Access Denied
www.weforum.org
  • Research from the World Economic Forum shows it’s becoming easier for citizens to be monitored, allowing governments, technology companies and threat actors to “reach deeper into people’s lives”.
  • In response, people are “waking up” to privacy, according to Meredith Whittaker, president of secure messaging service Signal.
  • Here, she explores the drivers behind this shift and how it could impact the digital landscape.
    • Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish
      38·
      14 hours ago

      Food is not a right at all

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

    • einkorn@feddit.orgEnglish
      89·
      2 days ago

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

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

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

      • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
        23·
        24 hours ago

        …and for that you get down voted.

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

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      720·
      2 days ago

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

          • droans@midwest.socialEnglish
            5·
            18 hours ago

            Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

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

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          12·
          20 hours ago

          There are two types of rights:

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

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

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          15·
          20 hours ago

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

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

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

          Likewise with any anarchist utopia.

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