Exactly. Lots of people mistakenly believe that "privacy" means preventing people from blackmailing them - but what's actually at stake is mental autonomy. Anti-privacy online tracking tactics are almost universally dedicated to improving how effectively someone with money can pay to change your mind about something - whether that's to encourage you to buy something, to vote for someone, or to do something they want you to do.
@@hatimsendagire5128 I expect them to be able to create a business that doesn't require exploiting and manipulating people to appease impossible stockholder expectations of infinite growth. These companies aren't struggling mom & pop shops that could go bankrupt at any second if they fail to squeeze every possible penny out of anyone they cross paths with.
I think there's a huge difference between tracking online activity to target advertisements and tracking driving data to reduce behaviours that harm and kill people (speeding killed 12,151 people in 2022 according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).
I’d argue that the issue of privacy loss for financial gain is different from sacrificing privacy for public safety. Behind the Veil of Ignorance, we might accept certain privacy trade-offs if they demonstrably benefit everyone, especially the least advantaged, as in the case of reducing accidents. However, privacy taken purely for financial gain lacks this justification. So I think we agree in principle, but in this fictional world there is no profit motive. And that does seem plausible to me in certain cases.
Exactly! This much information is very powerful. Power corrupts, and also, is the information guaranteed to only be accessible to the intended audience?
The problem is not trading piracy for safety. The problem is the entity with the control of the information (in this case, the government) has the incentive to use this for their own gain or other purposes that many of us would not agree with.
Even if the Government wasn't corrupt, the risk of data hacking is practically guranteed. The question is then: what will access to this data mean for the people it was taken from? What level of fraud can be perpetrated with it? Will superfluous data like age, weight, eye colour also be tracked? (almost certain it will)
@@yeshovirajrao6479 To a limited extent that involves much more conscious coexistence with fellow people in one's area and much less storage of information that is held by multiple people with different intentions. If the people you see on the bus are different every time, they're much more likely to forget about you. If they are the same, you are much more likely to mutually remember each other and be able to exercise mutual societal care (offering seats to people who could use a seat, whether for permanent or temporary reasons, and other simple, pro-social acts). You might even be able to befriend each other - or simply tolerate each other. Either way, you are interacting with people directly and can control how much is known about yourself to individuals. If your own car is spying on you, it's much harder to remember that it is doing so, much more likely that you will unintentionally reveal parts of yourself that you didn't want to, and much more likely that the information known about you will be held by someone to distant from you to really grasp your humanity and care about your best interests.
@@yeshovirajrao6479 Not to the extent of constant surveillance. People are fine with public transport. Instead it has to be made into a good, safe, and moderately fast alternative without making it expensive.
@@HappyGickNah public transport is tracked and most have surveillance onboard these days. Plus funding it takes away from the productive economy that would otherwise support private citizens driving their private cars and having privacy. Should I be taxed more to fund a rail system I won't use? Should my employer who pays me? Commuter systems should be private: funded by the people who use them and their personal generosity to the riders that could not afford the full ticket. A top-down government cannot get you where you need to go because by its very definition it seeks to run money through a sieve to reorder the natural social structure. You might not "care" if your free ride came at the cost of someone's ability to own a home but you're certainly not morally justified for advocating the system of forcible extraction that got them there.
@@Bern_il_Cinq "Should I be taxed more to fund a rail system I won't use?" You're not taxed enough to maintain the roads you use, as those who use public transit, bicycles and their feet subsidize drivers. Public transit and cycling generally has positive Return On Investment (ROI), unlike cars. And if you didn't know, those who live in cities subsidize suburban places. Suburbs are so far away from everything and their tax so low that they cost too much to maintain, relying on taxes from cities and shopping centres.
I would vote for privacy, because I believe the same results could be achieved by some educational means or something more ethical than spying and dictating. Privacy is always inherently valuable, but that system is even more flawed, because the government has even more control over citizens that usual as it either can make someone's score anything they want (high for a politician who drives recklessly, low for an upstanding citizen, who is unwanted) or give access to all of the information to everyone.
Setting aside feasibility, it seems to matter whether the social norms of the society would tolerate such a policy. This might be a great affront to many western liberal democracies, but I can imagine collectivist societies where the ethical cost is lower to the extent that people are less accustomed to valorizing individual privacy. What if people were "educated" to not value individual privacy so much?
Agreed! But isn't the inverse often true? Public health measures often require some level of data sharing, like tracking disease outbreaks or vaccination records. And sometimes privacy can be used to conceal harmful activities. Even the "privacy of the home" can be used to conceal domestic injustices, although of course this does not mean it is not an important thing to protect in many other cases.
@@dutyofcivility So long as it is run by humans (a.k.a always) you cannot expect a system with such power to respect "personal boundaries" indefinitely. It's unfortunate and frustrating in my opinion, because it would be nice if we could simply ensure only responsible people reside in these positions, but such methods can be beaten. People are innovative and prone to push back on any variable they deem "detrimental" to their lifestyle. This is true of both good *and* bad people. 😩
@@taiconan8857 Fair enough! You have made me wonder if an Artificial Intelligence might be able to overcome these human imperfections. I guess the AI is built by humans, though.
@dutyofcivility Indeed! It's one of the few tools I would genuinely consider potentially "unbiased" so long as we don't use any of the existing "large language models" that basically threw vast contents of the internet into a blender/calculator, slapped censors etc. into it, and can agree on a "baseline" dataset that responds appropriately to 99% of issues WITHOUT being "perpetually online" and thus prone to sabotage. Then conflicting accounts can be vetted, issues like domestic abuse can have proper classifications, etc. Police could literally walk up to the "house AI" and ask, "has any instance that fulfils the classification of domestic abuse occurred in the last 2 hours. We've had a concerned citizen call in a noise complaint." Then the AI can quickly alert the police to the situation inside. "No officer. However, the girls *were* playing a game with water that escalated into a very racous romp across the house for 25 minutes. Lots of squealing, but no injuries. Given this is the first incident of this type I will let them know their antics briefly worried a neighbor. Will that be all, Officer?" CCTV attached to the AI stayed local. Private details like who caused the commotion aren't broadcasted. Specifics that weren't necessary weren't provided. Etc. Current low-level models are extremely prone to issues though so I suspect that level of "independant consistency" is several decades away.
This is exactly what our internet has been for some time now with social media and such It seems like so many people (online) advocate for their privacy, and that "you have nothing to hide from xyz" I feel like Ted-ed has done justice and shed light on this topic and hopefully this video will raise awareness that privacy and safety are intertwined
the full quote: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin
I kinda disagree, as a Canadian I am happy to not have the freedom to bear arms, even with some events here or there, I feel much safer that dumbasses around me don't have the freedom
@@saadsaleem8286That just means your freedoms exist at the discretion of your government (and the American government. And the American people. Or the PLA. Or the Brits even. Pretty much anyone with guns.) Trudeau is a fascist in case you had any doubt. Americans would not trade places with you FYI.
Privacy wouldn't be so important if not for the human inclination to attack each other for the aspects of life which we are all thus compelled to keep private.
It is extremely easy to answer "yes" to such an idealistic and vague question, but we can punch it up a little to make things more interesting and realistic. "Is privacy of driving data worth the thousands of deaths caused by reckless driving (12,151 deaths due to speeding in 2022 according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)?" - No
Who ever decides what means to be a "good driver" would have an enormous power, and would be a slippery slope for authoritarism, because as a human being, it's impossible not to imprint your own biases when deciding such matters.
