[twobits]

The answer is not trying to protect ourselves. That's a losing and lost battle. We should try to tear down anonymity, hiding and protection of the powers that be.

..Make Obama, and any "Obama", wear a cam and mic, open all the time, connected to the inet. Make all bank accounts and transfers of everybody (corps included, of course), open to see to anyone.

..The above of course is extreme and won't happen. But that's the direction we should aim for. Not protect ourselves. We lost already. Open up the opponent.

[jfoutz]

I know you're being hyperbolic, but an economy where every transaction is public and searchable would be AMAZING.

You think a free market is efficient at allocating resources? what about a free market with perfect information for all players. It changes from poker to chess, deception is no longer a valid strategy.

I'm all for that.

[blah32497]

Finally someone who gets it! I've been saying this for ever. Our society is moving to one with fewer and fewer secrets.

When Facebook pushes privacy concerns, it's actually just reflecting our new reality and trying to stay relevant.

The "issue" that we will be coming up against is that people need time to adjust and to be honest, people aren't used to knowing everything about each other.

To give an absurd example for the purposes of illustration: If your boss finds out that you like to cross dress on the weekend it may reflect poorly on you . In reality this is simply b/c he knows something unusual about you and your coworkers continue to look "normal" in his eyes. If he knows that you crossdress, Jeff likes to be tied up, and Bob's wife is a tranny then it no longer becomes a big deal.

The same goes for more sensitive things, like the amount of women that have abortions, or misscarriages, or people that have mental disabilities or are on antidepressants, or do hard drugs in their spare time. We shield ourselves from certain things to the point where when we get exposed to them we don't react appropriately b/c we have no reference point.

The reason Obama wouldn't be okay with a mic is mostly because no president before him has had a mic. So if he cusses out other world leaders on the daily, he'll look like a grade A asshole - regardless of whether or not other presidents have done it.

[FinanceQuestion]

While I believe that any presidential person in power including his staff is mainly interested in their own protection, they are also partially aligned with my protection.

The degree at which they oppose me or protect me is unknown by me, but for the most part I believe they are protecting me, not for me, but because I naturally align with them.

Now, if you are not an American, their interests are much less aligned with yours. In that case, I agree.

For example, I would appreciate if all foreign government officials had all their emails, phone calls etc. open, but would like to protect my officials.

Hypocritical? I don't think so, its basically a matter of wanting the people with alignment to me to continue having power.

[twobits]

"I believe that any presidential person in power [..] they are also partially aligned with my protection"

Citation needed? If you were a eg a google employ at the time of wage fixing, would you think it cared about you, cause "your had aligned interests"? Maybe you should q what your interests are, and what of the politicians and mega corps.

Call me cynical, but they care for your protection, as much, and for the same reasons, as the kings used to "care" about their serfs.

"The degree at which they oppose me or protect me is unknown by me, but for the most part I believe they are protecting me"

Stockholm syndrome? Sad love story? You (us) being played, manipulated and exploited?