[LINK] Privacy dooms digital copyright (and vice versa)

Janet Hawtin janet at hawtin.net.au
Tue Jan 28 14:31:53 AEDT 2014


On 27 January 2014 12:17, Kim Holburn <kim at holburn.net> wrote:

>
> http://torrentfreak.com/why-the-copyright-industry-is-doomed-in-one-single-sentence-140126/
>
>
> > Therefore, as a society, we are at a crossroads where we can make a
> choice between privacy and the ability to communicate in private, with all
> the other things that depend on that ability (like whistleblower
> protections and freedom of the press), or a distribution monopoly for a
> particular entertainment industry. These two have become mutually exclusive
> and cannot coexist, which is also why you see the copyright industry
> lobbying so hard for more surveillance, wiretapping, tracking, and data
> retention (they understand this perfectly).
>

This is probably tldr so this is the short version:

To me no privacy combined with polarised society is a problem.
Loss of privacy would be/is a structural shift imho it is a condition which
currently makes civil society possible because the media culture is not
very tolerant or inclusive of cultural diversity. Diversity and a safe
sense of personal agency is the foundation of democracy imho.
How do we provide that in a transparent context?

-------------------------------------

Some technologies directly impact privacy like facebook, Glass.

Google Glass interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZgkBp_WaK8#t=1277

Re: advertising in schools:
If kids in schools have no privacy because it is commercially interesting
to sell advertising to them then which tipping point population would make
people care about privacy? If kids grow up with no privacy in schools how
will they know there was something to be lost?

Privacy makes possible a lot of diversity - religious, political/electoral,
gender, cultural.
Diversity is safe where it has some personal space because media culture
promotes the excitement of conflict.
Difference is 'other' is often painted as the enemy. There is not a lot of
entertainment or media which supports that kind of thinking imho. Most
tv/film is about a hero against the enemy, oppostion and force.

Making and invention, tinkering is often called hacking culture this gets
tarred with cracking = breaking into networks which it is not.
But if the wider public is sold a conflated framing then constructive
diversity is alienated.
Legal sharing gets tarred with piracy, whistleblowers with enemies of the
state or company, legal framing of civil action as terrorism, alternate
faith with enemy, science as the enemy of faith, (motorcycle) groups may
not assemble. All of these shifts are recent and reduce a community respect
for diversity and independence of thinking and action.

This is pretty binary summary but all of those conflations of civil value
with 'other' look to me to be a momentum towards reducing diversity choice
and creative capacity in society, which in effect reduces the ability for a
community/nation to be articulate in its own interests. It is a kind of
conceptual austerity.

Diversity and a safe sense of personal agency is the foundation of
democracy imho

It is a prerequisite for a society to be able to think and act beyond right
of way for existing vested interests in favour of future
possibilities/investment/innovation and to defend long term
assets/infrastructure like clean water from short term smash and grab
thinking. (TPP)

If privacy is the current method for enabling diversity, inclusion,
personal agency, gentle contention and negotiation then how do we make
those things possible and safe in a transparent context? Less war? Less
win:lose violent TV/film?

If the big money is on winning when others lose how does society differ?

j



More information about the Link mailing list