Hello
I need to write a short speech for a speech festival. And I would like to make it about privacy and why I think if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear is wrong. And that privacy is a fundamental part of a democracy.
The speech should be about three minutes in length.
What points about privacy would you include in such a short time frame?
My goal is for my audience to by the end of the speech think that privacy is not just for criminals but an essential part of a free society. Or at least to begin to think about privacy.
The audience will be 18 to 25-year-olds from Scandinavia.
I think that my audience can easily see the bad things that come from letting private companies have all our data.
But I think that many of them struggle to see why the government shouldn’t have access to data. After all criminals need to be stopped and if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
Any suggestions would be much appreciated.
1 Like
I don’t have the literal list of websites for you to research on but I recommend:
- Privacy Guides
- Techlore videos
- The New Oil videos and The New Oil blog
- Naomi Brockwell videos
- Proton blog
About a full day research from the aforementioned websites/content will EASILY give you enough to speak about it for 3 mins. I don’t know how old you are or how much experience you have with public speaking but 3 mins will FLY so you should have plenty to speak on just from one of those resources.
There are many other great resources that I may not be remembering as I write this. But I hope others add on too, to help out.
What a fun topic. I immediately thought of a lot of things that would be too much for the time frame. I went to uni in Sweden and found the students to be very independent and proficient in their use of tech, but the battle between lagom, jante and an interest in achievement was an interesting internal conflict I noticed. While I am aware that Scandinavia encompasses more than Sweden, I think this might still be applicable.
There is a difference between theory and practice. Sure the government may have a theoretical role to protect people, but that protective role is put into practice by imperfect people. The electronic systems that are intended to remove human errors are still created by imperfect people. Positions with access to privileged information is enticing to those that are power hungry. How can you guarantee they will not abuse their position? Members/parties/coalitions of the government change which means there is a chance that there can be an increase in the less trustworthy individuals in position to be practicing that protective role.
Questioning influence is the underlying issue I think. The audience may be have some awareness about the dangers of corporations having data that can be used to nudge, influence or manipulate people. How much does the government rely on corporations to do that protective work? From where does their distinction between corporation and government come? How many of the audience members get their information directly from a news source as opposed to social media/aggregate feeds generated by a corporation? If they rely on an algorithm to feed them information they are allowing another entity to have unchecked influence. If they were to visit a variety of news sources directly, they will actually be in a position to make more independent choices for themselves rather than being led by the nose toward whatever those that control the algorithm want. The Swedes I know are responsible and independent in the way they live their lives. Pointing out questioning information sources may be a slight tweak to their understanding of being a responsible individual.
I hope your presentation is a success.