5 ms·

Do you suggest people should conceal their skin color? Privacy is unfair because it highlights characteristics that are difficult to conceal. If someone wants

Do you suggest people should conceal their skin color? Privacy is unfair because it highlights characteristics that are difficult to conceal. If someone wants to discriminate you based on your height, there's not much you can do. Rather than coming up with strategies to help people hide aspects of themselves, such as lying, we should help people to be more tolerant and understanding. A good start is transparency and openness. In a world where everyone can hide their differences, failing to do so exposes one to all the discrimination.

balabaster 8y ago
In an ideal world, nobody should have to conceal anything. But we don't live in an ideal world. The data we freely post out into the world via our social channels is tracked, recorded, cataloged. Our social graphs mined for information about whatever can be gleaned about our personalities and things that matter to us. They say it's to our advantage, because we only receive ads for products that are important to us... but it's really just a means for them to be more specific with their advertising, a way to exploit our information to get access to our wallets. It isn't there for our benefit, though it's sold to us that way. If you've never seen the movie "The Circle," watch it. This highlights in very real terms why privacy matters - including your skin colour, sex, sexuality, religion, political affiliation or anything else about yourself. You should be able to divulge your personal information as you see fit, not as a matter of policy.
- miguelrochefort 8y ago
  > In an ideal world, nobody should have to conceal anything. Why not strive for it? > The data we freely post out into the world via our social channels is tracked, recorded, cataloged. Our social graphs mined for information about whatever can be gleaned about our personalities and things that matter to us. That's great, and I'd be happy to pay to ensure more data is collected about me. I'm sure this will become extremely popular in the future. In the meantime, I'm doing it myself (Quantified Self). > They say it's to our advantage, because we only receive ads for products that are important to us... but it's really just a means for them to be more specific with their advertising, a way to exploit our information to get access to our wallets. It isn't there for our benefit, though it's sold to us that way. Showing me what I'm looking for is great. I'd pay for that. Do you think Company X is evil for providing services and products that are perfectly compatible with my needs? They get access to my wallet because they do something great and I'm happy to encourage them. > If you've never seen the movie "The Circle," watch it. I'm actively trying to make the technology in this movie become reality. However, it wasn't such a great movie, and I disliked the end. Hopefully people realized that the benefits of transparency are well worth the rough adaptation period. > This highlights in very real terms why privacy matters - including your skin colour, sex, sexuality, religion, political affiliation or anything else about yourself. You should be able to divulge your personal information as you see fit, not as a matter of policy. What if I see you crossing the street? Am I supposed to keep that for myself? Should we ban surveillance cameras, drones, sensors, GPS trackers, etc? Should people really own any data that intersects with themselves? None of this seems at all reasonable.
  - balabaster 8y ago
    > Why not strive for it? Well... the idealistic part of me agrees, why not? I'd love to see a world where everyone treated everyone else without prejudice or malice formed by growing up with the stereotypes we do, but ignorance is still widespread and education lacking. I'd love for a world where our differences were celebrated rather than feared and hated. I'd love for this information to be used benevolently to eradicate disease or to genetically fix hereditary conditions that cause us pain or significantly degrade our quality of life. They say that everything worth having is on the other side of fear, and I subscribe to this notion. But I fear that humanity in its present form isn't mature enough to adapt quickly enough for many millions of people not to suffer during the interim. Much good has come in the aftermath of WWII, in fact I would say the good has far outweighed the bad when you consider how far we've come since then. Do I believe that millions of Jews should have died for that progress? No. I don't, and I never will. Do I believe we should have been able to get where we are today without that? Yes, I do. Do I believe we would have? Unfortunately, I do not. > Showing me what I'm looking for is great. I'd pay for that. Do you think Company X is evil for providing services and products that are