The ethical dilemma of privacy - Michael Vazquez and Sarah Stroud
video description
Date: 2024-11-16
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
jaspermcjasper3672
Privacy-rights (other than those that can be maintained by the exercise of rights having nothing to do with privacy, such as your right to keep uninvited people out of your residence, and your doctor's right to keep unauthorized persons from entering the doctor's office, breaking locks on safes, and viewing files, and your right to contractually bind your doctor to exercise the doctor's rights on your behalf) are nonsense. Bogus. Logically inconsistent with the maintenance of other precious rights.
If I choose of my own free will to wear a red tuxedo in a location where I have no right to prohibit the entry of other people, I have no right to privacy over the fact that I did at that time wear that tuxedo in that location. If I were allowed to assert that alleged right and get away with it, it would take away rights from other people. Other people have the right to be there. As long as they're not moving around in a way that diminishes my ability to share the space on equal terms with them, they have the right to move in such a manner that causes the sight of me in my red tuxedo to enter their eyeballs. If they have done nothing wrong to come into possession of the knowledge that I was wearing a red tuxedo at that time, it would be a curtailment of their right to Freedom Of Speech, plus would also be a socially detrimental curtailment of the free debating of ideas such as whether red tuxedos are tasteful, to restrict any person from disseminating the fact that I wore a red tuxedo to that place on that occasion. If you don't want everything you do in public to be the knowledge of everyone alive, just don't do anything in public. If you want the benefits of entering public space, the price you have to pay for those benefits is that, since other people have rights too, other people will have access to the information about what you did in that public space. You might LIKE to have a flat-screen TV AND have its cost remain in your bank-account, but you're not ENTITLED to have both. It's one or the other. You can get the flat-screen TV if you are willing to lose its price-tag from your savings. You can keep your savings if you're willing to forego the flat-screen TV. Only an extreme narcissist insists on being entitled to BOTH things. Only an extreme narcissist feels entitled to BOTH (a) reap the gains from venturing into space that is not their private domain and (b) keeping secret what they do there even as they themselves are free to observe what everyone else is doing there.
reply
Privacy-rights (other than those that can be maintained by the exercise of rights having nothing to do with privacy, such as your right to keep uninvited people out of your residence, and your doctor's right to keep unauthorized persons from entering the doctor's office, breaking locks on safes, and viewing files, and your right to contractually bind your doctor to exercise the doctor's rights on your behalf) are nonsense. Bogus. Logically inconsistent with the maintenance of other precious rights.
If I choose of my own free will to wear a red tuxedo in a location where I have no right to prohibit the entry of other people, I have no right to privacy over the fact that I did at that time wear that tuxedo in that location. If I were allowed to assert that alleged right and get away with it, it would take away rights from other people. Other people have the right to be there. As long as they're not moving around in a way that diminishes my ability to share the space on equal terms with them, they have the right to move in such a manner that causes the sight of me in my red tuxedo to enter their eyeballs. If they have done nothing wrong to come into possession of the knowledge that I was wearing a red tuxedo at that time, it would be a curtailment of their right to Freedom Of Speech, plus would also be a socially detrimental curtailment of the free debating of ideas such as whether red tuxedos are tasteful, to restrict any person from disseminating the fact that I wore a red tuxedo to that place on that occasion. If you don't want everything you do in public to be the knowledge of everyone alive, just don't do anything in public. If you want the benefits of entering public space, the price you have to pay for those benefits is that, since other people have rights too, other people will have access to the information about what you did in that public space. You might LIKE to have a flat-screen TV AND have its cost remain in your bank-account, but you're not ENTITLED to have both. It's one or the other. You can get the flat-screen TV if you are willing to lose its price-tag from your savings. You can keep your savings if you're willing to forego the flat-screen TV. Only an extreme narcissist insists on being entitled to BOTH things. Only an extreme narcissist feels entitled to BOTH (a) reap the gains from venturing into space that is not their private domain and (b) keeping secret what they do there even as they themselves are free to observe what everyone else is doing there.
