldn't that change the behavior of those looking to do bad if they know who was observing and when? Also sometimes agencies are looking to connect the dots. Reading my emails to find someone else who may have spoken to the person they are after. Too much openness may close that pathway off.

At the same time I do see a problem with society not knowing what it's government is doing in realtime. We tend to find out the truth after the fact, if at all. That lag has cost more lives than any leak every has.

 

 

But what you don't get is that while assange said a lot of stuff there hasn't been any major riots as a result more like people prefer that the government was doing something about terrorism rather than doing nothing. I think a lot of people are more peeved that they weren't informed of the acts rather than the acts themselves. The fact is that a lot of these things happened here for years but more often than not all they found were people who wanted to kill themselves and sometimes the government pulls these people up and asks them what is wrong and are they ok.

Edited February 15, 2015 by fiveworlds

[Phi for All]

I try to avoid behavior I'd be ashamed for anyone to find out about. This obviates the need for most lies.

 

To me, privacy is mostly about leaving me to my lawful business. This type of privacy isn't about secrecy, imo. If there was a definite benefit for society to know when I'm going on vacation, or what kind of security system I've installed, I wouldn't necessarily miss this type of privacy. I know of no benefit, but I do know of some detriments to NOT keeping these things private.

 

Secrecy is for when you don't want specific people to know what you know. It's not always bad; if I don't want my favorite vacation spot overrun with other tourists, I don't tell anyone about it. Businesses have lots of legitimate secrets that help them stay profitable. But many people and businesses (yes, two separate things) need to keep illegal activity secret.

 

Lies are obviously the big problem. Deception, compounded by secrecy. Is it ever OK for a government to lie to its people? I don't think so. I think, in every situation I can imagine, I want as much accurate information as is possible, so my decisions are informed and meaningful.

[Ten oz]

@ Fiveworlds, I don't disagree with you are saying. I rather regret even mentioning Assange or the Sony hacks. I am not looking to have a discussion about those things directly. Phi for All responded to the broader idea I am trying to discuss.

 

 

 

I try to avoid behavior I'd be ashamed for anyone to find out about. This obviates the need for most lies.

 

To me, privacy is mostly about leaving me to my lawful business. This type of privacy isn't about secrecy, imo. If there was a definite benefit for society to know when I'm going on vacation, or what kind of security system I've installed, I wouldn't necessarily miss this type of privacy. I know of no benefit, but I do know of some detriments to NOT keeping these things private.

Yet surely you have done or said many things you'd be ashamed of. We all have. In our culture it is common place to hide our heads in the sand and allow others to be shamed or held accountable by society for things that are far more common than is comfortable to admit like masterbation, eating disorders, homosexuality, domestic abuse, racism, sexually transmitted diseases, addiction, and etc, etc. All the privacy we experience in handling embarressment enables society to deny the real magnitude things. What is considered normal (or even worse virtuous) is actually abnormal. Then those who have the misfortune of beig outed as normal are persecuted by our society in denial. Teenage girs who have sex labelled sluts and people with same sex attraction labelled perverts by the same people that find nothing adnormal about religious vows of celibacy.

 

Secrecy is for when you don't want specific people to know what you know. It's not always bad; if I don't want my favorite vacation spot overrun with other tourists, I don't tell anyone about it. Businesses have lots of legitimate secrets that help them stay profitable. But many people and businesses (yes, two separate things) need to keep illegal activity secret.

So there is an obvious benifit to business and certian individuals but what about society as a whole? Does society benifit from allowing business to keep secrets that help enable greater profits? Does society benifit from individuals keeping good things to themselves?

 

Lies are obviously the big problem. Deception, compounded by secrecy. Is it ever OK for a government to lie to its people? I don't think so. I think, in every situation I can imagine, I want as much accurate information as is possible, so my decisions are informed and meaningful.

 

This is a tough one. Can any politician win office without lying? Is it better to have the atheist leader who lies about being religious to win votes or the true believer that believes God's law trumps democracy? I think in a world where there is privacy and secrecy lying may possibly be a necessary evil? Edited February 16, 2015 by Ten oz

[fiveworlds]

In our culture it is common place to hide our heads in the sand and allow others to be shamed or held accountable by society for things that are far more common than is comfortable to admit like masterbation, eating disorders, homosexuality, domestic abuse, racism, sexually transmitted diseases, addiction, and etc, etc.

 

 

True but so far I haven't seen people pulled up over these things but in egypt things are a different story http://rt.com/news/221615-egypt-atheism-facebook-jail/. The terrorists want to scare america into looking bad as I see it what happened is exactly what the terrorist would have wanted. To portray america in a bad light and have people turn against them as a result. They want to make america out to be the devil, a liar and a deceiver and if they lie to their own people that is exactly what they are going to look like. All the terrorists would like is a jihad against america

Edited February 16, 2015 by fiveworlds

[Ten oz]

True but so far I haven't seen people pulled up over these things but in egypt things are a different story http://rt.com/news/221615-egypt-atheism-facebook-jail/. The terrorists want to scare america into looking bad as I see it what happened is exactly what the terrorist would have wanted. To portray america in a bad light and have people turn against them as a result. They want to make america out to be the devil, a liar and a deceiver and if they lie to their own people that is exactly what they are going to look like.