perfectly compatible with my needs? They get access to my wallet because they do something great and I'm happy to encourage them. If they do only what they prescribe on the tin, that's great. Unfortunately, you know as well as I do that this doesn't happen. The data is sold on to other less scrupulous companies and where it can be exploited and used against us in an unregulated fashion. This is why the GDRP and the Data Protection Act came into being in the U.K. and Europe. > What if I see you crossing the street? Am I supposed to keep that for myself? Should we ban surveillance cameras, drones, sensors, GPS trackers, etc? Should people really own any data that intersects with themselves? None of this seems at all reasonable. Am I doing anything wrong by crossing the street? What difference does it make if you saw me crossing the street? Are you going to use or release that information to someone to use against me? I'm from the U.K. so public surveillance is something that I've become used to, and in fact complacent about over the years. When I'm in public, I expect to have my person and my actions on public display. This means I self censor and show people who I want them to see. This doesn't mean you know me. This doesn't mean the world at large knows me. The only things you know about me aside from how I behave are the things I want you to know about me. Just because you want to know something about me, doesn't give you the right to know that information, unless I choose to disclose it to you.
murftown 8y ago
TL;DR - I respectfully disagree. > Privacy is unfair because it highlights characteristics that are difficult to conceal. The idea that privacy highlights characteristics that are difficult to conceal is possibly truthful, but it's a bit far-fetched, at least when making a case against something (privacy) and alleging that is causes damage (unfairness due to highlighting characteristics...). If privacy is guilty of this crime, then everything is unfair for all sorts of reasons. Some people being tall is unfair because it highlights others' feelings of being short. Some people being more attractive than others is unfair because is causes other people to feel badly about themselves. None of these "causations" would lead you to believe we should actively try to "equalize" people across all those spectrums, right? That would cause (much) more damage than good. Have you read the Handicapper General? Kurt Vonnegut illustrates this idea. Therefore, your catchy causation is not a good reason to recommend active destruction of existent privacy. > Rather than coming up with strategies to help people hide aspects of themselves, such as lying, we should help people to be more tolerant and understanding. Wow, that's a pretty broad, meta-level prescription there. I have a couple reservations about it: 1. There's no reason to assume it's an either-or game. Helping people have privacy ("helping people hide aspects of themselves") is not at odds with helping people be tolerant and understanding. In fact, wouldn't "wanting/maintaining privacy" be an example of such a characteristic that distinguishes people, that some people may feel it desirable to conceal due to people being intolerant or not understanding, and that therefore you just recommended people should be more tolerant/understanding of? Or does your proposed implementation of "helping people to be more tolerant and understanding" include an implied whitelist of only certain approved "characteristics" that should be protected this way, and "wanting/maintaining privacy" isn't on the list? I see possible issues with this approach too. 2. Regarding being more tolerant and understanding... I think it's much easier to treat people this way if you feel more-or-less content in your own life. Otherwise it's easy to let bitterness and resentment steer you into intolerant / non-understanding narratives and mindsets; it's easy to make up stories that justify your bitter feelings about others, and these stories often hinge on assumptions we make against people based on stereotypes or generalizations. Yet there's no evidence that taking away people's privacy helps them achieve this contentment in their lives. What are examples of places where people have no privacy in their lives? Prisons? North Korea? Where does our idea come from that "total transparency" is guaranteed (or even likely) to unfold in some perfectly equal way that brings fairness, tolerance and understanding? The internet is already filled with angry people who are sincerely enraged by reading about one another's "unacceptable" differences and experiencing cognitive dissonance about how different other people are; it is too easy for people to enter one another's personal mind spaces, and it's causing intolerance and misunderstanding. So what is your idea - we just do more of it and people will become tolerant and understanding? I don't see any evidence that that's the case.

