this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2025

393 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

68864 readers

5799 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

L4s@hackingne.ws

393

Privacy is ‘the most valuable right of all’, says Signal’s president. (www.weforum.org)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by Tea@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Research from the World Economic Forum shows it’s becoming easier for citizens to be monitored, allowing governments, technology companies and threat actors to “reach deeper into people’s lives”.

In response, people are “waking up” to privacy, according to Meredith Whittaker, president of secure messaging service Signal.

Here, she explores the drivers behind this shift and how it could impact the digital landscape.

all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 50 points 4 days ago

Not sure if I agree but many rights are so important its hard to put one over another. Speech is very high on my list and the use of valuable in the title is strange. I don't see the qote anywhere in the article though but what they do say is powerful:

“I think of privacy from the framework of fundamental human rights, the rights of private communication, to live a private life, to think and do and communicate with who you want."

“We can't build new worlds, we can't imagine new paradigms without that incubation space, without the safety to experiment with ideas and think about what could work or not.”

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 28 points 3 days ago

"Valuable you say...."

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So say we all

[–] hsr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

So say we all

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 15 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Lulz, privacy without food to eat won't be too useful

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org -5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Food is not a right at all

E: remind me which country has enshrined food as a basic right.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago

Neither is privacy then

[–] einkorn@feddit.org -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

OK, I am going to try arguiung that privacy supersedes food:

To have a right to anything means there is something that I own. Owning something puts a division between me and others who can not own this specific thing: My right is my own, I do not have to diminish it by sharing. The most fundamental form of division is absence. Having a right to privacy is a right to the absence from others. Therefore the right to privacy is a more fundamental one than the right to food.

However, I agree that in practice eating in public beats dying in private any time of the day. 🤷

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk -1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

...and for that you get down voted.

I think you expressed that well. If you can't own your thoughts, you can't own anything.

[+] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -13 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Food isn't a right though. It's necessary for life, sure, but nobody is obligated to provide you with food unless you're incarcerated or something.

[–] ProvableGecko@lemmy.world 27 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Food isn’t a right though.

That's also something else to think about

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Agreed. I believe everyone should have food, I just don't think it's a "right."

I detail the distinction here and here should you care to read it.

[–] droans@midwest.social 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

And that's covered in my second link.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

But privacy is? We've been eating food much longer than we've had any privacy...

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 days ago

There are two types of rights:

negative - government prevents others from violating it (you have it by default)
positive - government forces others to provide it (created by the government)

Privacy and speech fall under the first, food and health care fall under the second. You have privacy by default and the government has to actively violate it, you don't have food by default and the government has to actively provide it.

[–] uninvitedguest@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Article 25

When I was younger I knew it as the "Right to Food & Shelter", though I'm not sure if that was taught in a Canadian context.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

And I disagree with that document because it mixes positive (freedom to) and negative (freedom from) rights. Article 25 in particular merely places obligations on governments, and is pretty vague.

While I believe everyone should have the things in the document, I don't think many of them are necessary for an individual to be considered "free."

For example, let's imagine a hypothetical communist utopia. There would be no government, and people would share what they have with no expectation of reciprocation (though you'd have a group to manage distribution). Therefore, there's no entity that can guarantee housing, medical services, etc, that's on the community to provide, should someone want to. Nobody guarantees a "right" to housing or healthcare or whatever, but you'll probably have it if you live in a densely populated area.

Likewise with any anarchist utopia.

So that's why I reject any "right" that lays obligates anyone to do anything for me. A "right" to me is something I have innately that can only be violated through action instead of inaction.

[–] 1luv8008135@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

So is it dodge that these two things( https://www.newsweek.com/signal-war-plans-cia-director-john-ratcliffe-messages-disappear-phone-2059775) are so close together or should I really put the tin foil hat down?