If it’s a nonideal government, it would either have to completely neuter its ability to use the data for any purpose or leave open the future possibility of the data being used for more than just driver scoring. If it’s an ideal government, they would perfectly segregate the data right up until they determined that they had a moral obligation to use said data in the prosecution of crimes. There is literally no situation where government surveillance like this doesn’t eventually turn into Big Brother.
i feel like i would vote for privacy, but i feel like a better option would be to survey the roads but not the cars themselves, keeping things more private while still making people safer. I'm not sure if it would work in practice though
My car insurance company does this. They don't use cameras, but between the beacin in my car and an app on my cellphone, they know exactly where and when I drive and how fast.
My car insurance has me install a beacon that detects my speed for a discount, they know where I am driving and how fast, but I have a way to turn it off. My dad told me that the data is generally only used when a collision occurs
LOL WHAT?!?! You sold the rights to constantly access your location to a faceless corporation for a discount? The same people who control if you get a payout after there's an accident? The ones who don't have to compete for clients much because you're legally forced to have insurance?
@@Bern_il_Cinq step 1: generate a premium then add +500 to it. step 2: offer the inflated premium, but with a 500 dollar discount with a tracker. step 3: sell the information to companies and deny coverage if the tracker is disabled.
1. There are ways to preserve both safety and privacy. It's called cryptography. 2. Privacy has value on it's own. Is the will to not be embarrassed good enough on it's own? And since the only way to not be embarrassed is for that thing become private, therefore privacy has a value.
To give the government of that planet the greatest benefit of the doubt, protecting the safety of the roads only requires monitoring activity on the roads. If, for example, you set up your own private course, away from anyone else, the government has no business even _knowing_ how you drive on that course.
As a Rawlsian, I’d evaluate car cameras through the lens of fairness. Behind the Veil of Ignorance, we’d weigh public safety against privacy, treating both as essential to a just society. Any policy that sacrifices privacy must clearly demonstrate it benefits everyone, especially the least advantaged, and includes robust safeguards to prevent misuse. Thank you for the thoughtful dilemma!
Privacy vs security is not a real trade, they coexist. It is manipulative to ask to have an exclusive choice here. There are numerous ways to improve security without compromising privacy. The real problem with privacy is that there is no organization trustworthy enough to possess this much information, especially in the world of personal gains and conflict of interest.
Isn't this our social contract--to give up some of your freedom to the state so that the state will protect the rest of your freedom? I just watched a Crash Course related to this, and I agree. I mean, we do it already.
@@Mark_badas I agree! That is why I think the policy is not so outlandish. The state is already in charge of securing freedom. And the state also decides what is 'public' and 'private'.
@@n_u001 Good point. I guess I was thinking of privacy as a subset of freedom. We have other freedoms, but privacy is a core one. Even so, it is not an absolute one.
The only thing I would add, is that I feel that humans are untrustworthy. Not all of them, not even the majority, but by letting people become just "someone", you end up dehumanizing them (like the starfishes in the car we see in the video). If you don't feel empathy towards a human being, you don't necessarily care about them anymore and you might end up caring more about yourself or your values. Not feeling empathy, unless you have a strict moral compass, can be very dangerous. This still happens in so many situations, both inside the government (see the police, health or justice department,...) and outside (banks, social media, pharmaceutical companies,...). Even if the majority agrees that the rules in place are fairly reasonable, there is still quite a high possibility that someone will screw everything up (in specific cases, not constantly) because their interests or values feel more important than the citizens or customers. This isn't something we can't consider. Education and a system that can self-criticize itself and adjust accordingly are probably the solutions to that... but, statistically and psychologically speaking, there is just so much evidence that people screw things over that it's hard to trust any big organizations, public or private, with anything that digs too deep into a citizen's life (like privacy). It is unfortunately important that the citizen relies on himself when it comes to his interests, but not entirely. I'm not right-wing, I believe in a balance between the collective's responsibility and the individual's one. So, for privacy for example, it would be useful to have a system that monitors how many accidents you have (maybe using your insurance data) but without cameras, microphones and GPS. A mid-way between the collective's interest and the individual one would probably be the wisest thing to do for me, so that the responsibility of personal and group interests is shared. What do you think? (Amazing animation btw)
* Studies every modern terrorist plot and how it went undiscovered * * Reads the Snowden Documents * * Looks at my search history * _No, safety is absolutely not worth loss of privacy._
In this very VERY specific scenario, the issue is safety kn the roads, not off them. Traffic cams and tickets ought to be enough to determine one"s Driver Credit. Satelite tracking and transmitting devices in cars is overkill.
Only if you remove the penalty aspect. Although it may be less effective of a solution, there should be no difference between being under surveillance while being a dangerous driver and not being under surveillance. You aren't forcing people to forfeit their privacy by increasing premiums but you should offer a reward for the forfeit of your privacy so long as you are also a good driver. A discount only model essentially. It should be the same for online privacy.
If I a *perfectly responsible government* was the one to use my private data, I would not hesitate to vote in favor. But since that's practically impossible I might still vote yes as I personally value my safety far above my privacy.
first time im here under 10 minutes ted-ed u guys should make a seperate riddles channel i always love your riddles i watched them all i really want to watch more pls take this into consideration ive been watching your channel for 6 years
I sometimes use my ETFs to buy dividend and growth stocks for diversification instead of reinvesting in the same place. To each their own methods though. The good thing is that you're investing in the first place and that's what's important. Salute for the content!
Hearing from an experienced investor who has survived the crisis and prospered is always comforting. It could be worrisome when your portfolio goes from green to red, but if you have invested in strong firms, you should just keep growing them and stick to your goal.
I'm a contractor, and my job doesn't permit me the time to properly analyze my holdings/evaluate stocks myself, so I've had a fiduciary actively restructuring my portfolio for the past 7 years now to match the present market condition and that's how I've been able to stay afloat, knowing when to buy and sell..
The idea that society is just a collection of individuals with rights might be the most dangerous idea ever. That’s like looking at a house and saying it’s a clump of bricks and tearing them apart while being shocked you end with no house at all in the end
There's actually a scenario closer to the real world. Where I live most people park their cars on the streets because there's not enough garage space. This is pretty bad for EV infrastructure as most solutions involve charging your car at home or designated areas. There's one solution though that turns street lamps into charging stations, but the problem here is that thieves could easily steal the copper wire needed to charge the EV. This could be resolved by placing cameras on every street lamp as well. I while I wouldn't want a camera in my car, I'll take it on street lamp. The societal benefit from moving on from gas is worth it.
I like this example! And it does make me think that, in the present case, I would support video/audio surveillance on the roads themselves (i.e., any property owned by the government), even if it is intensive and has panopticon vibes. That seems like a good way to make it less intrusive.
"The issue isn't about sacrificing a bit of freedom to achieve cybersecurity. The real problem is that organizations with access to these systems might misuse their power to monitor, surveil, or control individuals without transparency or proper oversight."
Good philosophical video. Most people don't think about their privacy or their individual rights, until there is an issue. A simpler question to ask is, do you trust your government to ALWAYS AND FOREVER honor your individual rights and freedoms, no matter which current administration in charge? If you answered yes, bless your heart. You took the blue pill. Government should supply and maintain public infrastructure, provide a common currency, provide a national defense, and regulate interstate commerce. That's about it. Doling out social credit scores is way beyond the scope of any government. Who wants this much government? People who can't take care of themselves. The majority of us just want to be left alone.
