privacy

The first part is not well-received here because saying “we can give up some privacy for safety” in a privacy forum is not a popular argument. You’re welcome to make that argument, but if you do it in a “here’s my view, change my mind” style and act hostile to people that don’t engage directly or don’t take you seriously, it will lead to many downvotes, and possibly removals depending on the instance.

I have never indicated that is my opinion.

You did get some genuine replies which is great, but, I think if you change your approach with the delivery, you will get more.

Thank you. Changing my approach to the delivery could indeed lead to more genuine replies. How can I modify "Surveillance protects people from terrorism, and sacrificing some privacy makes us safer. Do you agree? If not, what is your counterargument?" to make it easier for people to understand?

Second, next time please put the part about your grievances about the .ml mods doing (the stuff about rational discussuon and mutual respect) in !yepowertrippingbastards@lemmy.dbzero.com

I’m having trouble accessing this link on my side. I preserved previous conversations and my grievances in the post for those who wish to understand the full context.

strip out the insults (the meaningless and rational thinking part) and keep only the parts relevant to privacy in your post to !privacy@lemmy.ca .

Insults are comments like “Okay, lackey.” or “This is fucking stupid,” which contain no actual argument. The statement “among the meaningless comments made by people who are incapable of rational thinking” reflects a factual observation I made to support my argument.

If you want to include the best comments from the other thread, copy them into a single top level comment instead of the post body, and your responses in a reply to that comment. I hope this all helps you.

Could you please guide me on how to create a top-level comment? I included the comments from the other thread in the post because comments cannot be made top-level.

I simply agreed with those comments, so I did not include my actual response in the previous thread. However, if anyone is interested, the previous post and conversations are preserved in the image.

My stance on the discussion topic: the only acceptable invasion of privacy to me is one where the information is relevant and specific to the purpose it is being collected, the public and the person who is surveiled are reasonably informed about it. As an example: Having a security camera pointing outside a building (government or private) to record who enters it is reasonable to retain evidence of crime or records of who enters. Having it collect and retain information of who passes by the building on their way to work with no intention of visiting the building is excessive. Having the information collected for the first, reasonable purpose later being sold or seized to be used for other nebulous purposes (“solve terrorism” without a specific incident as to why it is relevant, or to commercially track travel patterns between buildings) is also across the red line for me, however without robust legislation/court enforcement (edit: in the USA, China or anywhere), that’s not really within my direct control. I can only control up to the point I can avoid have that information collected in the first place. These general principles of mine you can apply to most of the privacy topics like IDs for age verification etc.

I agree with your principles and your opinions on privacy

However, I am looking for a strong and logical reason that either justifies or invalidates the idea that “surveillance of the public is acceptable” in countries like Russia, China, and India.

For example, something along the lines of: “Surveillance gives terrorists, such as the US and its Zionist appendage, a huge advantage.”

However, ad tracking is not a strong enough argument to compel agreement, as it neither affects people’s daily lives nor appeals to their underlying fears.