I appreciate the engagement.
> if two kids out of a billion make a childish mistake and it can't be forgotten, and they chose to commit suicide as a result, you've caused more harm than good.
In this hypothetical world where everyone knows everything about everyone else, I'd imagine that fewer people would go unnoticed (and untreated) for being at high-risk for suicide. Also, online bullies would have nowhere to hide, as they'd be exposed and stopped. And ultimately, the shame of everyone would either be too much for society to bear and it would crumble in on itself, or maybe we'd lose a little bit of our shame as we came to understand that we're all fallible creatures.
> Humans are able to organize into governments and make decisions and laws that limit some powerful people so that society is better overall.
You're right, I'm skeptical of concentrated power. If I'm wrong, and privacy in public is a good thing, then I'll at least hold on to my assertion that those who pass laws are not going to adhere to those laws when it becomes an obstacle to them remaining in power (whether governmental or corporate). The better choice is to widely distribute technology and information in order to level the playing field, rather than assuming that those in power won't continue to do whatever they please.
Then top it off with how quickly people are willing to surrender personal information for free or lower cost services. Privacy was given away for conveniences. People have already voted, they want as much as they can get for free and privacy is a coin they seen no value lost when trading it away. Worse many think that others don't deserve more privacy than they have because of some odd fairness perception, usually boiled down to that other group might be getting more.
The bootlickers don't bother leaving an explanation for their downvotes; you're under no obligation to operate on a higher moral plane to placate the demons who advocate for our subjugation.
Privacy in public was possible 50 years ago, and no one was wearing masks or using pseudonyms. The existence of huge numbers of cheap machines that can identify people and which have perfect memories changed the system. We can't roll back to a time when the technology didn't exist, but that doesn't mean we have to allow its installation.
> If even one child could be saved from abominable acts of evil, even if it meant privacy was abolished in public and private, I for one would be willing to make that sacrifice.
That's textbook emotional manipulation and a failure to rationally consider the margins. You admit you'd be embarrassed, if two kids out of a billion make a childish mistake and it can't be forgotten, and they chose to commit suicide as a result, you've caused more harm than good. I don't even think that amber alerts do much good, most of those kids are just with one of their parents who lost a custody dispute, there have been zero proven cases where an amber alert saved one child, and I'd be willing to bet that there are more children hurt (not to mention adults, as they're less emotionally potent victims) when ten million drivers look down at their cell phones.
And your defeatist attitude towards the application of laws ignores the fact that we are not living in tribal caves ruled by the man with the biggest war club. Humans are able to organize into governments and make decisions and laws that limit some powerful people so that society is better overall.
My father assumes that a camera in a store is going to a fuzzy CRT display on a CCTV system, maybe watched by a sleepy security guard, and that the tapes will be overwritten in 24 hours. My son assumes that like a Facebook photo he's automatically tagged as having visited the store. We're likely to have a bit of a learning curve between the time that HN readers are aware of what can be and is being done with tracking cookies, IMEIs, cameras, and databases, and when the general public is tech-savvy enough to know what that means.