My Note: this is a file I copied onto the wearable to have with me when David Brin spoke at the Media Lab. I used this argument against him, and he didn't have a solution.

Arguments against privacy, and repudiation notes (from RRE):

* "Most people are privacy pragmatists who can be trusted to make intelligent
trade-offs between functionality and privacy."

Hidden thesis here: that in fact ther has to be a trade off.  New tech
means this isn't really the case.  We want both.

* "Our lives will inevitably become visible to others, so the real issue
is mutual visibility, achieving a balance of power by enabling us to 
watch the people watching us."

If the institutions watching us are so powerful, how on earth could
we make them submit toour surveillance of them (assuming we could
even know who "they" are)?  

* "Once you really analyze it, the concept of privacy is so nebulous
that it provides no useful guidance for action."

There may be many different definitions of privacy depending on the 
scenario, but that doesn't mean it can't be applied in each case seperately.
Where's the confusion in a medical-record's confidentiality?

* "People want these systems, as inndicated by the percentage of them
who sign up for them once they become available."

Often people are only given the choice of put up or drop out.  E.g. toll-
collecting systems put in without arguments of better tech, and only then
are people offered the option of using it or not.

* "Concern for privacy is anti-social and obstructs the building of
a democratic society."

Beyond what is needed to smoothly run a state, why should society need
more?

* "Privacy is just one more category of government intervention in private
businesses."