41 ms·

I deal with it mostly by asking myself what "privacy" I'm really concerned about. Let's see... I don't want anyone actually stealing my money. I don't want sens

by beat 8y ago

I deal with it mostly by asking myself what "privacy" I'm really concerned about. Let's see... I don't want anyone actually stealing my money. I don't want sensitive security information that can be used to steal my money (ie passwords) falling into unauthorized hands. But my personal history? My photos? Words I've written? Oh well. If someone wants that stuff, they can probably get it. And the gaping maw of robotic commerce doesn't actually care about me personally, it only cares what it can sell me. I'm not worried about the police or some authoritarian tyranny on a personal level, on the level where what I say on the internet matters. I worry about it in an impersonal way. When the robot overlords are rounding up the granola-munching people of south Minneapolis for extermination, they won't be checking our internet history first.

extralego 8y ago
Like you, I don’t worry about it on a personal level. Unlike you, I do worry about how such a breach of human rights affects my neighbors today. This is a matter of prejudice and discrimination on a level we have never contended with. The people most vulnerable are those who do have something to hide. Even if it’s not something I want them to hide (sex offenses are a popular example), I still support due process by a public justice system. I think anything else is asking for tyranny, so I think it’s important we consider those who are more likely to be marginalized. Some things people might want to hide to prevent unjust prejudice and discrimination against them: -Unpopular political views: It is in the interest of a healthy democracy to protect freedom of opinion . In the event that we fear their opinion, it is in our own interest that they feel free to educate themselves and grow. Freedom of access to education resources free of prejudice should not be confused with supporting online communities of hate. -Lower/working class: discriminated against by potential employers, hampering the social mobility possible in our society -Sick people: discriminated against by insurance companies, employers, advertisers -People with STDs: The discrimination here is especially in humane. And separately, we should all understand the role that freedom of information and research resources has played in the progress we’ve made here. -People of color: classically discriminated against by law enforcement and others -Parents: well known to be targets of extreme advertising -Aspiring parents: discriminated against by potential employers
- beat 8y ago
  I sort of agree with you here, but I worry about pointing fingers in the wrong direction. Particularly, most of these forms of discrimination you've rightly pointed out function independently of online privacy. Consider the authoritarian police reaction to people of color. That's not because they were googled. The problem is right there in the presence, in physical being. Cops don't bust people for appearing black on Facebook, but rather for appearing black while driving or walking in the park or something. Unpopular political/social opinions aren't a matter of online privacy, generally. This is stuff that people post on Twitter, in public comments on Facebook, etc. If being an online racist blows up in someone's face, it's not because of Amazon or Wells Fargo; it's because they're shouting it in a public theater where anyone can see. (Hence the modern bigot's concern with "free speech" really meaning not that they can say what they want, but rather that no one judges them for what they say.) Employment discrimination is widespread. And again, it's not about someone's online being, it's about their physical being. This is why so many startups are big young white dude sausage-fests. Like hires like. Are they discriminating? Sure. But not due to online privacy, but rather more pedestrian face-to-face matters. I can go farther here, but hopefully my point is clear. When it comes to personal discrimination, that's usually a problem of person, not privacy, and tightening privacy settings offers little protection.
  - extralego 8y ago
    Your overall point is not clear to me, but I can affirm that I do not agree with your supporting arguments. My list was of examples, not reasons. And, of course, each has varying levels of impact. And how many reasons should one need to respect basic human privacy? Would you assert these human rights aren’t worth defending until they’ve been invaded? I just can’t see where the stipulation is, where the justification for your skepticism lies. Your point of you comparisons with face-to-face interactions are lost on me entirely. Race, demeanor, height, sex, weight, and more are all determinable with enough collected data, and discrimated on accordingly. It’s the data that makes the discrimination more similar to physical interaction in terms of affect, but more scalable. Physical interactions take