Not to even mention what happens if a nefarious group happens to get their hands on a data leak? No matter how trustworthy your government is, data leaks happen.
I agree with you. Also, these stepping stones of totalitarian control and dictatorship to not allow individual freedoms and rights to privacy will eventually lead to total destruction of democracy that our founding fathers had fought for in wars.
Right to privacy assumes importance in a digital age we live in. The State, big businesses and other powerful stakeholders constantly misuse it for their own benefits, motives and agenda. Privacy violation is rampant and indifference from authorities is much more appalling. I would have vote for the right to privacy. We don't have to trade our civil liberties and constitutional protections for security and safety. There are other legitimate ways to balance both.
What I didn't understand was why they didn't just install cameras outside the car. Yes, I know that some people may be driving while texting, eating, etc. but it's the impact on the car's speed and manuvering that it has that matters. If the car kept veering or speeding or, well, crashing (in the worst scenario), then reduce privilages. However, if the car was consitantly driving well, then increase them. It's not really important to view the causes here, and like the video says it's a violation of privacy. However, we can gather the causes and if any unsafe activity is occuring based on the effects on the quality of driving. I mean, even if you are watching the driver, it's still not like you could stop them from driving unsafely. In fact, skilled enough drivers can multitask while driving.
No. Privacy is Freedom. Without privacy, we are nothing but livestock. We're all individuals who's lives and well-being matter. If nothing else, governments around the world have proven that they cannot be fully trusted, ever.
If somebody who is programmed to see patterns of criminality looks at your data, they’re not going to find you - they’re going to find a criminal. Edward Snowden
“What’s more important: freedom or safety? We can only find safety through strength.” Isabelle Mayor: These are all good ideas in paper, but when you put them into action it may not always work.
It doesn't matter if you trust the *current* government to not mishandle your data because governments change all the time and once the system is there it's available for misuse.
In a perfect world, I would give up my privacy for guaranteed security. Unfortunately, the real world has real people who are easily corrupted by absolute power. The government, without the people actively resisting its grasp for more power, can and will take away the people's freedoms when given an opportunity.
Just make drones to go above cars to track the hovercars position not the person unless the hovercar is parking because if its parking well then theres no reason to track it because the hovercar has got to its destination
This video doesn't really talk about the biggest problem: when the organization collecting personal data is NOT trustworthy and their goal is NOT good for everyone. The example made in this video makes it seem like giving up privacy is better because the government is usually ought to be trustworthy and road safety is something everyone wants, but what if it was about a company that sells the data about all you do for its personal profit? That's the real problem.
Instead, make the monitoring voluntary, and keep the rest intact. Let the individual decide if their privacy is worth the financial tradeoff. Bypasses a lot of the ethical dilemmas by alowwing people to exercise their right to privacy.
Personally I more so agree with the thought that we should focus on the rights and things like that associated with privacy rather than privacy itself like for example if you want to reduce pollution there's not just using less stuff there's also things like recycling materials, finding alternative fuels, and changing legislation about draining oil and making companies have to pay money to fix the damages obviously pollution itself is an issue but we need to focus on the smaller attributes of it just because it's such a large issue
-I don't really agree with the link between privacy and freedom that many libertarians seem to make, at least not intrinsically. You mentioned a lack of privacy influencing people's actions but as social animals we are inevitably influenced by other people so that comes with just living in a society to begin with. I would argue that a right to autonomy doesn't entail a right to not being influenced by others, it allows for the 'social coercion' that can come about through voicing negative judgments about people or even just realizing that people might judge you negatively as a result of various choices or even things that are out of your control (or even softcore 'coercion' that has material consequences, like boycotting a business with questionable ethics or different things that can have material outcomes in terms of wealth, health etc. I've always thought that being able to release some cancer causing gas into the atmosphere or some deadly virus that can wipe out chunks of the population makes libertarianism a largely meaningless idea. One's actual health is affected by your second hand meth smoke). Maybe you can argue that hostility toward dissenters and using social coercion to deter publicly voicing unpopular views violates the spirit of democracy, as well as free speech, but no one's autonomy is being violated. -I think the idea of a collective good is incoherent as is the idea of the welfare of an entire society as a society. I understand justice to be the equal consideration of the happiness and suffering of all individual sentient beings (all of the beings who might ultimately be affected by any given choice one makes). I do think that you can make legitimate trade-offs between privacy and reducing crime or various other goods but I don't think the idea of a natural right to privacy is coherent or that you can logically defend the idea of privacy as inherently valuable. As someone who wants privacy some of the implications of this, of my own position, might be counter intuitive to me but privacy need not be inherently valuable in order for it to matter in any capacity. Libertarianism seems to be the most coherent theory of rights to me (as a non-libertarian), a natural right would be something you could justify using force to defend. We can't meaningfully be thought of as owning information the way that we can a finite physical resource. A natural right to privacy would mean I could justify using force to deter people from looking at me, so I would have a right to control information about myself but no right to direct my eyes toward whatever I wanted to. I don't see how you can have a special entitlement (an exclusive claim) to controlling the acquisition of certain information without owning the minds who would be aware of or simulate that information. I think the preference utilitarian argument for privacy fails for the same reason preference utilitarianism fails, if other people should consider your desire for them to not acquire certain information about you simply because you have a desire for them to not have that information then you should consider their desire to acquire that information, you can't give the desires of all beings equal consideration because desires for fundamentally different things are fundamentally incommensurate (if I value my happiness it would be consistent for me to value your happiness as well because happiness is happiness- it's the same thing even if I don't or wouldn't have access to yours. It doesn't follow that because I have a desire, because I want to experience happiness, I should logically consider a sadist's desire for other people to suffer or someone else's desire for Trump to be a*sassinated or for Mars to be destroyed etc. We want specific things, if I want Mars to be destroyed the destruction of Mars wouldn't cause the fulfillment of my desire, it would be the fulfillment of my desire. This applies to libertarianism as well, libertarianism asks that I consider at least some of the desires that other people have simply because they have those desires and not because of the nature of what they desire). What's left is to argue that the information itself is bad and that's why we should oppose its acquisition (not asking people to not acquire it because that would contradict what we subjectively desire or more specifically because it belongs to us and they have no right to it but because the information itself is bad). Besides being a completely arbitrary value, 'information' (if we're talking about a belief) only simulates something other than itself, the difference between good information and bad information (not 'good' or 'bad' because those beliefs are true or false) would be the nature of what they simulate, so I don't see how you can not want people to be aware of your doing X on principle (not because it leads to critical judgments or negates the public image you find desirable or prevents you from being validated by others) if there's nothing inherently wrong with doing X, if there is then awareness of it wouldn't be the problem, and if awareness of it was the problem then it would be just as bad that you held that information yourself (not that you could help that). -People have a psychological need for privacy (beyond not wanting certain information to be used to violate one's freedom or property or in a way that might lead to undesirable material outcomes of some kind or even it being used against people in some way that goes beyond just judging them for reasons that are related to that information) that probably come down to wanting to avoid self-consciousness and the possibility of critical judgment that enables it, although in some cases it might also be that information that's shared exclusively between two people or a limited group of people creates a kind of intimacy that otherwise could not exist. The frustration of that need causes psychological harm (again, beyond the harm that one can use information to cause, or that information might 'justify' causing) and the crime in violating people's privacy, when I would consider it to be immoral, lies ultimately in disregarding the suffering of others (more likely it will be what they do with certain information that I'll probably consider immoral). I don't think privacy matters in a vacuum, when privacy violations don't cause suffering or deprive anyone of happiness. I was going to edit this but I don't know where the time went (doing other things) and I don't want to spend anymore energy on it.