reply
borrometino
The only thing I would add, is that I feel that humans are untrustworthy. Not all of them, not even the majority, but by letting people become just someone, you end up dehumanizing them (like the starfishes in the car we see in the video. If you don't feel empathy towards a human being, you don't necessarily care about them anymore and you might end up caring more about yourself or your values. Not feeling empathy, unless you have a strict moral compass, can be very dangerous. This still happens in so many situations, both inside the government (see the police, health or justice department) and outside (banks, social media, pharmaceutical companies. Even if the majority agrees that the rules in place are fairly reasonable, there is still quite a high possibility that someone will screw everything up (in specific cases, not constantly) because their interests or values feel more important than the citizens or customers. This isn't something we can't consider. Education and a system that can self-criticize itself and adjust accordingly are probably the solutions to that. but, statistically and psychologically speaking, there is just so much evidence that people screw things over that it's hard to trust any big organizations, public or private, with anything that digs too deep into a citizen's life (like privacy. It is unfortunately important that the citizen relies on himself when it comes to his interests, but not entirely. I'm not right-wing, I believe in a balance between the collective's responsibility and the individual's one. So, for privacy for example, it would be useful to have a system that monitors how many accidents you have (maybe using your insurance data) but without cameras, microphones and GPS. A mid-way between the collective's interest and the individual one would probably be the wisest thing to do for me, so that the responsibility of personal and group interests is shared. What do you think (Amazing animation btw)
reply
The only thing I would add, is that I feel that humans are untrustworthy. Not all of them, not even the majority, but by letting people become just someone, you end up dehumanizing them (like the starfishes in the car we see in the video. If you don't feel empathy towards a human being, you don't necessarily care about them anymore and you might end up caring more about yourself or your values. Not feeling empathy, unless you have a strict moral compass, can be very dangerous. This still happens in so many situations, both inside the government (see the police, health or justice department) and outside (banks, social media, pharmaceutical companies. Even if the majority agrees that the rules in place are fairly reasonable, there is still quite a high possibility that someone will screw everything up (in specific cases, not constantly) because their interests or values feel more important than the citizens or customers. This isn't something we can't consider. Education and a system that can self-criticize itself and adjust accordingly are probably the solutions to that. but, statistically and psychologically speaking, there is just so much evidence that people screw things over that it's hard to trust any big organizations, public or private, with anything that digs too deep into a citizen's life (like privacy. It is unfortunately important that the citizen relies on himself when it comes to his interests, but not entirely. I'm not right-wing, I believe in a balance between the collective's responsibility and the individual's one. So, for privacy for example, it would be useful to have a system that monitors how many accidents you have (maybe using your insurance data) but without cameras, microphones and GPS. A mid-way between the collective's interest and the individual one would probably be the wisest thing to do for me, so that the responsibility of personal and group interests is shared. What do you think (Amazing animation btw)
reply
derkaiser420
The problem with this analogy is that our governments in real life are not trustworthy. They will spy on you whenever they can and will use it against you. Police states in the past just get worse and worse such as the USSR. Modern surveillance states today such as China, the EU, the UK, Canada, and Australia are just getting worse and worse as well. If you use Plato's argument that we need to help the majority over the minority of people, that isn't true either. A small vocal minority has the majority of power and if the majority speak out they are arrested. Just look at the EU with mass immigration. The majority protests about crime spiking and the economy failing and they get arrested while the immigrants are protected. In Ireland they are dubbed fascists when it is the Government that is being fascist. In Australia, China, and Canada for example, people cannot say whatever they want, they can get arrested for 'hate speech. ' The Government decides what hate speech is so it can be anything. The best part is if you talk to a Chinese citizen, a Canadian, European, or Australian they will say they have freedom of speech when they really don't. It is easier to control people who think they are free.
