[alexeisadeski3]

>powerful new privacy laws are overdue

Problem with any new privacy laws is that they will only restrict us, not the government. Since the government is the only one with the legal authority to torture and imprison and rob us, I don't much see the point.

[icebraining]

That's such an oversimplification, both in how it treats the "government" has a single undivided entity, and on how it implies that illegal acts are the only thing that people have to fear, that I don't have the will to counter argue.

But regardless of that, privacy is a right onto itself, it shouldn't need justification. It's violations of thereof that should need to be justified.

[Silhouette]

Since the government is the only one with the legal authority to torture and imprison and rob us, I don't much see the point.

There is a lot more that can hurt quality of life than something as obvious and severe as imprisoning someone. And if your government has the legal authority to torture you, you need a new government.

Failing to control sensitive personal information, and for that matter the inevitable mistaken information that will go along with it, could harm innocent people for reasons including but certainly not limited to: their religious views, their political inclination, their stance on controversial subjects such as abortion or legalisation of drug use, their employment history, any previous criminal activity no matter how minor and how long ago, and the lies a bitter ex once told about them in an online forum.

The kinds of harm caused might include but again are certainly not limited to: inability to get various kinds of insurance or paying excessive premiums, inability to get a job or to negotiate a fair employment contract and compensation when they do, inability to get credit, inability to travel by certain modes of transport, inability to attend certain public events, inability to send their kids to a good school, inability to meet the special someone they would have had those kids with, and in too many real world examples already, harassment, assault, injury, or death.

Governments should be restricted in the personal information they collect and how they can use it, not least because "government" is a sweeping term that probably includes a substantial proportion of the entire adult population in any first world country. But in some respects, preventing the unjustified collection, processing and disclosure of personal information in the private sector is far more important, because that's where most of the risks of nasty but not life-destroying, hire-a-lawyer-and-sue-for-millions damage will occur.

[alexeisadeski3]

Totally agree that having one's privacy protected from the private sector is important!

But it's more important to have one's privacy protected from those who, as I said, have the legal authority to torture, imprison, and rob.

Problem here being that any legislation, in current climate, will only restrict private spying and not government spying.

>And if your government has the legal authority to torture you, you need a new government.

Agreed!

[Silhouette]

I don't disagree with you, nor do I have any problem with creating constitution-level changes that would in principle bind governments in similar ways. I just think these are two different issues, and a win on either one of them is still a win, even if the other one is still a problem.