In current world, it's the privacy that's more valuable than anything else. Violation of privacy is what putting us at serious risk in online and real world. Violation of privacy is being used to shape and alter our world view.
"Everyone should think as I do, and do as I think. If it doesn't align with my worldview then they are wrong. So watch _them_ but not me, because I'm good and everyone not like me is bad. And I need society to reflect that and protect my life and lifestyle at the exclusion of all others. And adjusted proportionally in how others support me because there are things I think are below me to do so others need to do them. And all that advance stuff needs to keep coming and be advanced how I like it because I want it even though I don't understand it, because science is just 'theories' so can't be as right as what I feel is right." - most humans 😑
the only solution to this question is give secession rights to communities, so each community can decide the grade of privacy they feel comfortable with. the totalitarian state is against small territories and communities because have the utopia that all humans have the same values and character and can live under the same rules
Or just a type of group not to be mentioned on youtube getting their hands on massive amounts of user data to influence and recruit loads of people to do horrible things. There are so many more reasons than just pre crime. Anything malicious on a large scale becomes way easier if you know a lot about everyone. And the people with the data don't even have to be malicious. Right now data is being sold by 'non malicious' actors and even if they didn't, data leaks happen.
This scenario is also flawed because the government can also use the driver scores as limiting options to stop things they dont like. Maybe a driver is driving produce from one farm to the store on a weekly basis, but the government doesnt like that. So they decide to lower their score/pass a law that moving produce in an uninspected vehicle is bad, and lower your score because of it. In theory, its good to keep everyone in line and stop them from doing bad things. But the people in charge of keeping people in line can too easily be swayed to do vile things
0:42 If all drivers would starts at max point, we can only count bad behaviors without having to monitor the good ones. That's basically the french driving system.
so people should be allowed to do what ever even k*ll someone if they want to? I think privacy and freedom can be more important than safety but it's not always the case
@sajanpreetsingh9144 That's freedom to take away othera freedoms which is not a freedom. It's just like we shouldn't have the freedom to take away other's privacy. The biggest problem to privacy right now is not yhe government but private corporations.
It doesn't matter if the current government only intends to use the collected data for the purpose of enforcing driving systems; at some point, someone will be elected/appointed/etc who will want to use that data for nefarious reasons. And in the case of driving data, there is a *lot* of damage that can be done -- you'd be handing them information about every single person's travel habits, social associations, health, financial status, and general quality of life. Even if there's no inherent right to privacy, this amount of information presents an extreme threat to other rights.
Why not just consider your car a public vehicle now that microphones and cameras are installed for a bigger objective? Just like there's no privacy in a public area (meaning, all the things you do are seen and can be judged), then perhaps your car could just be like those public areas. So if you have something private to do, don't do it in your car. Do it instead somewhere safer. I think everything is about balance. Sure, we need privacy. But we also have to be seen by the society since that's hard-wired within us - to connect and be known. I think, there's really no issue with the government solution for reckless driving stated in the TED.
If we have ultimate privacy, then how are we a society? How would you define what a society is if everyone is just hiding everything? How could we work together in that way?
@@tingyao8624 Couldn't we theoretically consider it a public area? I mean, if the concern is that we bought the car (so it's essentially our property), then don't we also buy tickets or services in public areas but we still consider it, well, public?
Had more curves to the roads and speed bumps. Have manufacture legislation state that no built car can go above X speed. Have all cars equiped with a "automatic slow mode" device active in certain areas. No need to invade our privacy. And if you think this is far fetched, remember HOVERING CARS AND A WORLD WIDE SOLUTION is also part of this "problem"!... Far fetched indeed.
The privacy they take from us online isn't even for the sake of safety, it's the opposite for the sake of financial gains
Exactly. Lots of people mistakenly believe that "privacy" means preventing people from blackmailing them - but what's actually at stake is mental autonomy. Anti-privacy online tracking tactics are almost universally dedicated to improving how effectively someone with money can pay to change your mind about something - whether that's to encourage you to buy something, to vote for someone, or to do something they want you to do.
the app is free unless you want to pay 20$ a month for youtube , how do you expect them to make money. they must sell your data
@@hatimsendagire5128 I expect them to be able to create a business that doesn't require exploiting and manipulating people to appease impossible stockholder expectations of infinite growth.
These companies aren't struggling mom & pop shops that could go bankrupt at any second if they fail to squeeze every possible penny out of anyone they cross paths with.
I think there's a huge difference between tracking online activity to target advertisements and tracking driving data to reduce behaviours that harm and kill people (speeding killed 12,151 people in 2022 according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).
I’d argue that the issue of privacy loss for financial gain is different from sacrificing privacy for public safety. Behind the Veil of Ignorance, we might accept certain privacy trade-offs if they demonstrably benefit everyone, especially the least advantaged, as in the case of reducing accidents. However, privacy taken purely for financial gain lacks this justification. So I think we agree in principle, but in this fictional world there is no profit motive. And that does seem plausible to me in certain cases.
"I don't hide because my actions are questionable, I hide because your intentions are questionable."
Amen. These comments have to be bots.
@@Bern_il_Cinqwhat do you even mean?
Yes this is spot on!
Exactly! This much information is very powerful. Power corrupts, and also, is the information guaranteed to only be accessible to the intended audience?
spot on
The problem is not trading piracy for safety. The problem is the entity with the control of the information (in this case, the government) has the incentive to use this for their own gain or other purposes that many of us would not agree with.
privacy* (you wrote piracy)
they addressed that in the video
Even if the Government wasn't corrupt, the risk of data hacking is practically guranteed. The question is then: what will access to this data mean for the people it was taken from? What level of fraud can be perpetrated with it? Will superfluous data like age, weight, eye colour also be tracked? (almost certain it will)
These days, it's the private sector that is the biggest threat to privacy.
So what if the government uses our data? You do realize the government are just people that we elect to make run the country right?
Honestly, simply getting people to use good public transport would drastically decrease car accidents planetwide
Using public transport also reduces privacy
@@yeshovirajrao6479 To a limited extent that involves much more conscious coexistence with fellow people in one's area and much less storage of information that is held by multiple people with different intentions.
If the people you see on the bus are different every time, they're much more likely to forget about you.
If they are the same, you are much more likely to mutually remember each other and be able to exercise mutual societal care (offering seats to people who could use a seat, whether for permanent or temporary reasons, and other simple, pro-social acts). You might even be able to befriend each other - or simply tolerate each other. Either way, you are interacting with people directly and can control how much is known about yourself to individuals.
If your own car is spying on you, it's much harder to remember that it is doing so, much more likely that you will unintentionally reveal parts of yourself that you didn't want to, and much more likely that the information known about you will be held by someone to distant from you to really grasp your humanity and care about your best interests.