far more time and necessitate an emotion of conscience, both of which are often undermined in electronic communication, and always undermined in the process of data collection. Similarly, I’m super confused about your point about political privacy. Are you seriously asserting everybody posts all of their political opinions on social media? Of course, I am referring to what they don’t post publicly. This should be a given, no? Anyhow, US law aggressively protects the ballots citizens cast in elections, and all the while any of these spying corporations readily determine this with a minuscule margin of error from citizen’s visited news outlets, search queries, social networks, etc. Anyone who has viewed their own personal Facebook data can confirm so. Of course, physical violence is not an immediate concern over the internet. If that’s your point, then OK. It’s lessened in both directions and this is a different topic entirely.
plurgid 8y ago
> But my personal history? My photos? Words I've written? Oh well. If someone wants that stuff, they can probably get it. And the gaping maw of robotic commerce doesn't actually care about me personally, it only cares what it can sell me. > > I'm not worried about the police or some authoritarian tyranny on a personal level, on the level where what I say on the internet matters. Yeah, but then 2016 happened. This sort of "tactical positioning" on internet privacy is where I was prior to that year. The fact of the mater is that "personal threat exposure", while not completely irrelevant, misses the forest for the trees. It's not YOU they're trying to manipulate, it's the herd. And it works. And that eventually comes around to impacting you just as personally as if you'd posted your bank account number and ssn on facebook.
- dhimes 8y ago
  By "2016 happened" are you talking about the US presidential election?
  - cgriswald 8y ago
    I think he is... and if so, he either misspoke and meant to say 9/11 or PATRIOT ACT happened or he’s young.
flukus 8y ago
> Let's see... I don't want anyone actually stealing my money. If online shopping sites start charging you 10% more based on your profile indicating you can afford it would you consider that stealing? How about if they just "customize" what products you're shown and you only see the high end ones? This is on top of all the soft manipulation advertising already does, it's entire reason for existence is to make you buy something you otherwise wouldn't have. It's not stealing but it still involves less money in your wallet.
y-c-o-m-b 8y ago
Even if you truly have "nothing" to hide, how much do you trust these companies in securing the information from you they harvest? It's not necessarily the companies i'm worried about. It's the people that hack those companies i'm worried about. Once the hackers obtain that information, they can clone you and do all kinds of nasty fraud in your name. They can literally ruin your life. EDIT: By clone I mean virtual clone of course, not Arnold Schwarzenegger "The 6th Day" clones
andrei_says_ 8y ago
You quickly moved into hyperbole. You may not be rounded up, “just” unable to get a job, health insurance or car insurance (at viable prices). If you are an activist, you may get arrested for an unrelated crime, like getting stopped after you had a few drinks (because geolocation) or discredited if you are not out as a gay person or for anything else which might garnish your image in any way. Your ability to fly, or your airport experience could be influenced by invisible forces like driving around certain places or writing favorably toward certain policies or religions. If you are a good looking woman you may be creepily stalked and tracked. And let’s not kid ourself about the fact that more and more of this data will be sold and resold until it becomes a commodity available to anyone who is willing to pay a nominal price. Believing in the story that your activity and data don’t matter because you don’t matter is in a way resigning to never become someone who might matter. And this is by design. Privacy matters a huge deal. Especially in an assymetric situation. https://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters/up-next https://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matter...
mindslight 8y ago
The type of passwords you're referencing can't actually be used to steal your money, as they only control access to reversible accounts. Timely monitoring of your banks' ledgers is far more important than securing passwords. (Though passwords leaking will certainly cause a headache!) Meanwhile, behavioral surveillance most certainly can be used to steal your money eg the pricing games that airlines and insurance companies commonly play, tailored to the individual level. Slowly accumulating a savings account named for some elective goal, someone dies across the country, and you need to get there in a day? Time to jack your airline prices. You'd hope age-old market competition would preclude this, but communications tech has been undermining that as well.