balabaster 8y ago

In an ideal world, nobody should have to conceal anything. But we don't live in an ideal world. The data we freely post out into the world via our social channels is tracked, recorded, cataloged. Our social graphs mined for information about whatever can be gleaned about our personalities and things that matter to us. They say it's to our advantage, because we only receive ads for products that are important to us... but it's really just a means for them to be more specific with their advertising, a way to exploit our information to get access to our wallets. It isn't there for our benefit, though it's sold to us that way. If you've never seen the movie "The Circle," watch it. This highlights in very real terms why privacy matters - including your skin colour, sex, sexuality, religion, political affiliation or anything else about yourself. You should be able to divulge your personal information as you see fit, not as a matter of policy.

miguelrochefort 8y ago
> In an ideal world, nobody should have to conceal anything. Why not strive for it? > The data we freely post out into the world via our social channels is tracked, recorded, cataloged. Our social graphs mined for information about whatever can be gleaned about our personalities and things that matter to us. That's great, and I'd be happy to pay to ensure more data is collected about me. I'm sure this will become extremely popular in the future. In the meantime, I'm doing it myself (Quantified Self). > They say it's to our advantage, because we only receive ads for products that are important to us... but it's really just a means for them to be more specific with their advertising, a way to exploit our information to get access to our wallets. It isn't there for our benefit, though it's sold to us that way. Showing me what I'm looking for is great. I'd pay for that. Do you think Company X is evil for providing services and products that are perfectly compatible with my needs? They get access to my wallet because they do something great and I'm happy to encourage them. > If you've never seen the movie "The Circle," watch it. I'm actively trying to make the technology in this movie become reality. However, it wasn't such a great movie, and I disliked the end. Hopefully people realized that the benefits of transparency are well worth the rough adaptation period. > This highlights in very real terms why privacy matters - including your skin colour, sex, sexuality, religion, political affiliation or anything else about yourself. You should be able to divulge your personal information as you see fit, not as a matter of policy. What if I see you crossing the street? Am I supposed to keep that for myself? Should we ban surveillance cameras, drones, sensors, GPS trackers, etc? Should people really own any data that intersects with themselves? None of this seems at all reasonable.
- balabaster 8y ago
  > Why not strive for it? Well... the idealistic part of me agrees, why not? I'd love to see a world where everyone treated everyone else without prejudice or malice formed by growing up with the stereotypes we do, but ignorance is still widespread and education lacking. I'd love for a world where our differences were celebrated rather than feared and hated. I'd love for this information to be used benevolently to eradicate disease or to genetically fix hereditary conditions that cause us pain or significantly degrade our quality of life. They say that everything worth having is on the other side of fear, and I subscribe to this notion. But I fear that humanity in its present form isn't mature enough to adapt quickly enough for many millions of people not to suffer during the interim. Much good has come in the aftermath of WWII, in fact I would say the good has far outweighed the bad when you consider how far we've come since then. Do I believe that millions of Jews should have died for that progress? No. I don't, and I never will. Do I believe we should have been able to get where we are today without that? Yes, I do. Do I believe we would have? Unfortunately, I do not. > Showing me what I'm looking for is great. I'd pay for that. Do you think Company X is evil for providing services and products that are perfectly compatible with my needs? They get access to my wallet because they do something great and I'm happy to encourage them. If they do only what they prescribe on the tin, that's great. Unfortunately, you know as well as I do that this doesn't happen. The data is sold on to other less scrupulous companies and where it can be exploited and used against us in an unregulated fashion. This is why the GDRP and the Data Protection Act came into being in the U.K. and Europe. > What if I see you crossing the street? Am I supposed to keep that for myself? Should we ban surveillance cameras, drones, sensors, GPS trackers, etc? Should people really own any data that intersects with themselves? None of this seems at all reasonable. Am I doing anything wrong by crossing the street? What difference does it make if you saw me crossing the street? Are you going to use or release that information to someone to use against me? I'm from the U.K. so public surveillance is something that I've become used to, and in fact complacent about over the years. When I'm in public, I expect to have my person and my actions on public display. This means I self censor and show people who I want them to see. This doesn't mean you know me. This doesn't mean the world at large knows me. The only things you know about me aside from how I behave are the things I want you to know about me. Just because you want to know something about me, doesn't give you the right to know that information, unless I choose to disclose it to you.

murftown 8y ago

TL;DR - I respectfully disagree. > Privacy is unfair because it highlights characteristics that are difficult to conceal. The idea that privacy highlights characteristics that are difficult to conceal is possibly truthful, but it's a bit far-fetched, at least when making a case against something (privacy) and alleging that is causes damage (unfairness due to highlighting characteristics...). If privacy is guilty of this crime, then everything is unfair for all sorts of reasons. Some people being tall is unfair because it highlights others' feelings of being short. Some people being more attractive than others is unfair because is causes other people to feel badly about themselves. None of these "causations" would lead you to believe we should actively try to "equalize" people across all those spectrums, right? That would cause (much) more damage than good. Have you read the Handicapper General? Kurt Vonnegut illustrates this idea. Therefore, your catchy causation is not a good reason to recommend active destruction of existent privacy. > Rather than coming up with strategies to help people hide aspects of themselves, such as lying, we should help people to be more tolerant and understanding. Wow, that's a pretty broad, meta-level prescription there. I have a couple reservations about it: 1. There's no reason to assume it's an either-or game. Helping people have privacy ("helping people hide aspects of themselves") is not at odds with helping people be tolerant and understanding. In fact, wouldn't "wanting/maintaining privacy" be an example of such a characteristic that distinguishes people, that some people may feel it desirable to conceal due to people being intolerant or not understanding, and that therefore you just recommended people should be more tolerant/understanding of? Or does your proposed implementation of "helping people to be more tolerant and understanding" include an implied whitelist of only certain approved "characteristics" that should be protected this way, and "wanting/maintaining privacy" isn't on the list? I see possible issues with this approach too. 2. Regarding being more tolerant and understanding... I think it's much easier to treat people this way if you feel more-or-less content in your own life. Otherwise it's easy to let bitterness and resentment steer you into intolerant / non-understanding narratives and mindsets; it's easy to make up stories that justify your bitter feelings about others, and these stories often hinge on assumptions we make against people based on stereotypes or generalizations. Yet there's no evidence that taking away people's privacy helps them achieve this contentment in their lives. What are examples of places where people have no privacy in their lives? Prisons? North Korea? Where does our idea come from that "total transparency" is guaranteed (or even likely) to unfold in some perfectly equal way that brings fairness, tolerance and understanding? The internet is already filled with angry people who are sincerely enraged by reading about one another's "unacceptable" differences and experiencing cognitive dissonance about how different other people are; it is too easy for people to enter one another's personal mind spaces, and it's causing intolerance and misunderstanding. So what is your idea - we just do more of it and people will become tolerant and understanding? I don't see any evidence that that's the case.