6 ms·

I agree with the EFF's position but what the EFF, I, and others with the same point of view lack is an elevator pitch on the harm of losing privacy (or the bene

I agree with the EFF's position but what the EFF, I, and others with the same point of view lack is an elevator pitch on the harm of losing privacy (or the benefits of privacy). The EFF and I generally assume know the risk is well-known, but it's not. When people ask me, 'what's the harm?' or 'so what?', I don't have an effective answer prepared. So what is an effective answer? Requirements: Short, high-impact, memorable (it must spread), crystal clear for the completely non-technical, not easily refuted.

mysterydip 9y ago
In my opinion: it's permanent. Simple as that. Even if the info is harmless in isolation today, any new bit that can be identified as you becomes part of your aggregate. Ten years from now, or tomorrow, People You Don't Like could be in charge of any given agency or company, and deny you things then based on what you did today that was perfectly legal or ethical. There are more extrapolations from that but it should be enough to be short but get the gears turning.
- dhimes 9y ago
  Nobody cares. What I hear? "So what?"
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - pdkl95 9y ago
    Insurance companies mining as much data as possible to find reasons to deny claims. There is a very good chance that they will be (are already?) able to infer prohibited information to raise prices. If they are concerned with racial issues (or similar), try pointing out how data analysis can hide institutional racism (or other biases) - even unintentionally - into the algorithms behind finance, criminal sentencing/parole, future employment opportunities, etc. Even if none of that happens to apply, there are two big reasons they should care. First, the unknown. In the circus we call our current political environment, do they really want a future $POLITICAL_ENEMY to have a detailed map of who they are, what they do, what they like, where they move during the day and who was with them (COTRAVELER), and anything else modern machine learning techniques can find? The final reason is... because it isn't always about them. Other people might be in worse situations and it's important to stand with them by normalizing sufficient privacy. In his essay[1] on why he wrote PGP, Philip Zimmermann said >> "What if everyone believed that law-abiding citizens should use postcards for their mail? If a nonconformist tried to assert his privacy by using an envelope for his mail, it would draw suspicion. Perhaps the authorities would open his mail to see what he's hiding. Fortunately, we don't live in that kind of world, because everyone protects most of their mail with envelopes. So no one draws suspicion by asserting their privacy with an envelope. There's safety in numbers. Analogously, it would be nice if everyone routinely used encryption for all their email, innocent or not, so that no one drew suspicion by asserting their email privacy with encryption. Think of it as a form of solidarity." This is similar to the concept of herd immunity[2] with vaccines. Vaccines are not 100% protection and some people cannot take them for various reasons. Those people still benefit from the general vaccine use producing fewer opportunities for infection. Similarly, when enough people protect their privacy, there is less incentive to abuse data thanks to lower profits and increased political costs. [1] https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/WhyIWrotePGP.html https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/WhyIWrotePGP.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
    - dhimes 9y ago
      I've made the "insurance companies" argument before, most recently with the isp regulation rollback (visit webmd and watch your rates go up). I just can't sell it (but I don't seem to be able to sell much of anything, sadly- that's a different story lol). Do you know of any evidence where that has happened? I wanted to say that those things they blamed on Obamacare were actually because they were posting pictures of themselves at barbeques on facebook- but it's hyperbole to my knowledge. The "getting rid of envelopes for mail" argument might work on some.
- catdog 9y ago
  Even history tells us that some tiny bit of harmless personal information may be disastrous in the wrong hands when circumstances change, especially combined with automated data processing. In the 1930s The Netherlands recorded the religious affiliation of every citizen inside their resident register (stored on punch cards for use with Hollerith machines). After the Nazis invaded the Netherlands they were able to easily find out who was Jewish, had Jewish parents or grandparents. The consequences those people had to face are well known. Source (german): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judenkartei#Niederlande https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judenkartei#Niederlande
LiveTheDream 9y ago
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/busting-eight-common-excuses-nsa-surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/busting-eight-common-e...
bigbugbag 9y ago
" Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre. "

mysterydip 9y ago

In my opinion: it's permanent. Simple as that. Even if the info is harmless in isolation today, any new bit that can be identified as you becomes part of your aggregate. Ten years from now, or tomorrow, People You Don't Like could be in charge of any given agency or company, and deny you things then based on what you did today that was perfectly legal or ethical. There are more extrapolations from that but it should be enough to be short but get the gears turning.

dhimes 9y ago
Nobody cares. What I hear? "So what?"
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- pdkl95 9y ago
  Insurance companies mining as much data as possible to find reasons to deny claims. There is a very good chance that they will be (are already?) able to infer prohibited information to raise prices. If they are concerned with racial issues (or similar), try pointing out how data analysis can hide institutional racism (or other biases) - even unintentionally - into the algorithms behind finance, criminal sentencing/parole, future employment opportunities, etc. Even if none of that happens to apply, there are two big reasons they should care. First, the unknown. In the circus we call our current political environment, do they really want a future $POLITICAL_ENEMY to have a detailed map of who they are, what they do, what they like, where they move during the day and who was with them (COTRAVELER), and anything else modern machine learning techniques can find? The final reason is... because it isn't always about them. Other people might be in worse situations and it's important to stand with them by normalizing sufficient privacy. In his essay[1] on why he wrote PGP, Philip Zimmermann said >> "What if everyone believed that law-abiding citizens should use postcards for their mail? If a nonconformist tried to assert his privacy by using an envelope for his mail, it would draw suspicion. Perhaps the authorities would open his mail to see what he's hiding. Fortunately, we don't live in that kind of world, because everyone protects most of their mail with envelopes. So no one draws suspicion by asserting their privacy with an envelope. There's safety in numbers. Analogously, it would be nice if everyone routinely used encryption for all their email, innocent or not, so that no one drew suspicion by asserting their email privacy with encryption. Think of it as a form of solidarity." This is similar to the concept of herd immunity[2] with vaccines. Vaccines are not 100% protection and some people cannot take them for various reasons. Those people still benefit from the general vaccine use producing fewer opportunities for infection. Similarly, when enough people protect their privacy, there is less incentive to abuse data thanks to lower profits and increased political costs. [1] https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/WhyIWrotePGP.html https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/WhyIWrotePGP.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
  - dhimes 9y ago
    I've made the "insurance companies" argument before, most recently with the isp regulation rollback (visit webmd and watch your rates go up). I just can't sell it (but I don't seem to be able to sell much of anything, sadly- that's a different story lol). Do you know of any evidence where that has happened? I wanted to say that those things they blamed on Obamacare were actually because they were posting pictures of themselves at barbeques on facebook- but it's hyperbole to my knowledge. The "getting rid of envelopes for mail" argument might work on some.
catdog 9y ago
Even history tells us that some tiny bit of harmless personal information may be disastrous in the wrong hands when circumstances change, especially combined with automated data processing. In the 1930s The Netherlands recorded the religious affiliation of every citizen inside their resident register (stored on punch cards for use with Hollerith machines). After the Nazis invaded the Netherlands they were able to easily find out who was Jewish, had Jewish parents or grandparents. The consequences those people had to face are well known. Source (german): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judenkartei#Niederlande https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judenkartei#Niederlande

LiveTheDream 9y ago

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/busting-eight-common-excuses-nsa-surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/busting-eight-common-e...

bigbugbag 9y ago

" Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre. "