reply
The problem with this analogy is that our governments in real life are not trustworthy. They will spy on you whenever they can and will use it against you. Police states in the past just get worse and worse such as the USSR. Modern surveillance states today such as China, the EU, the UK, Canada, and Australia are just getting worse and worse as well. If you use Plato's argument that we need to help the majority over the minority of people, that isn't true either. A small vocal minority has the majority of power and if the majority speak out they are arrested. Just look at the EU with mass immigration. The majority protests about crime spiking and the economy failing and they get arrested while the immigrants are protected. In Ireland they are dubbed fascists when it is the Government that is being fascist. In Australia, China, and Canada for example, people cannot say whatever they want, they can get arrested for 'hate speech. ' The Government decides what hate speech is so it can be anything. The best part is if you talk to a Chinese citizen, a Canadian, European, or Australian they will say they have freedom of speech when they really don't. It is easier to control people who think they are free.
reply
bradypus55
I find this silly because the video does not address the capitalist value of one's privacy hence why nearly every app on your phone, website you have to log in, purchases online and even with the new AI system being put everywhere (against's the user's will, privacy becomes a commodity that is being traded between companies who then use it for their own gain. Like say credit score information being sent to a credit card company who will now spam your phone and email and mailbox about new card deals. People think this is only online but the truth is that it can even happen in real life. You sent that resume to that one corporation did you Did you check the fine prints on their recruitment website that say they will use the information from your resume as data collection What about after you get arrested, did you know your mug shot can come up online with a quick name search All your information is being taken away not by a tyranical state but by business men who seek to make your private information into capital, all against your will. This is the real dilemma we should focus on, should other people use YOUR information against your will
reply
I find this silly because the video does not address the capitalist value of one's privacy hence why nearly every app on your phone, website you have to log in, purchases online and even with the new AI system being put everywhere (against's the user's will, privacy becomes a commodity that is being traded between companies who then use it for their own gain. Like say credit score information being sent to a credit card company who will now spam your phone and email and mailbox about new card deals. People think this is only online but the truth is that it can even happen in real life. You sent that resume to that one corporation did you Did you check the fine prints on their recruitment website that say they will use the information from your resume as data collection What about after you get arrested, did you know your mug shot can come up online with a quick name search All your information is being taken away not by a tyranical state but by business men who seek to make your private information into capital, all against your will. This is the real dilemma we should focus on, should other people use YOUR information against your will
reply
Stratelier
This reminds me, loosely, of the whole debate about generative AI and art. If a digital artist is accused of using generative AI (i. e: as a primary process) then what can they even do to defend themself Sure, they could record a timelapse of their process (and some programs actually do this automatically, in the background) but we're reaching a point where generative models can simulate even that.
And what of the traditional artist Unless you're willing to meet up with somebody so they can witness your process occur in real time in person, there really isn't much you can offer to disprove a naysayer (much less someone unwilling to abandon their accusation regardless of contrary proof.
As for how this relates to privacy I personally believe that people act subtly different depending on whether (they know) they're being recorded. In many practical cases the difference is almost negligible, but a process as fickle as art may be affected by small differences such as these, in ways that are probably too abstract to predict.
reply
This reminds me, loosely, of the whole debate about generative AI and art. If a digital artist is accused of using generative AI (i. e: as a primary process) then what can they even do to defend themself Sure, they could record a timelapse of their process (and some programs actually do this automatically, in the background) but we're reaching a point where generative models can simulate even that.
And what of the traditional artist Unless you're willing to meet up with somebody so they can witness your process occur in real time in person, there really isn't much you can offer to disprove a naysayer (much less someone unwilling to abandon their accusation regardless of contrary proof.
As for how this relates to privacy I personally believe that people act subtly different depending on whether (they know) they're being recorded. In many practical cases the difference is almost negligible, but a process as fickle as art may be affected by small differences such as these, in ways that are probably too abstract to predict.
reply
GuitarRocker2008
Privacy divorced from government, culture, and other factors is worthless and any benefit would be worth the cost but when considered under those factors it becomes another matter.
In the modern digital age though true privacy is an illusion and not an actual thing especially when you consider our nature as a social animal.
For example the whole basis behind the ring of gyges thought experiment is that without oversight ethics breaks down.
Now I don’t agree with that (at least not to that extreme) but it does bear some weight on the matter.
Also what they said about privacy in fact being a emerging right from other more specific and more important rights is very true.
