10 ms·

The unfortunate explanation for the phenomena that you're observing is that most people simply don't care about their privacy -- at least not nearly as much as

The unfortunate explanation for the phenomena that you're observing is that most people simply don't care about their privacy -- at least not nearly as much as you do.

nemild 8y ago
This. Here's a piece that I wrote that touches on this dissonance: What Open Source Can Learn From Slack https://www.nemil.com/musings/oss-and-slack.html https://www.nemil.com/musings/oss-and-slack.html > Third, we generally overweight the importance of our personal values when developing a product — without considering how users will make their decision. > For example, users do value privacy, but many won’t switch to a product that protects their privacy if it means losing what they have — unlike so many of those commenting in Hacker News threads.
donohoe 8y ago
I would also add that they don't properly understand why privacy is important and how its being violated.
enraged_camel 8y ago
Yes. Privacy is one of those things that doesn't matter, until it does. Then it's usually too late.
- jimmy1 8y ago
  But that's actually a tenant of privacy: You are free to care about it only when it matters, and you chose who and on what terms enter into your privacy sphere. Privacy is the inherent understood baseline. Everything else needs to justify it's existence, with explicit consent, and that consent can be removed whenever the individual feels like their individual liberty is now being violated. I really like this definition of privacy on the Wikipedia page about the subject: > The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are part of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose
  - Barrin92 8y ago
    This individualist or spacial definition of privacy doesn't make much sense in a world where the effects of privacy loss have macro effects and aren't limited to 'domains'. If you whip out your smartphone while I have a conversation next to you, even in a private or semi-public space, and my records get send somewhere without my knowledge, did you just violate my privacy? If my boss has a speaker on his desk and I can't reasonably expect to be listened to, but he records me anyway, how do I prevent this? Privacy needs to be understood as a social good, not as an individual right. Privacy is being destroyed in the same way pollution diminishes air quality, if you have privacy only locked into your home with the blinds shut you might as well not have privacy at all. Privacy needs to be drastically expanded to have meaning for connected people in a social environment. It should mean I can use the train without being tracked, state a political opinion without forever having it pinned to my name, and without having to feel supervised every time I eat something unhealthy or say something that resembles dissent.
    - jimmy1 8y ago
      > If you whip out your smartphone while I have a conversation next to you, even in a private or semi-public space, and my records get send somewhere without my knowledge, did you just violate my privacy? Yes. Privacy is everyone's responsibility. And I say this working in the digital marketing space. > If my boss has a speaker on his desk and I can't reasonably expect to be listened to, but he records me anyway, how do I prevent this? You have many options, the most extreme is by not working for people who put you in situations like that. But maybe having a talk would suffice. "Hey sorry I feel like my personal liberty is being violated here, I would prefer not to be recorded without my consent" If your boss insists, then you have the choice of not revealing anything you are not comfortable with being recorded all the way again to the extreme case of replying to everything your boss says with some same crafted response, as an example, "I would love to reply/answer, but not while being recorded". > Privacy needs to be understood as a social good, not as an individual right. 100% emphatically absolutely not if not for the simple reason that this is contrary to American liberty and where our rights come from, and once you go down that hole, there is no going back. > Privacy needs to be drastically expanded to have meaning for connected people in a social environment. One of my favorite writers on this exact topic is Daniel J Solove. (He's the author of one of my favorite papers of all time "I've got nothing to hide and other misunderstandings of privacy" which is now subsequently a book called "Nothing to Hide")
- cm2012 8y ago
  Okay. So what's the evil end game of FB privacy? The government doesn't need Facebook to get your data (they go straight to the ISPs, anyway). There's 10,000 companies that buy and sell your personal data already (and has been for 30 years - you can buy lists for direct mail of people's name, full addresses, numbers, marriage status, estimated income, etc.)
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    The government doesn't need Facebook to get your data You're only thinking of the federal level. There are many levels of government, and local governments from states and counties all the way down to companies contracted by the local dog catcher buy the data mined by advertising companies. and has been for 30 years - you can buy lists for direct mail of people's name, full addresses, numbers, marriage status, estimated income, etc But for 30 years you haven't been able to track someone's location on a minute-by-minute basis. Or in real-time in the case of buying data from a cell phone carrier. Plus a lot of other invasive information that hasn't been available until FB, G, and others weaponized the avertising industry. We're not talking about public data. We're talking about companies selling private data.
    - cm2012 8y ago
      You can't "buy" data from FB (unless you're referring to a local state PD getting a warrant). FB sells access to ad units, not the data itself.
      - reaperducer 8y ago
        I guess you've forgotten about the thousands of Facebook "partners" who paid money for access to people's private information.
        cm2012 8y ago
        They didn't. FB used have a more open API (Which HN and other developer communities clamored for), that meant if you you had an app you could see your users contact lists through FB. They shut this off in 2008.
cloudsinthesky 8y ago