@@yeshovirajrao6479 Not to the extent of constant surveillance. People are fine with public transport. Instead it has to be made into a good, safe, and moderately fast alternative without making it expensive.
@@HappyGickNah public transport is tracked and most have surveillance onboard these days. Plus funding it takes away from the productive economy that would otherwise support private citizens driving their private cars and having privacy. Should I be taxed more to fund a rail system I won't use? Should my employer who pays me? Commuter systems should be private: funded by the people who use them and their personal generosity to the riders that could not afford the full ticket. A top-down government cannot get you where you need to go because by its very definition it seeks to run money through a sieve to reorder the natural social structure. You might not "care" if your free ride came at the cost of someone's ability to own a home but you're certainly not morally justified for advocating the system of forcible extraction that got them there.
@@Bern_il_Cinq
"Should I be taxed more to fund a rail system I won't use?"
You're not taxed enough to maintain the roads you use, as those who use public transit, bicycles and their feet subsidize drivers. Public transit and cycling generally has positive Return On Investment (ROI), unlike cars.
And if you didn't know, those who live in cities subsidize suburban places. Suburbs are so far away from everything and their tax so low that they cost too much to maintain, relying on taxes from cities and shopping centres.
THE ANIMATION ON THIS WAS SO GOOD!!
It look like something out of Rick and Morty
Love how they STARified real people too haha.
@@justinehercthehuman same!!
@@syabilaazri7834 if rick and morty looks like this, then i should probs watch it
@@syabilaazri7834 That's exactly what i was thinking lol
the starfish-like Plato is just pure perfection
More perfect than the Platonic Form?
I would vote for privacy, because I believe the same results could be achieved by some educational means or something more ethical than spying and dictating. Privacy is always inherently valuable, but that system is even more flawed, because the government has even more control over citizens that usual as it either can make someone's score anything they want (high for a politician who drives recklessly, low for an upstanding citizen, who is unwanted) or give access to all of the information to everyone.
Setting aside feasibility, it seems to matter whether the social norms of the society would tolerate such a policy. This might be a great affront to many western liberal democracies, but I can imagine collectivist societies where the ethical cost is lower to the extent that people are less accustomed to valorizing individual privacy. What if people were "educated" to not value individual privacy so much?
Sometimes safety comes from having privacy.
@@ew2645 *Often
With exceptions being those in positions of great influence, where full transparency often better serves. 🤔
Agreed! But isn't the inverse often true? Public health measures often require some level of data sharing, like tracking disease outbreaks or vaccination records. And sometimes privacy can be used to conceal harmful activities. Even the "privacy of the home" can be used to conceal domestic injustices, although of course this does not mean it is not an important thing to protect in many other cases.
@@dutyofcivility So long as it is run by humans (a.k.a always) you cannot expect a system with such power to respect "personal boundaries" indefinitely. It's unfortunate and frustrating in my opinion, because it would be nice if we could simply ensure only responsible people reside in these positions, but such methods can be beaten. People are innovative and prone to push back on any variable they deem "detrimental" to their lifestyle. This is true of both good *and* bad people. 😩
@@taiconan8857 Fair enough! You have made me wonder if an Artificial Intelligence might be able to overcome these human imperfections. I guess the AI is built by humans, though.
@dutyofcivility Indeed! It's one of the few tools I would genuinely consider potentially "unbiased" so long as we don't use any of the existing "large language models" that basically threw vast contents of the internet into a blender/calculator, slapped censors etc. into it, and can agree on a "baseline" dataset that responds appropriately to 99% of issues WITHOUT being "perpetually online" and thus prone to sabotage. Then conflicting accounts can be vetted, issues like domestic abuse can have proper classifications, etc. Police could literally walk up to the "house AI" and ask, "has any instance that fulfils the classification of domestic abuse occurred in the last 2 hours. We've had a concerned citizen call in a noise complaint."
Then the AI can quickly alert the police to the situation inside. "No officer. However, the girls *were* playing a game with water that escalated into a very racous romp across the house for 25 minutes. Lots of squealing, but no injuries. Given this is the first incident of this type I will let them know their antics briefly worried a neighbor. Will that be all, Officer?"
CCTV attached to the AI stayed local. Private details like who caused the commotion aren't broadcasted. Specifics that weren't necessary weren't provided. Etc.
Current low-level models are extremely prone to issues though so I suspect that level of "independant consistency" is several decades away.
This is exactly what our internet has been for some time now with social media and such
It seems like so many people (online) advocate for their privacy, and that "you have nothing to hide from xyz"
I feel like Ted-ed has done justice and shed light on this topic and hopefully this video will raise awareness that privacy and safety are intertwined
"You have nothing to hide"
"Exactly, so in that case you have nothing to see"
The portrayal of the philosophers as echinoderms slayed me.
“If you trade freedom for security, you will get neither.”
the full quote: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin
I kinda disagree, as a Canadian I am happy to not have the freedom to bear arms, even with some events here or there, I feel much safer that dumbasses around me don't have the freedom
@@aaolisami So what is "essential liberty" then? Seems like that quote is missing context.
@@saadsaleem8286That just means your freedoms exist at the discretion of your government (and the American government. And the American people. Or the PLA. Or the Brits even. Pretty much anyone with guns.)
Trudeau is a fascist in case you had any doubt. Americans would not trade places with you FYI.
@@SLD-bz9so Agreed - the quote is flawed. The meaning it's trying to convey is overshadowed by the ability to extrapolate it to a terrible degree.
Privacy wouldn't be so important if not for the human inclination to attack each other for the aspects of life which we are all thus compelled to keep private.
Bro that is actually true. Well thought comment there
"Is privacy worth it?" - Yes
Are we sure about that?
@@mariustan9275 Yes we are.
It is extremely easy to answer "yes" to such an idealistic and vague question, but we can punch it up a little to make things more interesting and realistic.
"Is privacy of driving data worth the thousands of deaths caused by reckless driving (12,151 deaths due to speeding in 2022 according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)?" - No
@sinisterelephant8658 So because other people drive recklessly I need to give up my rights?
@@sinisterelephant8658 You're trying to take this completely out of context to justify the elimination of privacy. Go gaslight somebody else scumbag.
Who ever decides what means to be a "good driver" would have an enormous power, and would be a slippery slope for authoritarism, because as a human being, it's impossible not to imprint your own biases when deciding such matters.
True
If it’s a nonideal government, it would either have to completely neuter its ability to use the data for any purpose or leave open the future possibility of the data being used for more than just driver scoring.
If it’s an ideal government, they would perfectly segregate the data right up until they determined that they had a moral obligation to use said data in the prosecution of crimes.
There is literally no situation where government surveillance like this doesn’t eventually turn into Big Brother.
i feel like i would vote for privacy, but i feel like a better option would be to survey the roads but not the cars themselves, keeping things more private while still making people safer. I'm not sure if it would work in practice though
I remember someone saying that, "In recent times, privacy is a myth as democrcay is"
My car insurance company does this. They don't use cameras, but between the beacin in my car and an app on my cellphone, they know exactly where and when I drive and how fast.
My car insurance has me install a beacon that detects my speed for a discount, they know where I am driving and how fast, but I have a way to turn it off. My dad told me that the data is generally only used when a collision occurs
LOL WHAT?!?! You sold the rights to constantly access your location to a faceless corporation for a discount? The same people who control if you get a payout after there's an accident? The ones who don't have to compete for clients much because you're legally forced to have insurance?
