But what about what the article hints to w.r.t. the right to never be recorded?

To be recorded is to leave an immutable trail of the self which prejudices how you (and others) view yourself. To be monitored is to be categorised which is to see yourself in an imperfect and distorting mirror.

Look at your distorted historical reflection and tell me that it does not prejudice the choices that you make and so alter the person that you choose to be next.

> To be monitored is to be categorised which is to see yourself in an imperfect and distorting mirror.

To be observed is to be put into a taxonomy - a cracked fun­house mirror that never reflects the real you. Typifications aren’t a bug in the system; they’re the mind main feature. If the glare of categorization freaks you out, therapy is cheap and plentiful. And let’s be clear: the Noumenal - the unfiltered Real - is forever barred from our awareness. Everything we think and feel must pass through the sieve of perception. If that bothers you, congratulations. Welcome to being human. The only escape is non-being.

Cool story. I think most accept that we are unlikely to achieve thr absolute state you have described above, but we can reduce the scale of the bureaucratic categorisation and the associated distorted trail we leave; there is no question that the volume of such data has dramatically increased over the past century and is undoubetdly accelerating.

Synthesizing a right because a person feels a way isn't valid.

All of our rights have been created because of how people feel. How else would we decide what we collectively value? Logic is only logical if it is grounded in how we as humans feel.

Are you declaring that you would volunteer for being permanently surveiled?

Bro, these internet debate tricks are not effective. Why not use a different strategy? I simply reject your premise.

Not an internet trick, it's an old empathy tale.

Would you want that done to you? Simple question. Not rethorical.

It's not my premise. Do you accept your own premise? That you can't have that right.

It's a category error. Wanting it or not wanting it isn't even on my mind. I simply don't care. It doesn't bother me.

So you would, in fact, volunteer. You are leaning into it. It doesn't bother, right? Why not declare that you volunteer?

Do you want me to leave you alone? Or can I keep investigating the real you?

Bro, Take a breath. You aren't going to gotcha me. It's a bad look.

It's a hypothetical.

I already collected your volunteership for The Seer. It will watch you, not me.

Don't worry. If you abandon technology, people around you still use it, and The Seer will be there, lightly probing you.

Thank you for the theatrical antagonism. It's fun, but unfortunately it's not a serious counterargument.

I made a simple question. You evaded it (wanting to be left alone).

We are not in an argument. We are in a social interaction that leads you to slowly lean towards agreeing with me. There is no escape.

There is no answer you can give. If you agree that people should have the right to be left alone, then you were wrong. If you don't agree, then you volunteer. If you agree but don't volunteer, you are tyrannical (you want rights for you but not for others). If you just leave, that signals you want to be left alone.

We are not in an argument.

This is less a conversation and more a one-man play where you read both parts. Bravo, but no.

Why don't you get curious instead? It's one of the site guidelines after all. Community trust and goodwill is the most precious thing we have here. Why throw it away?

I am fighting for your rights and giving you a chance to not be eternally surveiled.

That is the most profound expression of community trust someone can hope to achieve.

All you need to do is say that were wrong, or that you volunteer. It's an act, theatrical or not, of empathy.

Instead, you prefer to pretend that you are right. That no one is going to surveil anyway, and there is no point conceding to a random member of the community. It would be a personal shame for your image after all. You would lose what you perceive to be as an argument, on the internet. You can't do that, right? Your ego is more important than defending personal rights.

Are witness protection programs a form of "censorship?"

We all agree the answer is no, I would hope. It follows that you are not affording this topic a proper level of nuance.

Look, this isn't something where a counter-example disproves the thing. The formation of rights is not a logical proof.