No, there is a world of difference between having a responsibility for your plight and choosing how you respond.

The correct response to being assaulted, robbed, or otherwise offended against, is never to bow down to what your attackers want. You can apply this logic to all kinds of situations.

Don't want cat calls? Don't wear a sexy outfit.
Don't want to be gay bashed? Don't go into the rural south.
Didn't want to be shot? Shouldn't have published those cartoons.

FUCK

THAT

SHIT

But funnily enough, no-one ever tells a white guy that if he didn't want to be car-jacked, he shouldn't be driving that corvette.

It's pretty fucking awful that the assholes who stole the photos manage to be both puritan and lecherous at the same time. Telling the woman she's a slut for posing naked whilst masturbating to the images. It's the height of hypocrisy.

And meanwhile, you have a bunch of guys telling her what she should or shouldn't do in the privacy of her own home.

Sorry, but that's a stupid argument. Just because we live in a digital world doesn't mean people have any less right to privacy.

Or do you think people whose emails are hacked should have used snail mail?
What about all those idiots who use online banking?

Stop blaming the victim.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Internet, Free, Security, Free is not Free, Ted Talk' to 'Internet, Free, Security, Free is not Free, Ted Talk, Privacy, Google, iPhone' - edited by notarobot

Your video, United States of Secrets (part 2) - "Privacy Lost", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Hmm. His argument seems to be that we all want privacy because we all have something to hide.... I kinda disagree in the sense that it's the wrong angle to look at. I think we all want honesty. Honesty as meaning being who we essentially are. You can't do this is you know your being watched, because when you are being watched you perform - you can't help it. Performing is inherently dishonest and your own sense of identity is compromised.

Good parabola at the start (is it parabola.. anyway...) how to describe the levels of privacy. But the point here is, we have the right to choose what is private to us and what is not. That task is not up to security departments, it is done individually. Yes, it is a security risk. No shit sherlock. So are a lot of old social rules that we have honed during the millenias, spanning from cavemen to nerd. There would be NO crime if we would have NO privacy. And still, after tens of thousands of years, we have seemed it appropriate to allow more freedoms with small disadvantage but with a tremendous improvements on personal well being. Not to mention creativity, which often demands privacy. If you knew that someone is watching every draw of line you make, the picture turns out to be average at best, not exciting, dull, predictable. Because at those private moments, we find our selves free to take creative risks. Innovate without reprimand. You take that feeling of freedom away, force people to "behave" when at their own homes and we will live in a stagnated, boring world. We have to be allowed to break away from societal norms when private. The fact is that internet is a tool too for that inner self study.. We ask it daily questions we wont ask from our spouses. It is linked to the most private form of self. And thus, it has tremendous effect on our wellbeing and society as a whole.

I'm not sure he answered the question, or at least that wasn't his focus... rather than explain why privacy matters, he stressed that we 'like' privacy. Don't get me wrong, I like it too, and I don't see that there are any overarching security or economic concerns that consistently outweigh my liking it, but it would be interesting to hear if there are arguments that more directly address why privacy matters.

As far as I could tell, he had three overarching points:

1. Privacy is culturally and psychologically valuable to us, and we suffer if we feel that this private sphere is taken away from us. This is fine, but it doesn't really tell me why privacy 'matters', just that it's an artifact of our current civilization and culture. A similar argument could be made for religion, which I don't think is a necessary but certainly a very common phenomenon.

2. Privacy allows for dissent against tyranny and corruption to grow. This, to me, seems a little fallacious - in a system of asymmetrical privacy, where your government has more privacy than you, this might be true, but in a system of very high transparency on all sides it would be very possible to effectively express and build a dissenting voice. It seems dissent is possible in both very private and very open societies, but not in societies where privacy is only granted to the state.

3. Privacy is needed for creativity and unique expressions of talent. This might be true on an individual level (though it might also be a case of overlapping with #1) but transparency and openness are also facilitators of collective creativity. It might be that we need a private creative space for traditional acts of genius, but who's to say that we can't supersede this with crowd-sourced creativity in the future?

