Should your spouse be compelled to testify against you in court?

[Capetan Mihali]

And Mihali wonders why I seem to have it out for you sometimes.

Well, I don't mean you're necessarily wrong to do so, in light of this kind of shit at the very least.   But you do go after him a little hard sometimes, I think that's fair to say.

[PDH]

Young people suck.

You don't need any more than this.

[DontSayBanana]

I'd totally be the snitch.

[Ed Anger]

Well, I need booze to unsee that.

[grumbler]

What do you have to hide?  Crimes?  OK, the serious request: explain the value of privacy in such a way that does not take "privacy is a right" as axiomatic.

You can go ahead and be the first.  Get a webcam, carry it everywhere and let it see everything you are doing, and stream that live on the web.  You have nothing to hide, and claim no right to privacy, so live the standard you want to impose on others.

Crowdsource if you need the funding.

[DontSayBanana]

Well, I need booze to unsee that.

You're going soft in your old age.

[Barrister]

And not surprising that you'd leap to shutting down my opinion because of my marital status and sexuality. 

Single people with no children are 2nd class citizens around here.  Being gay is just the icing on the cupcake, Cupcake.

And don't you forget it.

[Iormlund]

What do you have to hide?  Crimes?  OK, the serious request: explain the value of privacy in such a way that does not take "privacy is a right" as axiomatic.

Knowledge is power. Hide it well.

[Ideologue]

The big question is how to defuse the prospect of abuse of authority.  The simplest, but seriously flawed, solution would be public access to all collected data (attempting identity theft would be pretty short-sighted in such a society).

The biggest problems with that involve voyeurism.  Regarding adults, I understand the objection while still not considering it terribly compelling.  However, considering one of the big issues the destruction of privacy would be meant to address would be abuse of children, on reflection I'm finding it difficult to resolve that paradox.  Maybe a mixed system of public access to all communications, but cameras accessible only to an NSA-style authority of vetted professionals, or to other relevant authorities, including defense counsel, in the event of criminal or civil action.  (As computers and image recognition software get better, it may be possible to cut human vigilance out of the first-level review altogether; and this may be the key innovation that permits the establishment of a fully transparent society.)

As for embarrassing yet not unlawful "secrets"--such as disease status, penchant for adultery, etc.--one's embarrassment is irrelevant; your life and deeds are the concern of others in society, especially when it threatens other citizens' physical or emotional well-being.  Society used to recognize this, but in doing away with stupid prejudices (e.g., homophobia) we threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Consider public health.  Mandatory STD testing and public lists should have been implemented already; HIV could be eradicated in a generation.  (And as for weird fetishes, I think the Internet-driven erosion of taboos is probably close to destroying much remaining stigma to such things.)

What else needs to be kept secret?  Proprietary manufacturing information?  I'd like to see another example of truly harmless things that need to be kept private.

I would be happy living like that, knowing that I am being watched but that all others are being watched as well.  Unfortunately, I do suspect there are great many people who would find it psychologically troubling (though oddly they also often have no problem with God watching them take dumps, which is a real dissonance, cognition-wise).

[Tamas]

If the spouse wanted to be honest about their testimony, they would do it without being forced to, so I don't see the point.

[grumbler]

I would be happy living like that, knowing that I am being watched but that all others are being watched as well.  Unfortunately, I do suspect there are great many people who would find it psychologically troubling (though oddly they also often have no problem with God watching them take dumps, which is a real dissonance, cognition-wise).

I don't understand why you would be unwilling to adopt what you hope to make the universal standard, merely because it isn't universal.  What reason, besides a desire for privacy, would you have for being unwilling to live as you want everyone to live, whether everyone lives that way or not?  If privacy is an issue, explain why it is important to you without taking a right to privacy as axiomatic.  If privacy isn't an issue, why not set the example and broadcast yourself 24/7?

[grumbler]

If the spouse wanted to be honest about their testimony, they would do it without being forced to, so I don't see the point.

They might want to be honest about it, and also want to avoid testifying against someone with whom they will have to live, afterwards.  This isn't a black-and-white issue.

If they are obligated to testify, then the spouse can't blame them for testifying.  As it stands right now, a spouse only testifies if he or she wants to hurt their partner.  Justice is better served if testimony comes without externalities.

[Eddie Teach]

If they are obligated to testify, then the spouse can't blame them for testifying.

They can and will.

[grumbler]

If they are obligated to testify, then the spouse can't blame them for testifying.

They can and will.

As much as they blame other witnesses for involuntarily testifying, yes.  Which is to day, not much.

[The Minsky Moment]

All along I thought Ideologue was a neo-Marxist crusader for economic justice.
Now I find out he is just the world's most intrusive and obnoxious helicopter mommy, writ large.