Episode: 128
Title: HPR0128: Misunderstanding Privacy Part 2
Source: https://hub.hackerpublicradio.org/ccdn.php?filename=/eps/hpr0128/hpr0128.mp3
Transcribed: 2025-10-07 11:51:28

---

This show is a huge adaptation of the paper entitled, I've got nothing to hide in other
things that are in by Day of Jace Alon, a link to this and other information available in the show notes.
Hello, I'm Drake and you must it is Friday, it is 3.43 a.m. in San Diego and I know you heard my last
episode on privacy, I know this, but I'm going to learn you something anyway because it's Friday,
you ain't got no job and you ain't got shit to do. Okay that's only funny if you've seen the movie
Friday, if you haven't it's kind of a funny comedy, it's on Comedy Central like once every week,
I recommend watching it, but we are going to be talking about privacy and just as a heads up,
I'm having a small recording issue or Kevin, my recording associate because of the prom over there,
but we seem to be dropping audio every couple of minutes or seconds, I'd say seconds,
so if that happens there's not much that I can do about that, but for the most part I'm looking
at the spectrum graph thingy and it seems to be working just fine. Kevin's in the corner mocking me,
it's the spectrum graph thingy, that's what I call it, but okay so privacy, many attempts have
been made to conceptualize privacy, right, to try and locate the essence, trying to note the,
what the core elements of privacy actually are, so we're going to be taking a look at just two
of the ways and you can do this, we're going to check out the periodistic conception of privacy
and the social value of privacy. Let's go ahead and start with the periodistic concept,
that's probably what we're going to hit tonight, that's probably all we're get through tonight
because it's getting rather early in the morning and I have things I need to do, so some attempts
to define privacy have been too narrow, they've excluded things that we would commonly consider
to be private, for example defining privacy in terms of intimacy, actually I have a quote here
that I want to read in regards to that, can we get some of that, if you're just in the Discovered
channel, we're going to strike the colonial people right in those notes and you could
kind of wishfully trumply music in the background when they're doing the voiceover, we're doing
something like that, Kevin. Oh yeah, this is good, yeah, I like this, I like your mind,
I like what you're doing, I like the place you're going. I would, Kevin, I would follow you anywhere
and the quote is, the content of privacy cannot be captured, focused exclusively, I need
information access or intimate decisions because privacy falls off three areas, I suggest that
these apparently desperate areas are linked by common denominator of intimacy, privacy content
covers intimate information access and decisions. I like that, is that good? I was going for the
dramatic effect of you know, philosopher Julie S, Julian Sess, whatever. The problem with understanding
privacy as intimacy is that not all private information is intimate, social security number,
political beliefs, credit card numbers, religious beliefs, all those are not exactly intimate,
but in most cases, we reconsider them to be kind of private. Of course, you can say that intimacy
could be defined quite broadly, though it merely becomes a synonym for privacy rather than in a
library, so what privacy actually means, but that's not the point. On the other hand,
some attempts to conceptualize privacy have been far too broad, right? There's a guy Samuel Warren,
Wes Warren, Samuel Warren, who said that their privacy is the right to be left alone.
All right. Well, what does that exactly entail? Many intrusions to, you know, your right to be left
alone are not necessarily privacy invasions. For example, my dear Kevin, if I would to walk over
and punch you in your face for messing around with iTunes rather than watching these levels on
the mixer, I would certainly not leave you alone, but I would not be a privacy issue.
What are you doing at iTunes? That is so exciting. Anyway, what's that? What are you doing?
No, that's my theme song. Don't be harsh on that.
Oh, because I'm Big Pimpin' Kevin. I'm Big Pimpin' up here in NYC. Actually,
no, it's up here in SD because we're in San Diego because, you know, Drake headquarters
are located in beautiful sunny San Diego.
Dude, you're just on fire with the mixer tonight. I go ahead and stop that. We have to get back
to the privacy thing here. Okay, meanwhile back at the point, any attempts to locate a common core
of privacy like a common denominator faces a major dilemma, right? Because if you go too broad,
you risk the danger of being over-inclusive or vague, and if you go too narrow, you risk being too
inclusive. That was rather too restrictive. Too narrow, too restrictive. Okay, so here's a thought.
Instead of conceptualizing privacy in the traditional manner, let's understand it.
Blown your mind here as a family of resemblances, okay? Instead of being related by a common
denominator, let's call it a complicated network. They're like overlapping and criss-crossing
similarities. So, you know, sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities in detail.
In other words, privacy is not reducible to a singular, help me here,
essence, boom. It is not reducible to a singular essence. It is a bunch of different things that
do not really share any element in common, but nevertheless bear resemblance to each other. Okay,
that's the key. Resemblance, but no elements in common. And a great deal of attention has been
expanded, trying to elucidate a conception of privacy without looking at the problems of
actually facing, trying to fit our issues into a one-size-fits-all conception of privacy and
neglects to see the problems in their four dimensions or even to understand them completely.
And I am talking too fast until I get in. See, that's what you're supposed to be doing here,
buddy. It's the rock star here. That's causing the problem. You know, the rock star, because
I like to part out, you know, so hoping to get that one. There's a song called Party Like a Rock
Star. It's the slogan to the rock star energy drink, you know, because you do know the
nice music effects earlier. And there you go. I do party like a rock star, actually. That's why I don't
party. I'm gonna slow down and I would try to finish up here, finish strong with good valid points.
So, conceptions of privacy should not be there to confuse us. Think of privacy as an umbrella
term for a web of related things. It cannot be purely defined. Okay, so if you can't have a
pureistic value of privacy, what about a social value of privacy? We're going to go ahead and
get into that in the next little mini series I'm working on here. The next episode is going to
cover that. This one was kind of short though, but I have some things I need to take care of.
So, if you have any questions or comments, let me know and drinkinubisagimo.com. I have a blog.
I have to pimp that. It's my job at drakenubis.com. It's for all the cool people hang out.
And we're going to go ahead and let's play the closing music and excellent. Great, great.
Thank you for listening to H.P.R. sponsored by caro.net. So, head on over to C.A.R.O.
Yeah, you know, it was kind of short-brown like that. I don't much care for this theme.
I kind of like a change to the theme song. I think we'll try hard to talk about it.
I don't know, it goes bust with theme or the theme song The Bible Man sounds pretty good.
The Bible Man.
No, I'm serious. It's the natural, you never ever showed you this. It's this guy.
And it's like, it's supposed to be like a Christian superhero, like the, you know,
P.O.L.A. gospel to kids of every, but it's like this comic with series, like this, you know,
video game series and stuff. It's so hilarious. The funniest ones are the movie isn't at the
end. It's just like the mini shows that are like a Christian broadcast and channels.
And he dresses up in the sit that just did so fine. It's on YouTube.
