4 ms·

Seems like a lot of folks get 'privacy' and 'anonymity' confused. Should I have a right to keep information I create about me private? Sure. Should I be able to

Seems like a lot of folks get 'privacy' and 'anonymity' confused. Should I have a right to keep information I create about me private? Sure. Should I be able to keep private or at least know the data that others collect about who they think is me? Muddier. Yes, perhaps when that information is used to make a tangible decision about me - think credit scores. However, if I poop on a casino's lawn and it's truly me, and they bar me from their premises, and the casino uses some sort of digital, always on mechanism to ensure that I don't return, do I have a right to that data about me?

joe_the_user 10y ago
I'm not sure what logic you are using here. Is it "if someone does something bad, they no longer have the right to data about themselves"? Privacy is something like the inability of one's neighbor to get any information about you. That would come if each person could anonymously some portion of the time or if there wasn't a way to aggregate the trails people leave or if the aggregations were somehow protected from all but "good people". Good luck on the later two parts - so anonymity seems like the main thing that's going to secure privacy. But some efforts to stop aggregation are good even if they are going to be something of a fig leaf. Especially, it would be good if an ethos where bad actors were punished proportionately rather than in the "you something wrong so you no reason to complain your entire life is ruined and you'll have to sleep under bridge forever - unless you go to prison" manner.
pdkl95 10y ago
> get 'privacy' and 'anonymity' confused When it isn't possible to avoid being observed, privacy depends upon the anonymity gained from misrepresentation. Dan Geer's recommended[1] definition for 'privacy' in the age of ubiquitous surveillance: > Privacy used to be proportional to that which it is impossible to observe or that which can be observed but not identified. No more -- what is today observable and identifiable kills both privacy as impossible-to-observe and privacy as impossible-to-identify, so what might be an alternative? If you are an optimist or an apparatchik, then your answer will tend toward rules of data procedure administered by a government you trust or control. If you are a pessimist or a hacker/maker, then your answer will tend towards the operational, and your definition of a state of privacy will be my definition: the effective capacity to misrepresent yourself. [1] http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt
- dimino 10y ago
  I hate how "hacker" has always been synonymous with anti-establishment.
  - krapp 10y ago
    I hate how "hacker" has been co-opted by the establishment.
    - dimino 10y ago
      I hate how a hobby/profession must be a lifestyle or worldview. I'm interested in breaking things, so now I have to hate my dad? He's the one who got me interested in breaking things!
      - krapp 10y ago
        But "breaking things" is kind of an anti-establishment act by definition. You may not agree with it, but anarchist ideology was a fundamental part of hacker culture long before computer literacy became mainstream. The modern usage is a corruption of an ideal.
        dimino 10y ago
        I get that, but I hate it.
        krapp 10y ago
        fair enough.
        contravariant 10y ago
        Now I'm not sure if that is anti-establishment or not.
        krapp 10y ago
YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
>> However, if I poop on a casino's lawn and it's truly me, and they bar me from their premises, and the casino uses some sort of digital, always on mechanism to ensure that I don't return, do I have a right to that data about me? Yes. Think of it this way: if they send someone to bust your kneecaps, do you still have a right to not have your kneecaps busted? Yes you do. That you did something wrong, broke a law, etc does not mean all your rights are automatically forfeit. Besides, their always-on system that ensures you don't return will also be surveiling me. How does having a plausible justification to take away your right to privacy make it OK to take away mine? Imagine if the police routinely arrested entire neighbourhoods just to get that one guy they're really looking for.

joe_the_user 10y ago

I'm not sure what logic you are using here. Is it "if someone does something bad, they no longer have the right to data about themselves"? Privacy is something like the inability of one's neighbor to get any information about you. That would come if each person could anonymously some portion of the time or if there wasn't a way to aggregate the trails people leave or if the aggregations were somehow protected from all but "good people". Good luck on the later two parts - so anonymity seems like the main thing that's going to secure privacy. But some efforts to stop aggregation are good even if they are going to be something of a fig leaf. Especially, it would be good if an ethos where bad actors were punished proportionately rather than in the "you something wrong so you no reason to complain your entire life is ruined and you'll have to sleep under bridge forever - unless you go to prison" manner.

pdkl95 10y ago

> get 'privacy' and 'anonymity' confused When it isn't possible to avoid being observed, privacy depends upon the anonymity gained from misrepresentation. Dan Geer's recommended[1] definition for 'privacy' in the age of ubiquitous surveillance: > Privacy used to be proportional to that which it is impossible to observe or that which can be observed but not identified. No more -- what is today observable and identifiable kills both privacy as impossible-to-observe and privacy as impossible-to-identify, so what might be an alternative? If you are an optimist or an apparatchik, then your answer will tend toward rules of data procedure administered by a government you trust or control. If you are a pessimist or a hacker/maker, then your answer will tend towards the operational, and your definition of a state of privacy will be my definition: the effective capacity to misrepresent yourself. [1] http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt

dimino 10y ago
I hate how "hacker" has always been synonymous with anti-establishment.
- krapp 10y ago
  I hate how "hacker" has been co-opted by the establishment.
  - dimino 10y ago
    I hate how a hobby/profession must be a lifestyle or worldview. I'm interested in breaking things, so now I have to hate my dad? He's the one who got me interested in breaking things!
    - krapp 10y ago
      But "breaking things" is kind of an anti-establishment act by definition. You may not agree with it, but anarchist ideology was a fundamental part of hacker culture long before computer literacy became mainstream. The modern usage is a corruption of an ideal.
      - dimino 10y ago
        I get that, but I hate it.
        krapp 10y ago
        fair enough.
        contravariant 10y ago
        Now I'm not sure if that is anti-establishment or not.
        krapp 10y ago

YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago

>> However, if I poop on a casino's lawn and it's truly me, and they bar me from their premises, and the casino uses some sort of digital, always on mechanism to ensure that I don't return, do I have a right to that data about me? Yes. Think of it this way: if they send someone to bust your kneecaps, do you still have a right to not have your kneecaps busted? Yes you do. That you did something wrong, broke a law, etc does not mean all your rights are automatically forfeit. Besides, their always-on system that ensures you don't return will also be surveiling me. How does having a plausible justification to take away your right to privacy make it OK to take away mine? Imagine if the police routinely arrested entire neighbourhoods just to get that one guy they're really looking for.