Clearly more honesty in that part of the world would be helpful.

Playing devils advocate I do see some obvious flaws in my logic. In previous eras people were more honest about their thoughts and it lead to overt racism and misogyny. So there might be some benefits to privacy, secrecy, and lying I just haven't been able to identify yet.

[fiveworlds]

So there might be some benefits to privacy, secrecy, and lying I just haven't been able to identify yet.

 

 

Of course there is if you are going to court you don't give the opposition your opening arguments prior to court do you?

[Ten oz]

Of course there is if you are going to court you don't give the opposition your opening arguments prior to court do you?

That would benefit an individual lawyer but does nothing for society as a whole. There are many obvious personal things to be gained from privacy, secrecy, and lying but I am wondering what good it they do the entire human race?

[swansont]

I try to avoid behavior I'd be ashamed for anyone to find out about. This obviates the need for most lies.

 

I think there's a considerable need for privacy/secrecy that falls outside of this, IMO.

 

There are some behaviors that only a subset of a population would consider wrong, and you might not be ashamed of it. But what if people who think it's wrong hold power in some way over you? Then you might feel a need to keep it a secret. Those who think certain bigotry is wrong, but live in a region where that's the dominant view, for example (e.g. those who thought the persecution of Jews was wrong in Nazi Germany. Supporters of the persecuted in areas where the KKK holds/held power). LGBT behavior.

[Phi for All]

Yet surely you have done or said many things you'd be ashamed of. We all have. In our culture it is common place to hide our heads in the sand and allow others to be shamed or held accountable by society for things that are far more common than is comfortable to admit like masterbation, eating disorders, homosexuality, domestic abuse, racism, sexually transmitted diseases, addiction, and etc, etc.

I used to drink too much. Twenty-three years ago I stopped, and as part of my recovery, I took a look at all the shameful things I'd done while drinking. Since then, I just try not to say anything about anyone I wouldn't say to their face. I try not to do anything I would be ashamed to have anyone know about (and no, I'm not ashamed to say I masturbate). I have no more addictions (I gave up smoking also), I've never done anything to anyone that would send me to jail. I can't think of a single secret I have that I'd lie to protect.

 

All the privacy we experience in handling embarressment enables society to deny the real magnitude things. What is considered normal (or even worse virtuous) is actually abnormal. Then those who have the misfortune of beig outed as normal are persecuted by our society in denial. Teenage girs who have sex labelled sluts and people with same sex attraction labelled perverts by the same people that find nothing adnormal about religious vows of celibacy.

I hate the fact that there are no positive words for a woman who likes sex, and no negative words for a man who likes sex. I'm not advocating negativity here, but I think the most negative thing I've ever heard said about a man who likes sex is to call him an "addict".

 

People feel threatened about concepts like virtue. They fear that those who aren't virtuous will somehow sully those who are. I think the fears are probably somewhat justified, since many of those who profess virtue are the ones who fall off the wagon hardest when they do fall. But that's not the fault of others. Sometimes I think the people who consider themselves most virtuous have the most secrets to hide.

 

So there is an obvious benifit to business and certian individuals but what about society as a whole? Does society benifit from allowing business to keep secrets that help enable greater profits? Does society benifit from individuals keeping good things to themselves?

As far as business secrets go, as long as they aren't hiding illegal activity, I think they mostly fall under the intellectual property umbrella. If I discover a legal process that lets me make my product or deliver my service in a way that makes it better/faster/cheaper than my competition, I see no problem ethically. The benefit to society is that my inefficient competitors will fail and clear the way for investments in other areas, leaving my business as the market leader for as long as I can maintain my innovation.

 

Personally, although I'm a free market proponent, I think there are certain things that don't benefit from private resources. I'm not a fan of private utilities, I think energy, water, and sanitation should be publicly funded and maintained. I don't think prisons for profit work very well at all. I don't mind private companies making a legitimate profit from legal activity. But I think too many areas of our lives are being privatized in a way that makes no sense.

 

As far as keeping good things quiet, let's take an extreme example like a new power supply. I develop a small, quiet generator that most people with a general handiness could put together for about $300, it requires nothing out of pocket to operate, and can easily power the average home. I determine that, since it's pretty simple and easily knocked off anyway, I'm going to give it to the world for free instead of trying to build a huge corporation around the product, or sell the idea to an existing corporation (one who may decide to shelve the idea to protect their existing business, like Chevron did with their large format batteries for electric cars). Almost overnight, there could be people generating their own power. Is that better for society, or should there be some kind of transition so the existing power companies can avoid firing all their workers? The free market says "Tough, suck it up", but you know the biggest energy corporations would scream for special privilege. Would they be wrong?

