[tambourmajor]

I think that can be answered quite briefly: Malicious people exist and they can use things we consider private against you. We are inherently imperfect and thus we define a protected space in which we can can happily be imperfect without spending energy on worrying about it.

[miguelrochefort]

> Malicious people exist

Is it malicious to expose the truth? Who is to blame if others react badly to the truth? The "malicious" person or the ones that react negatively?

> things we consider private

Why do we consider anything to be private? Where do you draw the line? Do others need my permission to collect any information that relates to me? Why do we assume we have some exclusive right over any information?

> We are inherently imperfect

We all have positive and negative qualities. This is what makes us different from one another. How am I going to judge people if I can't know anything about them? Why do we limit this "privacy" to negative qualities, but tolerate that people with extraordinary qualities share them with the world? If the quest for equality is the reason behind allowing people a right to conceal imperfections, why don't we also stop people from bragging about their qualities?

> we define a protected space in which we can can happily be imperfect without spending energy on worrying about it.

This lead to a society that is used to see only the "good" side of people, but not their negative side. Not only does it skew perception of reality, but it increase standards and make it even harder to be yourself (including all your imperfections) when you're outside the "protected space". It seems to be like this would only lead to isolation, increased social pressure, more superficial conformism. At some point, letting a secret slip could literally ruin your life. This bubble will lead to nothing but more intolerance.

Would you find it silly if a group of people actively tried to build systems and tools to help homosexual people to stay in the closet? Because that's exactly how I see the fight for privacy.

[tambourmajor]

1. Truth can be misued for misguidance and I think it's easier to allow for a private space than to achieve a society that is not prone to misguidance.

2. Without going too much into the details I would personally prefer spatial declarations of private space. For example the space that is occupied by your home and the space that is constituted by a sphere that encloses your body. Ideally everyone should have the possibility to consciously decide which information leaves this space.

3. I think you misinterpret what I said. It's only about declaring a space in which you don't have to think too hard about the (wider) social implications of your actions and thoughts. It's more about protection than about equality.

4. Well, you are still free to reveal yourself within a confined or even public space (in person, using an avatar or anonymously). I could imgine too that this will amplify the endeavor for individual perfection (which is an inherently human trait I believe) but it seems to outweigh the downside of having to potentially explain all your actions and thoughts, or to achieve a society that is able to handle that.

[miguelrochefort]

1. When information is scarce, people are more prone to misguidance. In a world where there's no privacy, misguidance is much easier to spot and invalidate. This is when you don't know much about something that truth gets fuzzy and can take any turn.

2. What if you're loud and I can hear you when you're inside your "private space"? What if my camera captures you in your "bubble"? Can I get into trouble for capturing any information? Will I be able to use my Google Glasses in public (public hopefully being everywhere)?

3. No such space should exist. Your thoughts and actions should always have social implications. Why shouldn't natural rules apply everywhere equally?

4. I don't wish to manually control all this information myself. I don't want to worry about what's private, what's public, avatars, pseudonyms, etc.

Actually, I wish others would track my every thoughts and moves so that I could stop wasting my time manually inputting all this information in systems and such. But this is only possible through complete transparency.

[tambourmajor]

1. That is not true because even if every bit of information is made inherently public it does not mean that the information is not prone to manipulation.

2. Well, there should be laws that enforce that the privacy stuff is included in every product. Windows and walls will work with noise cancelling and act as a Faraday cage. Windows will also need to have mirrors on the outside.

3. That's why I wrote 'wider' in parens. Of course one would be able to widen the privacy sphere, i.e. you'll still be able to join gatherings in a completely natural way.

4. Again, I didn't say that you shouldn't be able to reveal yourself. If you want to share all your relevant thoughts and actions with your coworkers you are free to do so. I think with a slick user interface (e.g. a brain implant) and various automatic/self-adapting filters that could work quite unobtrusively, so I don't think your usability objections are particulary strong arguments.