by beat 8y ago

extralego 8y ago

Like you, I don’t worry about it on a personal level. Unlike you, I do worry about how such a breach of human rights affects my neighbors today. This is a matter of prejudice and discrimination on a level we have never contended with. The people most vulnerable are those who do have something to hide. Even if it’s not something I want them to hide (sex offenses are a popular example), I still support due process by a public justice system. I think anything else is asking for tyranny, so I think it’s important we consider those who are more likely to be marginalized. Some things people might want to hide to prevent unjust prejudice and discrimination against them: -Unpopular political views: It is in the interest of a healthy democracy to protect freedom of opinion . In the event that we fear their opinion, it is in our own interest that they feel free to educate themselves and grow. Freedom of access to education resources free of prejudice should not be confused with supporting online communities of hate. -Lower/working class: discriminated against by potential employers, hampering the social mobility possible in our society -Sick people: discriminated against by insurance companies, employers, advertisers -People with STDs: The discrimination here is especially in humane. And separately, we should all understand the role that freedom of information and research resources has played in the progress we’ve made here. -People of color: classically discriminated against by law enforcement and others -Parents: well known to be targets of extreme advertising -Aspiring parents: discriminated against by potential employers

beat 8y ago
I sort of agree with you here, but I worry about pointing fingers in the wrong direction. Particularly, most of these forms of discrimination you've rightly pointed out function independently of online privacy. Consider the authoritarian police reaction to people of color. That's not because they were googled. The problem is right there in the presence, in physical being. Cops don't bust people for appearing black on Facebook, but rather for appearing black while driving or walking in the park or something. Unpopular political/social opinions aren't a matter of online privacy, generally. This is stuff that people post on Twitter, in public comments on Facebook, etc. If being an online racist blows up in someone's face, it's not because of Amazon or Wells Fargo; it's because they're shouting it in a public theater where anyone can see. (Hence the modern bigot's concern with "free speech" really meaning not that they can say what they want, but rather that no one judges them for what they say.) Employment discrimination is widespread. And again, it's not about someone's online being, it's about their physical being. This is why so many startups are big young white dude sausage-fests. Like hires like. Are they discriminating? Sure. But not due to online privacy, but rather more pedestrian face-to-face matters. I can go farther here, but hopefully my point is clear. When it comes to personal discrimination, that's usually a problem of person, not privacy, and tightening privacy settings offers little protection.
- extralego 8y ago
  Your overall point is not clear to me, but I can affirm that I do not agree with your supporting arguments. My list was of examples, not reasons. And, of course, each has varying levels of impact. And how many reasons should one need to respect basic human privacy? Would you assert these human rights aren’t worth defending until they’ve been invaded? I just can’t see where the stipulation is, where the justification for your skepticism lies. Your point of you comparisons with face-to-face interactions are lost on me entirely. Race, demeanor, height, sex, weight, and more are all determinable with enough collected data, and discrimated on accordingly. It’s the data that makes the discrimination more similar to physical interaction in terms of affect, but more scalable. Physical interactions take far more time and necessitate an emotion of conscience, both of which are often undermined in electronic communication, and always undermined in the process of data collection. Similarly, I’m super confused about your point about political privacy. Are you seriously asserting everybody posts all of their political opinions on social media? Of course, I am referring to what they don’t post publicly. This should be a given, no? Anyhow, US law aggressively protects the ballots citizens cast in elections, and all the while any of these spying corporations readily determine this with a minuscule margin of error from citizen’s visited news outlets, search queries, social networks, etc. Anyone who has viewed their own personal Facebook data can confirm so. Of course, physical violence is not an immediate concern over the internet. If that’s your point, then OK. It’s lessened in both directions and this is a different topic entirely.

plurgid 8y ago

> But my personal history? My photos? Words I've written? Oh well. If someone wants that stuff, they can probably get it. And the gaping maw of robotic commerce doesn't actually care about me personally, it only cares what it can sell me. > > I'm not worried about the police or some authoritarian tyranny on a personal level, on the level where what I say on the internet matters. Yeah, but then 2016 happened. This sort of "tactical positioning" on internet privacy is where I was prior to that year. The fact of the mater is that "personal threat exposure", while not completely irrelevant, misses the forest for the trees. It's not YOU they're trying to manipulate, it's the herd. And it works. And that eventually comes around to impacting you just as personally as if you'd posted your bank account number and ssn on facebook.

dhimes 8y ago
By "2016 happened" are you talking about the US presidential election?
- cgriswald 8y ago
  I think he is... and if so, he either misspoke and meant to say 9/11 or PATRIOT ACT happened or he’s young.

flukus 8y ago

> Let's see... I don't want anyone actually stealing my money. If online shopping sites start charging you 10% more based on your profile indicating you can afford it would you consider that stealing? How about if they just "customize" what products you're shown and you only see the high end ones? This is on top of all the soft manipulation advertising already does, it's entire reason for existence is to make you buy something you otherwise wouldn't have. It's not stealing but it still involves less money in your wallet.

y-c-o-m-b 8y ago

Even if you truly have "nothing" to hide, how much do you trust these companies in securing the information from you they harvest? It's not necessarily the companies i'm worried about. It's the people that hack those companies i'm worried about. Once the hackers obtain that information, they can clone you and do all kinds of nasty fraud in your name. They can literally ruin your life. EDIT: By clone I mean virtual clone of course, not Arnold Schwarzenegger "The 6th Day" clones

andrei_says_ 8y ago

You quickly moved into hyperbole. You may not be rounded up, “just” unable to get a job, health insurance or car insurance (at viable prices). If you are an activist, you may get arrested for an unrelated crime, like getting stopped after you had a few drinks (because geolocation) or discredited if you are not out as a gay person or for anything else which might garnish your image in any way. Your ability to fly, or your airport experience could be influenced by invisible forces like driving around certain places or writing favorably toward certain policies or religions. If you are a good looking woman you may be creepily stalked and tracked. And let’s not kid ourself about the fact that more and more of this data will be sold and resold until it becomes a commodity available to anyone who is willing to pay a nominal price. Believing in the story that your activity and data don’t matter because you don’t matter is in a way resigning to never become someone who might matter. And this is by design. Privacy matters a huge deal. Especially in an assymetric situation. https://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters/up-next https://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matter...

mindslight 8y ago

The type of passwords you're referencing can't actually be used to steal your money, as they only control access to reversible accounts. Timely monitoring of your banks' ledgers is far more important than securing passwords. (Though passwords leaking will certainly cause a headache!) Meanwhile, behavioral surveillance most certainly can be used to steal your money eg the pricing games that airlines and insurance companies commonly play, tailored to the individual level. Slowly accumulating a savings account named for some elective goal, someone dies across the country, and you need to get there in a day? Time to jack your airline prices. You'd hope age-old market competition would preclude this, but communications tech has been undermining that as well.