[coremoff]

I think here you're conflating phsyical security (am I safe in my home) with privacy (am I unobserved).

Yes, I would argue that controlling information access to property should not be considered a fundamental right - in that it's practically un-enforceable for privacy purposes already; I do think there should be an expectation that you can walk around your property without fear of bumping into some stranger though.

Clearly it's not as cut and dried as that, as physical security is required to ensure that you can have information privacy too, but I think it's important to maintain the distinction.

[BaseballPhysics]

> Yes, I would argue that controlling information access to property should not be considered a fundamental right - in that it's practically un-enforceable for privacy purposes already;

So you don't think it should be a fundamental right because we lost the right before we realized how important it was?

That's a strange argument.

> I do think there should be an expectation that you can walk around your property without fear of bumping into some stranger though.

Why?

If I walk onto your property and stare in your windows, if "physical security" is important but "privacy" isn't, why should you be allowed to stop me? I'm not threatening you. I'm just watching you. Sounds fine to me.

Or perhaps you'd be fine if I just did it from the public sidewalk with a telephoto lens aimed at your bedroom?

What if I then took a bunch of naked photos of you and your partner and then posted them online? Would you be okay with that? If not, why not, if privacy is not a fundamental right?

[coremoff]

> So you don't think it should be a fundamental right because we lost the right before we realized how important it was?

How do you propose putting that cat back in the bag?

I also think that if we had legislated for privacy, supposing that we had realised its important early enough, what would that battle look like? I expect it would go as well as the war against drugs; if nothing else miniaturisation makes it practically unenforceable anyway, and legislation might protect you against individual harm but would do nothing against state level, or large corporation, action.

> If I walk onto your property and stare in your windows, if "physical security" is important but "privacy" isn't, why should you be allowed to stop me? I'm not threatening you

Given that we are unable to discern intent prior to action (when that intent is only manifest in thought), strangers lurking are always going to be a different problem to strangers peeking; it's analagous to copyright law vs. property law.

> Or perhaps you'd be fine if I just did it from the public sidewalk with a telephoto lens aimed at your bedroom?

I'm not saying that I'm immune to our societies' privacy hangups; but ideally I should be - I do think we should try and stop judging others for harmless actions.

[BaseballPhysics]

> How do you propose putting that cat back in the bag?

GDPR was a good start.

Creating transparency in data marketplaces, and giving people an affirmative right to have their data removed would be significant progress.

Frankly, I'd like to see the buying and selling of individualized data be made completely illegal, with massive fines for companies that misuse or otherwise fail to protect PII.

> I'm not saying that I'm immune to our societies' privacy hangups; but ideally I should be - I do think we should try and stop judging others for harmless actions.

Jesus, I don't even know how to respond to this. In essence you're saying: If there were no consequences for peoples words or actions we wouldn't need privacy.

Well, yeah.

Except there are, and so we do.

[escape-big-tech]

> GDPR was a good start.

Honestly, I agree with you, but GDPR is barely a start, it does little to actually protect people's privacy. It needs to expand a lot to be an actual weapon against surveillance

[pierat]

There's 2 parts of this: government, and corporations. We have 1 potential solution already for government:

4th Amendment

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Papers (things containing information), and effects clearly need to be interpreted to INCLUDE digital information storage and devices.

Privacy against corporations can be solved a few ways, but are also piecemeal.

A GDPR like law could definitely help.

Having the FTC ban "free" services would also be a good start, as under terms of bundling free to entrap people.

EULAs can just outright negated, as those onerous documents are effectively an after-sale blackmail. And many of 5hem contain questionable, onerous, or plain illegal terms.

The company aspect will always look for ways to gain money any way they can, so it's always an uphill battle. But we can do some reasonable roadblocks slowing down terrible privacy-destroying behavior piecemeal, and by enforcing laws on the books.

[tremon]

privacy (am I unobserved)

That's not the common definition of privacy. Rather, privacy is having the agency to control which parts of your life to share with which other people. It's a freedom of expression: you are free to decide which part of your personality to express at which time.

Having control over who is observing you is a requisite but not sufficient.