In a perfect society I would be in favour of that lack of privacy however in such a society there would be no requirement for such a system in the first place.
Ultimately in our modern society and any society I am likely to experience within my lifetime I would not be in favour of this idea and system.
reply
Privacy divorced from government, culture, and other factors is worthless and any benefit would be worth the cost but when considered under those factors it becomes another matter.
In the modern digital age though true privacy is an illusion and not an actual thing especially when you consider our nature as a social animal.
For example the whole basis behind the ring of gyges thought experiment is that without oversight ethics breaks down.
Now I don’t agree with that (at least not to that extreme) but it does bear some weight on the matter.
Also what they said about privacy in fact being a emerging right from other more specific and more important rights is very true.
In a perfect society I would be in favour of that lack of privacy however in such a society there would be no requirement for such a system in the first place.
Ultimately in our modern society and any society I am likely to experience within my lifetime I would not be in favour of this idea and system.
reply
sethwinn4061
Good philosophical video. Most people don't think about their privacy or their individual rights, until there is an issue.
A simpler question to ask is, do you trust your government to ALWAYS AND FOREVER honor your individual rights and freedoms, no matter which current administration in charge If you answered yes, bless your heart. You took the blue pill.
Government should supply and maintain public infrastructure, provide a common currency, provide a national defense, and regulate interstate commerce. That's about it. Doling out social credit scores is way beyond the scope of any government. Who wants this much government People who can't take care of themselves. The majority of us just want to be left alone.
reply
Good philosophical video. Most people don't think about their privacy or their individual rights, until there is an issue.
A simpler question to ask is, do you trust your government to ALWAYS AND FOREVER honor your individual rights and freedoms, no matter which current administration in charge If you answered yes, bless your heart. You took the blue pill.
Government should supply and maintain public infrastructure, provide a common currency, provide a national defense, and regulate interstate commerce. That's about it. Doling out social credit scores is way beyond the scope of any government. Who wants this much government People who can't take care of themselves. The majority of us just want to be left alone.
reply
bmx666bmx666
I'm not sure about the driving behavior and privacy issues you've mentioned here. If someone is a reckless driver and can't drive appropriately ON PUBLIC ROADS, their driver's license should be revoked. However, if someone is testing their car in a desert, on a racetrack, or in other designated areas, and experiences a rollover or a fatal injury, that shouldn't affect their driving rating.
A monitoring device could be installed in the car to collect data anonymously and offline. Each month, this data could be reviewed to provide analytics on driving behavior. In any case, many parents wouldn't want reckless drivers behind the wheel of a school bus.
reply
I'm not sure about the driving behavior and privacy issues you've mentioned here. If someone is a reckless driver and can't drive appropriately ON PUBLIC ROADS, their driver's license should be revoked. However, if someone is testing their car in a desert, on a racetrack, or in other designated areas, and experiences a rollover or a fatal injury, that shouldn't affect their driving rating.
A monitoring device could be installed in the car to collect data anonymously and offline. Each month, this data could be reviewed to provide analytics on driving behavior. In any case, many parents wouldn't want reckless drivers behind the wheel of a school bus.
reply
Blue2x2x
I believe the overturning of RvW shows that Rights, Freedoms, and protections granted in the past isn't and will never be permanent.
If the rights and freedoms we taken for granted today is becomes illegal tomorrow, privacy allow vulnerable people who depended it the most still had a fighting chance to regain that lost rights and freedoms they once held. Without it because we traded it up for safety yesterday, then the resistance will be extremely weekend and/or wiped out before it starts. In the way, privacy is safety in it's own right.
And there's better ways to make people slow down without violating privacy, make roads curvy and narrow.
reply
I believe the overturning of RvW shows that Rights, Freedoms, and protections granted in the past isn't and will never be permanent.
If the rights and freedoms we taken for granted today is becomes illegal tomorrow, privacy allow vulnerable people who depended it the most still had a fighting chance to regain that lost rights and freedoms they once held. Without it because we traded it up for safety yesterday, then the resistance will be extremely weekend and/or wiped out before it starts. In the way, privacy is safety in it's own right.