 

This is a tough one. Can any politician win office without lying? Is it better to have the atheist leader who lies about being religious to win votes or the true believer that believes God's law trumps democracy? I think in a world where there is privacy and secrecy lying may possibly be a necessary evil?

I hate that most people assume politics = lying. I also dislike that campaign "promises" aren't held to as strict rules as regular promises. For some reason, we want that promise even though we know it probably won't get fulfilled. We don't elect that guy who says, "We're going to do everything we can to get the budget balanced". Instead, we elect the guy who swears he'll do it, even when we know he's being unrealistic.

 

Unless we're liars, we shouldn't be represented in our government by them. I understand that some lies are necessary for security ("We have no mission planned to retrieve our citizens being held hostage"), but someone who lies about what they believe just to get the votes necessary for office isn't telling necessary lies. They're just lying.

[Ten oz]

I think there's a considerable need for privacy/secrecy that falls outside of this, IMO.

 

There are some behaviors that only a subset of a population would consider wrong, and you might not be ashamed of it. But what if people who think it's wrong hold power in some way over you? Then you might feel a need to keep it a secret. Those who think certain bigotry is wrong, but live in a region where that's the dominant view, for example (e.g. those who thought the persecution of Jews was wrong in Nazi Germany. Supporters of the persecuted in areas where the KKK holds/held power). LGBT behavior.

 

On a certian level didn't people keeping their own views private allow those strong minority movements (Nazi, KKK ) to grow in the first place? Confrontation avoidance for many people seems to trump political or ethical views as they pertain to strangers. The personal need to fly below the radar in many circumstances can hurt society at large.

[swansont]

On a certian level didn't people keeping their own views private allow those strong minority movements (Nazi, KKK ) to grow in the first place? Confrontation avoidance for many people seems to trump political or ethical views as they pertain to strangers. The personal need to fly below the radar in many circumstances can hurt society at large.

 

No, not really. I can't blame individuals for confrontation avoidance when violence is involved, and it's not like attitudes toward religious and ethnic minorities just appeared out of nowhere. It's not like things were fine and dandy for blacks (mainly in the south, but everywhere in the US, really) and then the KKK popped up, and it's not like Jews were not persecuted until the Nazis showed up.

[Ten oz]

No, not really. I can't blame individuals for confrontation avoidance when violence is involved, and it's not like attitudes toward religious and ethnic minorities just appeared out of nowhere. It's not like things were fine and dandy for blacks (mainly in the south, but everywhere in the US, really) and then the KKK popped up, and it's not like Jews were not persecuted until the Nazis showed up.

So you don't think apathy played a role? Segregation in the south went on for 75yrs. I believe the majority of the people in the United States disagreed with segregation but were unwilling to confront the issue. Eventually when enough leaders fostered the courage to protest in the face of violence was the issue resolved. Thousands gave their lives but society as a whole is now better off and could have been so sooner if more people outside of the South had been willing to speak up sooner. So while confrontation avoidance is a natural thing for an individual the question is more directed toward the greater good. Does it help society? Is it beneficial society when racism, climate denial, religious law, etc is placated by those who know better simply to avoid arguement? If I believe something to be true yet can only say so in private or secretly isn't that a signal of a problem greater than my personal need for conflict avoidance?

 

 

 

 

@ Phi for All, thank you for your response. Even with the privacy provided us by screen names I doubt many would feel comfortable discussing some of the things you addressed. In the face of the many problems society has that people attempt to ignore and downplay we rely on those of us with the courage of honesty. If must be very hard for women to come forward and speak about sexual harassment in the work place knowing that they will be labelled negatively and judged. For a grown man to come forward and speak about molestations experienced in church as a youth. Unfortunately many keep their silence and issues stay unaddressed for decades. Bill Cosby's seemingly multi decade reign of terror as a recent high profile example. Apparently lots of people knew but chose to handle it privately while others kept secrets for Cosby.

I had considered including intellectual property in this discussion but chose against it as I thought it may derail the conversation. That many would not view it as related like I do. So I am glad you spoke to that. Yet am hesitant to elaborate too much. I think Intellectual property is an involved enough thing to support its own thread and could possibly shallow this one. What I will say is that all discoveries made, all knowledge, is accumulative. Sharing knowledge and building on what others invented is how humans got to where we are. So no one has invented anything in a vacuum and I knowledge ownership merely slows the process of our accumulative intelligence. We error towards individual recognition and wealth over the progression of humanity.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Ten oz

[overtone]

If you don't have anything to hide from anybody you don't have a life.

