9 ms·

Largest issue with privacy is that in my experience generally speaking that the average person does not see privacy as a priority, or worse, questions the need

Largest issue with privacy is that in my experience generally speaking that the average person does not see privacy as a priority, or worse, questions the need for it.

mobitar 10y ago
Today maybe. But early adopters shape tomorrow.
braveo 10y ago
No, everyone understand privacy and it's value, they don't understand privacy ONLINE.
- xapata 10y ago
  Not everyone values privacy the same way. Or perhaps you're saying that if you value privacy differently, then you're not a True Scotsman?
  - saycheese 10y ago
    Already provide one example, but another might be that all parties that might be on an audio recording must agree to be recorded prior to the recording being made.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      Yeah but how will you know? Sure you could sue someone who publishes a tape of your conversation, but if they simply use the information against you without exposing the fact of its existence you're fucked anyway.
      - 794CD01 10y ago
        Even worse, what if, besides just recording your conversation, they go even further and understand and remember what you said? That could potentially be even more harmful!
- saycheese 10y ago
  No, there's plent of offline examples too. For example, some countries require consent to take a picture of a person in both public and private place.
anigbrowl 10y ago
There's a third possibility, which is that people are rationally aware that the cost of preserving privacy on the individual level significantly outweighs the benefits most of the time (rather like not buying insurance), and that in any case the technological, economic, and political asymmetries between individual and corporate/governmental actors are so huge that it's pointless anyway. I use Tor some of the time. I would like to use Tor all the time for everything, but the reality is that using Tor is slow as mud so for 98% of my browsing activities I use Chrome, even though I know I'm giving away a lot of information about myself in the process. Likewise, I live in a house. I can lock the doors and windows, but the reality is that any determined individual or group could easily kick in the door and enter the house. Do I spend a fortune rebuilding and reinforcing the structure so that I can have a front door like a bank vault, or do I invest a bit of money in simpler security options and cultivate good relationships with my neighbors? It's not that people don't care about privacy (though not everyone does), but that subconsciously most people realize they can't possibly win an arms race and so opt for greater quality of life at the expense of security.
- amirmc 10y ago
  > "There's a third possibility, which is that people are rationally aware..." I agree that this possibility exists but I also think it's a tiny minority of people online. There's enough info out there to demonstrate that people aren't rationally aware of many things (although they may believe they are). In the current example, I'd bet that most folks don't even understand how much info they reveal online and what can be inferred about them. The very reason the house analogy exists is because it's tangible and 'real-world' but it's not really a fair comparison. If people had the option to live in a fortress, that still had windows and easy access for approved people, and didn't look too different, they'd likely take it. Such options either don't exist or are too expensive.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    People may not know exactly what data they are giving away or the mechanisms by which is can be harvested and exploited, but they're constantly reminded that hackers/ corporations/ government have magic powers to find out anything they want to know. So my argument is that most people figure it's a lost cause anyway and choose not to invest much effort in learning about computer security, relying instead on the legal/regulatory system to oversee that like any other complex public policy issue.
miguelrochefort 10y ago
I frequently question the need for privacy. I usually conclude that it's selfish and unsustainable. Rather than inhibit productivity in an attempt to preserve what's left of privacy, shouldn't we instead strive to make transparency more fair? I'm having trouble understanding those who blindly defend privacy. Do they really think that in 100 years, we won't be collecting massively more information than we are now? Do they somehow think that technological progress will stop? Don't they realize that sensors, cameras and drones keep getting increasingly cheaper? Do they not realize how much we have to gain from collecting and analyzing this kind of data? Is this whole movement only meant to delay the inevitable by a few years? Why bother?
- brennen 10y ago
  Welp, we're fucked.
- saycheese 10y ago
  Suggest you read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect
  - miguelrochefort 10y ago
    Transparency is only scary when you're constantly reminded you should have something to hide. I blame privacy advocates for sustaining this so-called chilling effect. In reality, the chilling effect is a consequence of poor judgement. Those who are wired correctly shouldn't fear making mistakes, and should instead embrace the learning opportunity. Only then can a person really be honest and enlightened. Privacy correlates with intolerance. We should strive to eliminate both.
    - grzm 10y ago
      I think you'd get a lot out of reading Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow" and Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind". They're not directly related to privacy, but I found them really helpful in understanding human psychology and different aspects of human thinking.
snarf21 10y ago
True, and it is very hard to convince them when they spend so much time and get so much enjoyment out of being un-private, FB, Twitter, Instagram. How can you convince someone who vomits their life online to care about privacy?