I'm not arguing in favor of any measures to take away privacy, but it would be interesting to see some more rigorous arguments for the need for privacy. Looking at what Snowden did, for example, we see that his actions might contribute to increased privacy in the long term, but in the short term he actually removed privacy (from the government) and made the equation a little more balanced in that sense.

Your video, TED: Glenn Greenwald -- Why Privacy Matters, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

*dead -- "Sorry

Because of its privacy settings, this video cannot be played here."

I did see a couple of her videos and was instantly turned off. it was one of those videos where the guy totally degrades her....light strangulation, spitting, etc.

just...not cool.

I get that they were consenting adults, and whatever floats your boat in the privacy of your own home.

just..not mine.

" @ Ant and everybody else;

Hello, Grammar Warrior! It doesn't matter! I'm eleven, [yeah, yeah.] At least they aren't typing like this;
lol u so stupid if ur a grammar nazi sooo stupid I mean like omg smh!
Text slang sucks, I know.
But these are simple typos. Newtboy made a mistake by typing it's instead of its? Hey, let's start a war!
Shut up, and thank you...

... TEA PARTY ANYONE? " .


Now that you are Eleven you can learn to read the terms of service/usage agreement.

Section Ch.0.g.g.I of the act

Personal Use

The Service is made available to you for your personal use only. Due to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (which is available at http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/coppa1.htm), you must be at least thirteen (13) years of age to use this Service. You must provide current, accurate identification, contact, and other information that may be required as part of the registration process and/or continued use of the Service. You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your Service password and account, and are responsible for all activities that occur thereunder. VideoSift reserves the right to refuse service to anyone at any time without notice for any reason.

Lost in all this is an aspect that's becoming more and more relevant to today's kids, and their future adult life: when this girl is grown up, pictures of her naked kiddie self will be floating around online for anyone to see.

Would you like it if naked kiddie pictures of you were there for any random person to look at? Would you be comfortable with any person you happen to introduce yourself to finding these pictures? What about strangers on the street able to use facial recognition software to find, among other things, these pictures of you? People looking you up on dating sites? (It may not be possible today, but it will in all likelihood be common in the future, and if your photos are already online, there's no way back.) Don't kids have the right to privacy? Why do parents get to post a shit-ton of less than respectful (often humiliating) pictures of their kids online, with no regard for the kids' future well-being and social life? (Not saying that's the case here, as I haven't seen all his pictures, nor do I care to.)

As someone once said, there should be a law against that.

Before posting pictures of your kid online, ask yourself this: When my kids are grown up, will they thank me for posting those pictures online? No? The opposite? Maybe you shouldn't post them, then.

I suspected an ad or script block addon doing it, but videosift is whitelisted on those on my desktop browser. Completely disabling them didn't fix it, and my notebook, which runs Linux, has Firefox and the same addons was also doing it. It turns out it was the EFF's Privacy Badger addon doing it, which I only installed a couple of days ago. That's weird since it only blocks 3rd party trackers. I wonder if UMG is trying to pass some kind of 3rd party cookie through the video embed which is setting it off.

Thanks chic!!! You are so sweet and it's nice to see you too!! It's especially fun to come back when I have people here to talk to that are also online. (currently you and @ant) Now I just need to set aside some time to start posting videos again! Hopefully that will happen soon. I think I might have a little more privacy at work again in the next month or so. *fingers crossed*

@Jerykk

i am trying to understand your position.
you state you cant regulate addictive substances.
yet we regulate:cigarettes,alcohol.both of these are addictive and both are regulated.

you also infer that if illegal drugs were decriminalized the situation would become far worse.

in relation to what,exactly?
are you positing that if illegal drugs were made legal,illicit drug use would rise? can you provide some evidence to back that up? because i cannot find any...at all.

you appear to actually agree with @SquidCap in regards to the fact that people are going to do what they are going to do but disagree with the idea of regulating the illicit drug trade.

non-regulation=black market=criminality=violence=waste of resources directed towards non-violent citizens doing something they enjoy in the privacy of their own home,with their own body.

so i agree with @SquidCap,i am just unclear where your disagreement lies.
please clarify.