 

We have an interest in our children, coworkers, employers, and passing strangers not knowing the details of our sex lives, for example.

 

And we have seen the role of mob shaming and thuggery against the vulnerable on the internet. Suicides have come of this.

 

There are psychiatrically disturbed people out there, and I don't want them rummaging through my garbage, old emails, etc.

 

And of course the government is occasionally an enemy - unless you think it would be a good idea to have that nasty little jerk who sat behind you in 10th grade and now works for the NSA checking your car's GPS and data recorder to see if you are breaking traffic laws or parking next to strip clubs.

[Ten oz]

@ Overtone, I think the benefit to individuals is fairly obviously. I am asking if it benefits society as a whole. I think on a certian level the reason why a persons sex life (for example) can be used against them is because so few people are honest or open. Fear of being labeled negatively, made fun of, disappointing their family, or worse motivates people to stay quiet or lie. People pretend that societal norms like masterbation or sex before marriage are uncommon things mostly done by bad people and later regretted. We mostly all know that isnt true but say nothing to avoid being impugned. In a society where all walls were see through such distortions wouldn't as be possible. Of course that would come at the experience of individuals who are not interested in being examples.

This is just a question.i am not advocating for everyone to have a camera in their bedrooms. I am just wondering if this is an area where our personal needs are holding society back or vice versa.

[MigL]

Always, and I mean ALWAYS, lie to a woman when she asks you if she looks fat in that dress !

[swansont]

So you don't think apathy played a role?

 

Played a role? Perhaps — it's not unreasonable to suppose that some people recognized the situation and just didn't care about the plight the oppressed. But when violence/intimidation is involved, I can't chalk up all inaction to "apathy". That's not the same as self-preservation.

[CharonY]

Always, and I mean ALWAYS, lie to a woman when she asks you if she looks fat in that dress !

 

Wait, what if she looks gorgeous?

[overtone]

@ Overtone, I think the benefit to individuals is fairly obviously. I am asking if it benefits society as a whole.

I think the level of secrecy or privacy best for society in general is an adult judgment call, and depends on circumstances.

 

Generally speaking, I would argue for more openness and less privacy as a social norm, in this and almost all societies - but:

 

I think individuals should be able to leave their past behind, change their behaviors, learn from their mistakes and childhood embarrassments, and not be dogged by reputations earned as eight year olds. For that, some childhood privacy seems essential. One's mother, father, siblings, friends, coaches, and parole officers should keep certain secrets. Society benefits, by not trapping people in their past.

 

I think relaxed norms of openness should be enforced, across class and status and function. Anything rich or powerful people expect to know about you, you can expect to know about them - and anything the rich and powerful can hide if they want to, so can you. The societal benefits there are obvious.

 

Among the features of beneficial openness must be openness about who knows what: everyone is entitled to know what it is that any other people know about them, and how they know it.

 

And solitude for individuals is essential, including solitude in thinking, for societal health. That would include anonymity in expression of thought.

 

In general a more open society must be to that greater extent an egalitarian one and a voluntary in other words, for there to be benefit. And that puts some limits on opening a society up, in practice.

Edited February 19, 2015 by overtone

[MigL]

How far would you extend that overtone ?

Consider the many cases of German war criminals.

They may have been brutal guards at Prison Camps during the war. left their home country to come to the US/Canada after the war, worked at a GM plant for 30+ yrs and raised a family. They live a normal, constructive life for 50 yrs, yet if their past is found out, they are prosecuted in their old age.

They have obviously left their past behind, learned to live with other people of differing lifestyles and ideologies and changed their ways. What are you thoughts ? Is prosecution necessary or not ?

[Ten oz]

@ overtone, I think on many levels the reason why people can't leave their pasts behind is because society is built on so many false pretenses that are protected by Privacy, Secrecy, and Lies. How many people do you suspect sit in prison today for crimes that their arresting officer, prosecutor, and Judge are are also guilty of? Things like drug use, reckless driving, driving under the influence (phrama, alcohol, illicit drugs), domestic violence, child abuse, and etc are far more common that we generally admit. Rather than acknowledging that most people make these poor decisions at various points along the way society plays holier than thou. For example in a truly honest society should anyone be in prison for drugs?

 

 

@ MigL, terrific scenario. In an honest society I think people would acknowledge the human propensity to follow cultural trends. Especially miltary personal. Following orders without hesitation is seen as a valuable trait amongst service members. As it relate to culture broadly following the emancipation act the government did not seek to prosecute former slave owners for civil rights violation. No one ever atoned for killing natives Americans. Rather society progresses best, IMHO, when mistakes are openly acknowledged and people are able to move on. If retribution, justice, or whatever its called is truly a necessity to move beyond wrong doings than the whole planet must be burned to a cinder because there isn't a group of people on earth today who haven't benefited from or participated in some crime against someone else.