皆さん、プリンシプルかっけえなと思ったことありますよね。Bo Seoに憧れて真似したり、ちょっと振り返ると恥ずかしいことしてたな、って時期がある人も多いと思います。
せっかくだから、ちゃんとプリンシプル立ってるじゃん！っていう音源を見ましょう〜
Pegasus is spyware developed by the Israeli cyber-arms company NSO Group, which can be covertly installed on individual mobile devices. Its capabilities include: reading messages, tracking calls, collecting passwords, location tracking, and accessing the target device's microphone and camera.
NSO claims to sell the software exclusively to government branches such as police forces and intelligence agencies and has known customers from at least 14 EU countries.
This House Believes That the EU should ban Pegasus and similar software
これのMGのスピーチを聞いてください。
47:05 のところから、The right to privacyのextensionに入ってます。
自分の情報が秘密裏に監視されること自体にはutilitarian harmはないけど、正当化されない。
これを証明するべく、3つの理由を述べています。
で、3つの理由を見る前に、一応確認ですが、principle っていうのは結果に依存しない、「べき」論です。今回も、社会の犯罪数を減らせるとしても監視はダメだって言いたいわけです。
Principleで大事なのは、
1) 〜であるべき という一般論を立てる
2) なぜこのモーションでその一般論が当てはまるのか
という2段階の説明が必要です。
The right to privacy exists completely independent of consequences.
1. This is analogous to property rights - people own their own information
You wouldn't force rich people to donate to charities even if it leads to more utile outcomes.
ここでは、1) Property rights should not be taken away for social utilityという一般論と、2) People own (=have property rights over) their own information and this motion steals itという当てはめ、の2段階になってますよね。この先も要点だけメモとして残しますが、2段階示されているか注目してみましょう。
2. The government is not justified in intervening in the private sphere.
1) People can discriminate and be racist in their own apartments but not in public spaces.
2) Things you do on the internet privately are not within the jurisdiction of government intervention.
3. This is a preemptive punishment.
1) Preemptive punishment is unjust. Police can search people's phones or information with a warrant. We would never agree to put someone behind bars without going to trials.
2) This motion covertly steals people's information even before getting warrants or people having committed crimes.
とはいえ別にこれも完璧なプリンシプルって訳じゃなくて、反論できると思います。
1つ目の理由への反論は、例えばこんな感じ
1) Property rights are not independent of social outcomes. We tax people, regulate land ownership and redistribute wealth all the time. The reason is that property rights are merely social constructs created and ensured by the government. Without government, there would be no property rights. The government, therefore, is justified in restricting property rights. → 結局practical harmあるならrestrictしていいやん
2) This motion is not analogous to property rights. When the government takes away people's property, people lose it (because property is zero-sum; either the government or you have it). By contrast, information is not zero-sum. Both the government and you can have access.
3) Even if this was analogous to property rights, the government steals people's information all the time. You need to report where you live, who you live with, your age, and even what you purchase (via tax declaration). You need to give up your information to the police if you witness a crime.
色々反論はできると思います。頭のトレーニングになると思うから考えてみるといいかも。今日はここまで！