@@Bern_il_Cinq step 1: generate a premium then add +500 to it. step 2: offer the inflated premium, but with a 500 dollar discount with a tracker. step 3: sell the information to companies and deny coverage if the tracker is disabled.
Incredible presentation ❤
1. There are ways to preserve both safety and privacy. It's called cryptography.
2. Privacy has value on it's own. Is the will to not be embarrassed good enough on it's own? And since the only way to not be embarrassed is for that thing become private, therefore privacy has a value.
5:12 Man I thought they said "if you're brain rot"
😂😂
To give the government of that planet the greatest benefit of the doubt, protecting the safety of the roads only requires monitoring activity on the roads. If, for example, you set up your own private course, away from anyone else, the government has no business even _knowing_ how you drive on that course.
As a Rawlsian, I’d evaluate car cameras through the lens of fairness. Behind the Veil of Ignorance, we’d weigh public safety against privacy, treating both as essential to a just society. Any policy that sacrifices privacy must clearly demonstrate it benefits everyone, especially the least advantaged, and includes robust safeguards to prevent misuse. Thank you for the thoughtful dilemma!
absolutely LOVED the aliens in this animation. the muscular and skeletal systems too on it hahah. gold. thx ted
Privacy vs security is not a real trade, they coexist. It is manipulative to ask to have an exclusive choice here. There are numerous ways to improve security without compromising privacy. The real problem with privacy is that there is no organization trustworthy enough to possess this much information, especially in the world of personal gains and conflict of interest.
Without privacy there is no safety
well there aint any with privacy either apparently
You could have used the example of Facial Recognition, which is currently happening now, so we could relate.
Isn't this our social contract--to give up some of your freedom to the state so that the state will protect the rest of your freedom? I just watched a Crash Course related to this, and I agree. I mean, we do it already.
Your freedom comes from the state. If you had no state to protect you, others can do with you what they want without consequence.
@@Mark_badas I agree! That is why I think the policy is not so outlandish. The state is already in charge of securing freedom. And the state also decides what is 'public' and 'private'.
freedom and privacy are 2 different things
@@n_u001 Good point. I guess I was thinking of privacy as a subset of freedom. We have other freedoms, but privacy is a core one. Even so, it is not an absolute one.
The only thing I would add, is that I feel that humans are untrustworthy. Not all of them, not even the majority, but by letting people become just "someone", you end up dehumanizing them (like the starfishes in the car we see in the video). If you don't feel empathy towards a human being, you don't necessarily care about them anymore and you might end up caring more about yourself or your values. Not feeling empathy, unless you have a strict moral compass, can be very dangerous. This still happens in so many situations, both inside the government (see the police, health or justice department,...) and outside (banks, social media, pharmaceutical companies,...). Even if the majority agrees that the rules in place are fairly reasonable, there is still quite a high possibility that someone will screw everything up (in specific cases, not constantly) because their interests or values feel more important than the citizens or customers. This isn't something we can't consider. Education and a system that can self-criticize itself and adjust accordingly are probably the solutions to that... but, statistically and psychologically speaking, there is just so much evidence that people screw things over that it's hard to trust any big organizations, public or private, with anything that digs too deep into a citizen's life (like privacy). It is unfortunately important that the citizen relies on himself when it comes to his interests, but not entirely. I'm not right-wing, I believe in a balance between the collective's responsibility and the individual's one. So, for privacy for example, it would be useful to have a system that monitors how many accidents you have (maybe using your insurance data) but without cameras, microphones and GPS. A mid-way between the collective's interest and the individual one would probably be the wisest thing to do for me, so that the responsibility of personal and group interests is shared. What do you think? (Amazing animation btw)
It’s a fallacy that safety and privacy/freedom are inversely correlated
how so?
The safest airport in the world disagrees with you
@ North Korea disagrees with you
@@samj8932 North Korea disagrees with you
@@YohnzyRR because no one can demonstrate a correlation
2:55 " we're making a mother of all omelettes here jack, we can't threat over every egg!"
-Plato (probably)
I do not think they should install the cameras and the microphones.
I think that, having an externally facing camera that can monitor speed, to start would be an agreeable first step/compromise.
* Studies every modern terrorist plot and how it went undiscovered *
* Reads the Snowden Documents *
* Looks at my search history *
_No, safety is absolutely not worth loss of privacy._
Context?
You can cry after losing something important due to reckless driving.
@@tk-dl5oh the joke was that you never show your internet search history
@@justenoughrandomness8989 oh that makes sense.
Can you make a video about low iron or anemia? Awesome video by the way
In this very VERY specific scenario, the issue is safety kn the roads, not off them.
Traffic cams and tickets ought to be enough to determine one"s Driver Credit. Satelite tracking and transmitting devices in cars is overkill.
Brilliant video, and brilliant comments! Thank you everyone for enriching this space.
How about making the recording optional, and anyone that doesn't want to be is automatically given the worst score?
Only if you remove the penalty aspect. Although it may be less effective of a solution, there should be no difference between being under surveillance while being a dangerous driver and not being under surveillance. You aren't forcing people to forfeit their privacy by increasing premiums but you should offer a reward for the forfeit of your privacy so long as you are also a good driver. A discount only model essentially. It should be the same for online privacy.
If I a *perfectly responsible government* was the one to use my private data, I would not hesitate to vote in favor. But since that's practically impossible I might still vote yes as I personally value my safety far above my privacy.
first time im here under 10 minutes ted-ed u guys should make a seperate riddles channel i always love your riddles i watched them all i really want to watch more pls take this into consideration ive been watching your channel for 6 years
I sometimes use my ETFs to buy dividend and growth stocks for diversification instead of reinvesting in the same place. To each their own methods though. The good thing is that you're investing in the first place and that's what's important. Salute for the content!
Hearing from an experienced investor who has survived the crisis and prospered is always comforting. It could be worrisome when your portfolio goes from green to red, but if you have invested in strong firms, you should just keep
growing them and stick to your goal.
I'm a contractor, and my job doesn't permit me the time to properly analyze my holdings/evaluate stocks myself, so I've had a fiduciary actively restructuring my portfolio for the past 7 years now to match the present market condition and that's how I've been able to stay afloat, knowing when to buy and sell..
Could you kindly elaborate on the advisor's background and qualifications?
Her name is Victoria Anne Leonard can't divulge much. Most likely, the internet should have her basic info, you can research if you like
Thank you for this Pointer. It was easy to find your handler, She seems very proficient and flexible. I booked a call session with her.
The idea that society is just a collection of individuals with rights might be the most dangerous idea ever. That’s like looking at a house and saying it’s a clump of bricks and tearing them apart while being shocked you end with no house at all in the end
There's actually a scenario closer to the real world. Where I live most people park their cars on the streets because there's not enough garage space. This is pretty bad for EV infrastructure as most solutions involve charging your car at home or designated areas. There's one solution though that turns street lamps into charging stations, but the problem here is that thieves could easily steal the copper wire needed to charge the EV. This could be resolved by placing cameras on every street lamp as well.
I while I wouldn't want a camera in my car, I'll take it on street lamp. The societal benefit from moving on from gas is worth it.
I like this example! And it does make me think that, in the present case, I would support video/audio surveillance on the roads themselves (i.e., any property owned by the government), even if it is intensive and has panopticon vibes. That seems like a good way to make it less intrusive.