Largest issue with privacy is that in my experience generally speaking that the average person does not see privacy as a priority, or worse, questions the need for it.

mobitar 10y ago

Today maybe. But early adopters shape tomorrow.

braveo 10y ago

No, everyone understand privacy and it's value, they don't understand privacy ONLINE.

xapata 10y ago
Not everyone values privacy the same way. Or perhaps you're saying that if you value privacy differently, then you're not a True Scotsman?
- saycheese 10y ago
  Already provide one example, but another might be that all parties that might be on an audio recording must agree to be recorded prior to the recording being made.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Yeah but how will you know? Sure you could sue someone who publishes a tape of your conversation, but if they simply use the information against you without exposing the fact of its existence you're fucked anyway.
    - 794CD01 10y ago
      Even worse, what if, besides just recording your conversation, they go even further and understand and remember what you said? That could potentially be even more harmful!
saycheese 10y ago
No, there's plent of offline examples too. For example, some countries require consent to take a picture of a person in both public and private place.

anigbrowl 10y ago

There's a third possibility, which is that people are rationally aware that the cost of preserving privacy on the individual level significantly outweighs the benefits most of the time (rather like not buying insurance), and that in any case the technological, economic, and political asymmetries between individual and corporate/governmental actors are so huge that it's pointless anyway. I use Tor some of the time. I would like to use Tor all the time for everything, but the reality is that using Tor is slow as mud so for 98% of my browsing activities I use Chrome, even though I know I'm giving away a lot of information about myself in the process. Likewise, I live in a house. I can lock the doors and windows, but the reality is that any determined individual or group could easily kick in the door and enter the house. Do I spend a fortune rebuilding and reinforcing the structure so that I can have a front door like a bank vault, or do I invest a bit of money in simpler security options and cultivate good relationships with my neighbors? It's not that people don't care about privacy (though not everyone does), but that subconsciously most people realize they can't possibly win an arms race and so opt for greater quality of life at the expense of security.

amirmc 10y ago
> "There's a third possibility, which is that people are rationally aware..." I agree that this possibility exists but I also think it's a tiny minority of people online. There's enough info out there to demonstrate that people aren't rationally aware of many things (although they may believe they are). In the current example, I'd bet that most folks don't even understand how much info they reveal online and what can be inferred about them. The very reason the house analogy exists is because it's tangible and 'real-world' but it's not really a fair comparison. If people had the option to live in a fortress, that still had windows and easy access for approved people, and didn't look too different, they'd likely take it. Such options either don't exist or are too expensive.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  People may not know exactly what data they are giving away or the mechanisms by which is can be harvested and exploited, but they're constantly reminded that hackers/ corporations/ government have magic powers to find out anything they want to know. So my argument is that most people figure it's a lost cause anyway and choose not to invest much effort in learning about computer security, relying instead on the legal/regulatory system to oversee that like any other complex public policy issue.

miguelrochefort 10y ago

I frequently question the need for privacy. I usually conclude that it's selfish and unsustainable. Rather than inhibit productivity in an attempt to preserve what's left of privacy, shouldn't we instead strive to make transparency more fair? I'm having trouble understanding those who blindly defend privacy. Do they really think that in 100 years, we won't be collecting massively more information than we are now? Do they somehow think that technological progress will stop? Don't they realize that sensors, cameras and drones keep getting increasingly cheaper? Do they not realize how much we have to gain from collecting and analyzing this kind of data? Is this whole movement only meant to delay the inevitable by a few years? Why bother?

brennen 10y ago
Welp, we're fucked.
saycheese 10y ago
Suggest you read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect
- miguelrochefort 10y ago
  Transparency is only scary when you're constantly reminded you should have something to hide. I blame privacy advocates for sustaining this so-called chilling effect. In reality, the chilling effect is a consequence of poor judgement. Those who are wired correctly shouldn't fear making mistakes, and should instead embrace the learning opportunity. Only then can a person really be honest and enlightened. Privacy correlates with intolerance. We should strive to eliminate both.
  - grzm 10y ago
    I think you'd get a lot out of reading Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow" and Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind". They're not directly related to privacy, but I found them really helpful in understanding human psychology and different aspects of human thinking.

snarf21 10y ago

True, and it is very hard to convince them when they spend so much time and get so much enjoyment out of being un-private, FB, Twitter, Instagram. How can you convince someone who vomits their life online to care about privacy?