My point was that - since information magnifies power - symmetrically discarding privacy does not grant symmetric power but strengthens those already in a position of power (able to use the information more effectively). This is an important dynamic that needs to be part of the analysis. I wouldn't say it necessitates anything in particular.
That makes sense. The reason I like symmetrically discarding privacy is that I don't think retaining privacy is viable. I am not suggesting we discard all privacy, just that whenever we discard privacy, we do so symmetrically. This will still result in a power imbalance, but there will be some accountability.
"The reason I like symmetrically discarding privacy is that I don't think retaining privacy is viable."
Absolute prevention isn't viable, but the same thing is true of myriad other offenses. Just because we can't absolutely prevent fraud doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it a bad thing and work to reduce the amount of it. I don't really see why invasion of privacy is substantively different - though certainly it could be.
"I am not suggesting we discard all privacy, just that whenever we discard privacy, we do so symmetrically. This will still result in a power imbalance, but there will be some accountability."
"Symmetrically" might be easiest to sell, but I don't think it has anything else going for it. Really, those with power should be expected to give up more privacy than us if they expect our cooperation. Alternatively, they could give up other power to balance.
In any case, we are of course talking rules of thumb; any individual proposal should be considered on its merits.