And there's better ways to make people slow down without violating privacy, make roads curvy and narrow.
reply
ne0fel1s61
I would much rather trade the privacy in car for safety and other benefits. First of all, since it's public knowledge that now are cars aren't private space, we control what we do and talk about. Another thing is we arent in our cars for that long. So trading that for drastic reduction in road accidents leading to safety on roads is a good enough trade for me. Another thing as mentioned in someone else's comment is that we already are monitored through our gadgets and we use them way more than our cars so we dont really hsve that much privacy as we think we do.
reply
I would much rather trade the privacy in car for safety and other benefits. First of all, since it's public knowledge that now are cars aren't private space, we control what we do and talk about. Another thing is we arent in our cars for that long. So trading that for drastic reduction in road accidents leading to safety on roads is a good enough trade for me. Another thing as mentioned in someone else's comment is that we already are monitored through our gadgets and we use them way more than our cars so we dont really hsve that much privacy as we think we do.
reply
ted_ed
I don't think privacy is really worth it. It's similar to asking if someone breaks the law, should they get caught People could say it depends on the law, but that's why we have a court of law. So you can make the case that the law is wrong. People are ashamed that they break the law and they don't want people to find out, which is wrong. I think the best solution would to allow citizens to opt in and out of the safety plan as they choose and not force them. People hate it when you force them to do anything, even when it's the right thing.
reply
I don't think privacy is really worth it. It's similar to asking if someone breaks the law, should they get caught People could say it depends on the law, but that's why we have a court of law. So you can make the case that the law is wrong. People are ashamed that they break the law and they don't want people to find out, which is wrong. I think the best solution would to allow citizens to opt in and out of the safety plan as they choose and not force them. People hate it when you force them to do anything, even when it's the right thing.
reply
ted_ed
Personally I more so agree with the thought that we should focus on the rights and things like that associated with privacy rather than privacy itself like for example if you want to reduce pollution there's not just using less stuff there's also things like recycling materials, finding alternative fuels, and changing legislation about draining oil and making companies have to pay money to fix the damages obviously pollution itself is an issue but we need to focus on the smaller attributes of it just because it's such a large issue
reply
Personally I more so agree with the thought that we should focus on the rights and things like that associated with privacy rather than privacy itself like for example if you want to reduce pollution there's not just using less stuff there's also things like recycling materials, finding alternative fuels, and changing legislation about draining oil and making companies have to pay money to fix the damages obviously pollution itself is an issue but we need to focus on the smaller attributes of it just because it's such a large issue
reply
brettito
Humans are notoriously bad about calculating risk. If you ask a human if risk aversion > privacy, they will give you as many answers as humans you ask. Mathematically it is hard for humans to calculate this. If privacy == freedom and safety == justice, you must give up some for the other. It is a false dichotomy in this example that surveillance state is the only solution to this problem. Even if it is the most effective, there are probably solutions that allow for more freedom while still improving social justice.
reply
Humans are notoriously bad about calculating risk. If you ask a human if risk aversion > privacy, they will give you as many answers as humans you ask. Mathematically it is hard for humans to calculate this. If privacy == freedom and safety == justice, you must give up some for the other. It is a false dichotomy in this example that surveillance state is the only solution to this problem. Even if it is the most effective, there are probably solutions that allow for more freedom while still improving social justice.
reply
ORANOID
I would vote for privacy, because I believe the same results could be achieved by some educational means or something more ethical than spying and dictating. Privacy is always inherently valuable, but that system is even more flawed, because the government has even more control over citizens that usual as it either can make someone's score anything they want (high for a politician who drives recklessly, low for an upstanding citizen, who is unwanted) or give access to all of the information to everyone.
reply
I would vote for privacy, because I believe the same results could be achieved by some educational means or something more ethical than spying and dictating. Privacy is always inherently valuable, but that system is even more flawed, because the government has even more control over citizens that usual as it either can make someone's score anything they want (high for a politician who drives recklessly, low for an upstanding citizen, who is unwanted) or give access to all of the information to everyone.