Lol good one Ted Ed. Like we don't already live in a surveillance state.
The starfish thing is very genius 👍🏻
Love ted since young ❤
"The issue isn't about sacrificing a bit of freedom to achieve cybersecurity. The real problem is that organizations with access to these systems might misuse their power to monitor, surveil, or control individuals without transparency or proper oversight."
Good philosophical video. Most people don't think about their privacy or their individual rights, until there is an issue.
A simpler question to ask is, do you trust your government to ALWAYS AND FOREVER honor your individual rights and freedoms, no matter which current administration in charge? If you answered yes, bless your heart. You took the blue pill.
Government should supply and maintain public infrastructure, provide a common currency, provide a national defense, and regulate interstate commerce. That's about it. Doling out social credit scores is way beyond the scope of any government. Who wants this much government? People who can't take care of themselves. The majority of us just want to be left alone.
Not to even mention what happens if a nefarious group happens to get their hands on a data leak? No matter how trustworthy your government is, data leaks happen.
I agree with you. Also, these stepping stones of totalitarian control and dictatorship to not allow individual freedoms and rights to privacy will eventually lead to total destruction of democracy that our founding fathers had fought for in wars.
I am completely against the government monitoring me! The government doesn't care at all about my driving skills.
Right to privacy assumes importance in a digital age we live in. The State, big businesses and other powerful stakeholders constantly misuse it for their own benefits, motives and agenda. Privacy violation is rampant and indifference from authorities is much more appalling. I would have vote for the right to privacy. We don't have to trade our civil liberties and constitutional protections for security and safety. There are other legitimate ways to balance both.
What I didn't understand was why they didn't just install cameras outside the car. Yes, I know that some people may be driving while texting, eating, etc. but it's the impact on the car's speed and manuvering that it has that matters. If the car kept veering or speeding or, well, crashing (in the worst scenario), then reduce privilages. However, if the car was consitantly driving well, then increase them. It's not really important to view the causes here, and like the video says it's a violation of privacy. However, we can gather the causes and if any unsafe activity is occuring based on the effects on the quality of driving. I mean, even if you are watching the driver, it's still not like you could stop them from driving unsafely. In fact, skilled enough drivers can multitask while driving.
No. Privacy is Freedom. Without privacy, we are nothing but livestock. We're all individuals who's lives and well-being matter.
If nothing else, governments around the world have proven that they cannot be fully trusted, ever.
If somebody who is programmed to see patterns of criminality looks at your data, they’re not going to find you - they’re going to find a criminal.
Edward Snowden
Love ted ed you taught me so much
“What’s more important: freedom or safety? We can only find safety through strength.” Isabelle
Mayor: These are all good ideas in paper, but when you put them into action it may not always work.
Mayor's statement is 100% true.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin
Very fascinant
It doesn't matter if you trust the *current* government to not mishandle your data because governments change all the time and once the system is there it's available for misuse.
In a perfect world, I would give up my privacy for guaranteed security. Unfortunately, the real world has real people who are easily corrupted by absolute power. The government, without the people actively resisting its grasp for more power, can and will take away the people's freedoms when given an opportunity.
Just make drones to go above cars to track the hovercars position not the person unless the hovercar is parking because if its parking well then theres no reason to track it because the hovercar has got to its destination
MKBHD on notice
This video doesn't really talk about the biggest problem: when the organization collecting personal data is NOT trustworthy and their goal is NOT good for everyone.
The example made in this video makes it seem like giving up privacy is better because the government is usually ought to be trustworthy and road safety is something everyone wants, but what if it was about a company that sells the data about all you do for its personal profit?
That's the real problem.
Instead, make the monitoring voluntary, and keep the rest intact. Let the individual decide if their privacy is worth the financial tradeoff. Bypasses a lot of the ethical dilemmas by alowwing people to exercise their right to privacy.
I literally handed in an essay on surveilance and Criminology yesterday, you could notnrelease this then
Personally I more so agree with the thought that we should focus on the rights and things like that associated with privacy rather than privacy itself like for example if you want to reduce pollution there's not just using less stuff there's also things like recycling materials, finding alternative fuels, and changing legislation about draining oil and making companies have to pay money to fix the damages obviously pollution itself is an issue but we need to focus on the smaller attributes of it just because it's such a large issue
does anyone know what font this? It is so beautiful
Probably some custom starfish font made specific for the video. But it's easily read, and they're unmistakably French...
-I don't really agree with the link between privacy and freedom that many libertarians seem to make, at least not intrinsically. You mentioned a lack of privacy influencing people's actions but as social animals we are inevitably influenced by other people so that comes with just living in a society to begin with. I would argue that a right to autonomy doesn't entail a right to not being influenced by others, it allows for the 'social coercion' that can come about through voicing negative judgments about people or even just realizing that people might judge you negatively as a result of various choices or even things that are out of your control (or even softcore 'coercion' that has material consequences, like boycotting a business with questionable ethics or different things that can have material outcomes in terms of wealth, health etc. I've always thought that being able to release some cancer causing gas into the atmosphere or some deadly virus that can wipe out chunks of the population makes libertarianism a largely meaningless idea. One's actual health is affected by your second hand meth smoke). Maybe you can argue that hostility toward dissenters and using social coercion to deter publicly voicing unpopular views violates the spirit of democracy, as well as free speech, but no one's autonomy is being violated.
-I think the idea of a collective good is incoherent as is the idea of the welfare of an entire society as a society. I understand justice to be the equal consideration of the happiness and suffering of all individual sentient beings (all of the beings who might ultimately be affected by any given choice one makes). I do think that you can make legitimate trade-offs between privacy and reducing crime or various other goods but I don't think the idea of a natural right to privacy is coherent or that you can logically defend the idea of privacy as inherently valuable. As someone who wants privacy some of the implications of this, of my own position, might be counter intuitive to me but privacy need not be inherently valuable in order for it to matter in any capacity. Libertarianism seems to be the most coherent theory of rights to me (as a non-libertarian), a natural right would be something you could justify using force to defend. We can't meaningfully be thought of as owning information the way that we can a finite physical resource.
A natural right to privacy would mean I could justify using force to deter people from looking at me, so I would have a right to control information about myself but no right to direct my eyes toward whatever I wanted to. I don't see how you can have a special entitlement (an exclusive claim) to controlling the acquisition of certain information without owning the minds who would be aware of or simulate that information. I think the preference utilitarian argument for privacy fails for the same reason preference utilitarianism fails, if other people should consider your desire for them to not acquire certain information about you simply because you have a desire for them to not have that information then you should consider their desire to acquire that information, you can't give the desires of all beings equal consideration because desires for fundamentally different things are fundamentally incommensurate (if I value my happiness it would be consistent for me to value your happiness as well because happiness is happiness- it's the same thing even if I don't or wouldn't have access to yours. It doesn't follow that because I have a desire, because I want to experience happiness, I should logically consider a sadist's desire for other people to suffer or someone else's desire for Trump to be a*sassinated or for Mars to be destroyed etc. We want specific things, if I want Mars to be destroyed the destruction of Mars wouldn't cause the fulfillment of my desire, it would be the fulfillment of my desire. This applies to libertarianism as well, libertarianism asks that I consider at least some of the desires that other people have simply because they have those desires and not because of the nature of what they desire). What's left is to argue that the information itself is bad and that's why we should oppose its acquisition (not asking people to not acquire it because that would contradict what we subjectively desire or more specifically because it belongs to us and they have no right to it but because the information itself is bad). Besides being a completely arbitrary value, 'information' (if we're talking about a belief) only simulates something other than itself, the difference between good information and bad information (not 'good' or 'bad' because those beliefs are true or false) would be the nature of what they simulate, so I don't see how you can not want people to be aware of your doing X on principle (not because it leads to critical judgments or negates the public image you find desirable or prevents you from being validated by others) if there's nothing inherently wrong with doing X, if there is then awareness of it wouldn't be the problem, and if awareness of it was the problem then it would be just as bad that you held that information yourself (not that you could help that).
