In a world where everyone has an equal lack of privacy (e.g. everything everyone does is filmed and can be watched by everyone else), don't you think social mores regarding what is "embarrassing" or "shameful" would change?
> don't you think social mores regarding what is "embarrassing" or "shameful" would change?
I'm old enough to realize they already have quite a bit. As a child, it was safest for a gay person to stay in the closet, now states are legalizing gay marriage. The idea that someone can be openly gay alone is a huge change. Even celebrities used to hide it, now they can't because someone is sure to catch a photo of them out with someone or at a club.
The same is true for drug use. Michael Phelps was caught on camera with a pipe, but people just shrugged and moved on.
Michael Phelps was also suspended from competition for several months and lost some of his endorsement deals as a result of the pipe photograph. Plus while people in your life (and mine) may have just shrugged and moved on, this was a big deal for a lot of people and was endlessly discussed in the media.
Granted, this isn't nearly the scandal it may once have been, nor is it considered nearly as shameful as in the past, so the social mores are definitely changing. But that photograph definitely had a negative impact on his life.
A) The transitions aren't always smooth, and the people whose privacy is violated are sometimes sacrificed in the years-long process of mainstreaming whatever "shameful" thing they did.
B) We're a hypocritical lot, so there will probably always be things that we all do and yet still shame others for doing. So the common knowledge that everyone does a particular thing won't be enough to shield you from the shame of being exposed as a doer of that thing.
But these changes should happen when the time is right. People need to be open enough to an idea and then change can occur. If everything comes out in the open at once, people may learn about things society isn't ready for yet.
The example that comes to mind is one my high school history teacher taught us. He said Martin Luther (from the 15th century) made an impact by being the kind of guy to question things but also by being alive at the right time for these questions to make an impact.
Not to mention that there are probably a lot of things that go on that most people (including all of us here) don't know about. Having all that come out at once might be a strain on society.
Only if _they_ choose to do it. Individuals who sacrifice their own privacy in the cause of social justice may be heroic. Giving the government (or, indeed, any other party) that option is abusive.
For things that only effect an individual yes but there are others like extra marital affairs with involve real damage to another person. I don't see things like that ever becoming acceptable (nor should they) yet they aren't illegal.
> Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. [...]
Personally, I phrase the debate as Security and Privacy versus the Government.
A corporation will use your information to make money, and they only have access to data that you freely provide them or their partners.
The government can gather your information covertly, can obtain data from multiple companies using legal means unavailable to corporations, and typically do so with the goal of charging one with a crime.
A corporation is composed of people, who are corruptible. There must be many people at Google (just to name one high-profile company) who have access to the email archive and search history of pretty much everyone they know. It seems inevitable that someone will misuse that information if it hasn't happened yet.
The key phrase here is "using legal means unavailable to corporations".
Governments retain a monopoly over things like use of force, forcible investigation into your affairs, etc. And when they abuse those powers, you legally have significantly less recourse than you would if a private company did the same thing to you.
