[ExI] before?

[William Flynn Wallace]

Dan - That's you. The thing to wonder about is can people keep and expect
privacy about things regardless if you want to let the world know? For
instance, where I live, there are nude beaches. Obviously, those folks
don't care about their genitals being publicly seen, but does that mean no
one can, say, stop peeping toms?

Worst career choice I ever made:  going to law school.  Best one,
transferring to psych.  But in law school I found out that in a number of
places, it was a peeping tom offense if a man was looking at a woman, but
exhibitionism if a man was being looked at!  Talk about gender
discrimination!  In general I think a peeping tom cannot be stopped if he
is not on your property - then of course it's trespass.  I won't swear to
that.

Gender discrimination the other way:  in many states adultery is a felony
if a woman does it, but only a misdemeanor if a man does it.  I wonder who
passes these laws?

bill w

On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 8:12 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > We have touched on the issue of privacy several times lately and
> > I wonder if it received a lot of attention before I joined.
>
> I recall some discussion of universal surveillance, which would mean zero
> or near zero privacy. Or maybe I'm confusing this group with another. That
> discussion was before 2010.
>
> > We are concerned about it but I don't see any conclusions about
> > what the appropriate level of privacy is.
>
> That might be the tougher discussion to have if one agrees that there
> should be any privacy at all. I think the thing to worry about is big
> players like the state being able to effectively use information against
> everyone else. For instance, for most people there seem to be things about
> themselves that can be used to control them. A case in point might be,
> today, any private thoughts or talk about things that are currently deemed
> inappropriate -- where the person holding such thoughts or saying such
> things is likely to lose their job and be ostracized. Now, one could argue
> in a post-privacy world such things won't matter. That's possible, though
> things could go the other way: people conform as much as possible to avoid
> incurring all kinds of sanctions, and others realize that the whip of such
> sanctions can be used to keep people in line.
>
> > Denmark is making a necrogenomic database: DNA from everyone who dies.
> > Is this appropriate?  I don't know what else they are collecting, such
> as cause
> > of death and so on, but in the  long run this could do a lot of good.
> It could
> > also run up insurance rates for the descendants in some countries if the
> > insurance companies got hold of the data.
>
> The issue for civil libertarians would be any requirement to do so. Is
> there any allowing people to practically opt out?
>
> > For myself, I am an open person who will tell you my grandmother's shoe
> > size if asked.  I don't care what anyone knows about me as long as my
> > Visa card is safe.
>
> That's you. The thing to wonder about is can people keep and expect
> privacy about things regardless if you want to let the world know? For
> instance, where I live, there are nude beaches. Obviously, those folks
> don't care about their genitals being publicly seen, but does that mean no
> one can, say, stop peeping toms?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>   Sample my Kindle books via:
> http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160402/4067708c/attachment.html>