reply
ted_ed
Right to privacy assumes importance in a digital age we live in. The State, big businesses and other powerful stakeholders constantly misuse it for their own benefits, motives and agenda. Privacy violation is rampant and indifference from authorities is much more appalling. I would have vote for the right to privacy. We don't have to trade our civil liberties and constitutional protections for security and safety. There are other legitimate ways to balance both.
reply
Right to privacy assumes importance in a digital age we live in. The State, big businesses and other powerful stakeholders constantly misuse it for their own benefits, motives and agenda. Privacy violation is rampant and indifference from authorities is much more appalling. I would have vote for the right to privacy. We don't have to trade our civil liberties and constitutional protections for security and safety. There are other legitimate ways to balance both.
reply
twobananabros1817
IMO, safety is worth the loss of privacy here. When you're on the road, you are placing your life in the hands of the people driving next to you, and I'd be much more comfortable knowing these people have good driver credit scores. Having a camera/microphone setup in your vehicle is a small price to pay for the promise of being safe. Besides, Uber drivers already equip these for their own safety, why not do it to keep yourself and others safe
reply
IMO, safety is worth the loss of privacy here. When you're on the road, you are placing your life in the hands of the people driving next to you, and I'd be much more comfortable knowing these people have good driver credit scores. Having a camera/microphone setup in your vehicle is a small price to pay for the promise of being safe. Besides, Uber drivers already equip these for their own safety, why not do it to keep yourself and others safe
reply
dutyofcivility
As a Rawlsian, I’d evaluate car cameras through the lens of fairness. Behind the Veil of Ignorance, we’d weigh public safety against privacy, treating both as essential to a just society. Any policy that sacrifices privacy must clearly demonstrate it benefits everyone, especially the least advantaged, and includes robust safeguards to prevent misuse. Thank you for the thoughtful dilemma!
reply
As a Rawlsian, I’d evaluate car cameras through the lens of fairness. Behind the Veil of Ignorance, we’d weigh public safety against privacy, treating both as essential to a just society. Any policy that sacrifices privacy must clearly demonstrate it benefits everyone, especially the least advantaged, and includes robust safeguards to prevent misuse. Thank you for the thoughtful dilemma!
reply
invox9490
Had more curves to the roads and speed bumps. Have manufacture legislation state that no built car can go above X speed. Have all cars equiped with a automatic slow mode device active in certain areas.
No need to invade our privacy.
And if you think this is far fetched, remember HOVERING CARS AND A WORLD WIDE SOLUTION is also part of this problem. Far fetched indeed.
reply
Had more curves to the roads and speed bumps. Have manufacture legislation state that no built car can go above X speed. Have all cars equiped with a automatic slow mode device active in certain areas.
No need to invade our privacy.
And if you think this is far fetched, remember HOVERING CARS AND A WORLD WIDE SOLUTION is also part of this problem. Far fetched indeed.
reply
ivanjermakov
Privacy vs security is not a real trade, they coexist. It is manipulative to ask to have an exclusive choice here. There are numerous ways to improve security without compromising privacy. The real problem with privacy is that there is no organization trustworthy enough to possess this much information, especially in the world of personal gains and conflict of interest.
reply
Privacy vs security is not a real trade, they coexist. It is manipulative to ask to have an exclusive choice here. There are numerous ways to improve security without compromising privacy. The real problem with privacy is that there is no organization trustworthy enough to possess this much information, especially in the world of personal gains and conflict of interest.
reply
ted_ed
And who is going to decide what's bad and what's good Oh, yeah, the liberal establishment.
Anyone who pushes for this is pushing for elite control. Get ready for a lot of internet content regulation is here and that's a good thing New York Times' articles now that they have realized that mass media is not able to perpetrate what it has been perpetrating for decades.
reply
And who is going to decide what's bad and what's good Oh, yeah, the liberal establishment.
Anyone who pushes for this is pushing for elite control. Get ready for a lot of internet content regulation is here and that's a good thing New York Times' articles now that they have realized that mass media is not able to perpetrate what it has been perpetrating for decades.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