-People have a psychological need for privacy (beyond not wanting certain information to be used to violate one's freedom or property or in a way that might lead to undesirable material outcomes of some kind or even it being used against people in some way that goes beyond just judging them for reasons that are related to that information) that probably come down to wanting to avoid self-consciousness and the possibility of critical judgment that enables it, although in some cases it might also be that information that's shared exclusively between two people or a limited group of people creates a kind of intimacy that otherwise could not exist. The frustration of that need causes psychological harm (again, beyond the harm that one can use information to cause, or that information might 'justify' causing) and the crime in violating people's privacy, when I would consider it to be immoral, lies ultimately in disregarding the suffering of others (more likely it will be what they do with certain information that I'll probably consider immoral). I don't think privacy matters in a vacuum, when privacy violations don't cause suffering or deprive anyone of happiness.
I was going to edit this but I don't know where the time went (doing other things) and I don't want to spend anymore energy on it.
Can anybody tell me what is the narrator's name? His voice is the most comfortable to the ear before dozing off whilst still learning subliminaly haha
Marques Brownlee shivering in fear at the intro. Should've blurred out the speedometer to make this video more youtuber friendly. :)
In current world, it's the privacy that's more valuable than anything else. Violation of privacy is what putting us at serious risk in online and real world. Violation of privacy is being used to shape and alter our world view.
What if, we get to trade reckless behaviour for additional privacy. Builds a rapport of trust between all parties. A win-win situ to all, imo.
"Everyone should think as I do, and do as I think. If it doesn't align with my worldview then they are wrong. So watch _them_ but not me, because I'm good and everyone not like me is bad. And I need society to reflect that and protect my life and lifestyle at the exclusion of all others. And adjusted proportionally in how others support me because there are things I think are below me to do so others need to do them. And all that advance stuff needs to keep coming and be advanced how I like it because I want it even though I don't understand it, because science is just 'theories' so can't be as right as what I feel is right."
- most humans
😑
I think cameras and mics in cars are excessive
the only solution to this question
is give secession rights to communities,
so each community can decide the grade of privacy they feel comfortable with.
the totalitarian state is against small territories and communities because have the utopia that all humans have the same values and character and can live under the same rules
anyone else thing the blue starfish with the white turtle neck sweater looks like sadness from inside out?
Excellent video expressing varying views
Yes it is
If we give away our privacy and dont demand more privacy, we are heading toward the path of pre crime, like in minority report.
Or just a type of group not to be mentioned on youtube getting their hands on massive amounts of user data to influence and recruit loads of people to do horrible things.
There are so many more reasons than just pre crime.
Anything malicious on a large scale becomes way easier if you know a lot about everyone.
And the people with the data don't even have to be malicious. Right now data is being sold by 'non malicious' actors and even if they didn't, data leaks happen.
Such an important question to ask. And very hard to answer.
Not THAT hard to answer... context matters. 😏
Not hard. Even if you agree with what the plan do to with your info who’s to say some other politician is gonna come up use the info against you later
if it's easy for you then you definitely hadn't understand the question enough
@@paritoshjha28 context matters. 😉
I love the animation style of this video
i think the real solution here is to ditch cars for public transport as the main way for people to get around.
Democracy depends on trust, how much do we trust one another?
nice font
It's unmistakably French, down to the starfish's names...
This scenario is also flawed because the government can also use the driver scores as limiting options to stop things they dont like. Maybe a driver is driving produce from one farm to the store on a weekly basis, but the government doesnt like that. So they decide to lower their score/pass a law that moving produce in an uninspected vehicle is bad, and lower your score because of it.
In theory, its good to keep everyone in line and stop them from doing bad things. But the people in charge of keeping people in line can too easily be swayed to do vile things
“…if government were perfectly trustworthy”. That’s the thing. They aren’t and they never will be.
Patrick Star?
2:49 holy fk patrick insane AURA
my response. "ehh, Sounds Expensive. Better not..." then put money into speed bumps.
I compromise to your freedom is a compromise to your safety
Is there safety in surveillance? Is there freedom without fear?
-Matt Pless
0:42 If all drivers would starts at max point, we can only count bad behaviors without having to monitor the good ones.
That's basically the french driving system.
I don't think it's nice to give that kind of control to anyone for whatsoever reason
Freedom > safety
That's way oversimplified. How are people agreeing with such a shallow statement?
@@enderyu Je just answered the question at the end of the video
@@SLD-bz9soFreedom to take away others freedoms is not a freedom.
so people should be allowed to do what ever even k*ll someone if they want to?
I think privacy and freedom can be more important than safety but it's not always the case
@sajanpreetsingh9144 That's freedom to take away othera freedoms which is not a freedom.
It's just like we shouldn't have the freedom to take away other's privacy.
The biggest problem to privacy right now is not yhe government but private corporations.
It doesn't matter if the current government only intends to use the collected data for the purpose of enforcing driving systems; at some point, someone will be elected/appointed/etc who will want to use that data for nefarious reasons. And in the case of driving data, there is a *lot* of damage that can be done -- you'd be handing them information about every single person's travel habits, social associations, health, financial status, and general quality of life. Even if there's no inherent right to privacy, this amount of information presents an extreme threat to other rights.
Why not just consider your car a public vehicle now that microphones and cameras are installed for a bigger objective? Just like there's no privacy in a public area (meaning, all the things you do are seen and can be judged), then perhaps your car could just be like those public areas. So if you have something private to do, don't do it in your car. Do it instead somewhere safer. I think everything is about balance. Sure, we need privacy. But we also have to be seen by the society since that's hard-wired within us - to connect and be known. I think, there's really no issue with the government solution for reckless driving stated in the TED.
If we have ultimate privacy, then how are we a society? How would you define what a society is if everyone is just hiding everything? How could we work together in that way?
A car is private property.
A public area is a public area.
@@tingyao8624 Couldn't we theoretically consider it a public area? I mean, if the concern is that we bought the car (so it's essentially our property), then don't we also buy tickets or services in public areas but we still consider it, well, public?
@@johnandrheyabordo644 You can go to a public area if you buy a ticket; it's not the same in private property.
Leaks are profitable.
I think the Patriot Act showed us the loss of privacy did not make us safer.
0:07 Canada
Apart from the fact they speak french, what gives it as Canada!?
Had more curves to the roads and speed bumps. Have manufacture legislation state that no built car can go above X speed. Have all cars equiped with a "automatic slow mode" device active in certain areas.
No need to invade our privacy.
And if you think this is far fetched, remember HOVERING CARS AND A WORLD WIDE SOLUTION is also part of this "problem"!... Far fetched indeed.
Safety can be put over privacy ethically can be done regarding illegal activities