> The unfortunate explanation for the phenomena that you're observing is that most people simply don't care about their privacy -- at least not nearly as much as you do. I don't think that is a fair assessment. Even if that is true technically, it is missing the spirit of the question at hand. I think many people are misinformed about what is happening in data collection and processing, and if they were well-informed, would care more about their privacy. Given that people are intentionally being misled about the implications of giving up their privacy - via various propaganda about how it's not-that-bad, etc - I think it is unfair to state that people "simply don't care about their privacy ... as much as you do". I think if people knew what was at stake, they would care more. Stating that they "simply don't care" is basically ending the conversation preemptively, such that the only possible future is that there is no privacy. But I think people are misinformed, greatly. Very few people have any idea how intense FB's data collection efforts are, or how insecure the data is when it goes there, etc. Even NYT pieces do not reach that many Americans. And NYT or other publications are careful and methodical about their writing, barely able to reach into the future and question out loud the future FB is building. Democracy is at stake. This is more than a question of individual privacy: people need to understand that our society is crumbling due to lack of privacy, because wealthy and powerful institutions are using that intense violation into private American lives to brainwash targeted people with conspiracy theories and other dangerous society-damaging things. Privacy matters to everyone, I'd wager even to those who think they don't value their individual privacy.
- smallgovt 8y ago
  >> I think many people are misinformed about what is happening in data collection and processing, and if they were well-informed, would care more about their privacy. Yea, people are uninformed. But, I think you're overestimating people's capacity to care about issues that will have no real consequence on their life. The average person just wants to spend time with their family/friends, gossip, and enjoy their hobbies. Facebook helps them do just that. >> But I think people are misinformed, greatly. Very few people have any idea how intense FB's data collection efforts are, or how insecure the data is when it goes there, etc. This is exactly the type of information that people don't care about. "So, you're telling me FB knows I'm browsing Groupon for wedding gift deals and looking at cat pictures on Reddit? O, and other people could have access to that data?" Shoulder shrug... >> Democracy is at stake. This is more than a question of individual privacy: people need to understand that our society is crumbling due to lack of privacy. I guess this is the type of argument people actually care about. The problem is that their uninstalling Facebook isn't going to change anything, other than making their lives less fun. If there's a real threat to democracy, the solutions need to come via regulation.
ganzuul 8y ago
It's not simply 'their' privacy in social networks. The insight that they need to protect their friends is usually very convincing. - My hope is to spread this narrative.
throw2016 8y ago
Most have no clue of the scope of stalking and creepiness currently ongoing, or in fact the depth of data being collected, collated and invasive profiling involved. Google, Facebook and others have a whole collection of intentionally misleading dialogues and practices that deceptively conceal what they are doing under the catchall of 'improving user experience' or some such thing. Surely if they actually thought people 'don't care' all these firms and technical folks involved won't feel the need to be deceptive. This comes across more as tech folks trying to offload their own responsibility in designing, building and profiting from surveillance systems by wishing that people didn't care.
matz1 8y ago
Its like smoking, the danger to oneself and other is clear but yet you can't convince a person to stop smoking if they simply just don't care. I imagine with privacy it will be even harder because the danger is much less clear.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  And like smoking, it is addictive.
elagost 8y ago
At the very least, I do what I can for myself and my family. I should take that as a small victory. I was talking to my uncle, a very smart man and a lawyer, about privacy concerns. He said something that will stick with me for years: "You're like a prophet about this stuff, but like every prophet, you're 30 years too early for us to believe you."
hackinthebochs 8y ago
But the important point that it lost on the tech crowd is that being unconcerned about their privacy doesn't make them wrong. Tech people think because they know more about the details of the system and they've deemed it a clear and present danger to civilization, that everyone who disagrees is wrong or stupid. But this is nothing more than extreme hubris.
- blub 8y ago
  Actually it does make them wrong. Privacy is not a "tech crowd" concern, it's a fundamental aspect of our societies and a human right. Most people don't have to think too much about their freedoms because others fought for them and continue to do so.
  - hackinthebochs 8y ago
    >fundamental aspect of our societies and a human right. "Privacy" isn't an absolute term, so saying privacy is a human right is pretty vacuous.
- krageon 8y ago
  You start with a premise: "They are not wrong", but you then don't really make a case for why it doesn't make them wrong. All you say is "if you don't agree with me, that's hubris". That's not a very compelling argument and it's also humorous to me for how ironic that is.
  - hackinthebochs 8y ago
    There's nothing "ironic" about challenging a unsupported moral claim with its negation. That's usually the only response such claims warrant.
    - smallgovt 8y ago
      I think you'll find a lot of coherent arguments for privacy's value in this thread. It goes along the lines of: Privacy is valuable because without privacy A, B, and C will be possible. And, we can all agree A, B, and C would be very very bad. There are two ways to attack this argument: 1) A, B, and C aren't that bad when compared to the benefits of operating in an environment with less privacy. 2) A, B, and C are possible but unlikely. I.e. this is fearmongering. I tend to go with 2.

The unfortunate explanation for the phenomena that you're observing is that most people simply don't care about their privacy -- at least not nearly as much as you do.

nemild 8y ago

This. Here's a piece that I wrote that touches on this dissonance: What Open Source Can Learn From Slack https://www.nemil.com/musings/oss-and-slack.html https://www.nemil.com/musings/oss-and-slack.html > Third, we generally overweight the importance of our personal values when developing a product — without considering how users will make their decision. > For example, users do value privacy, but many won’t switch to a product that protects their privacy if it means losing what they have — unlike so many of those commenting in Hacker News threads.

donohoe 8y ago

I would also add that they don't properly understand why privacy is important and how its being violated.

enraged_camel 8y ago

Yes. Privacy is one of those things that doesn't matter, until it does. Then it's usually too late.

jimmy1 8y ago
But that's actually a tenant of privacy: You are free to care about it only when it matters, and you chose who and on what terms enter into your privacy sphere. Privacy is the inherent understood baseline. Everything else needs to justify it's existence, with explicit consent, and that consent can be removed whenever the individual feels like their individual liberty is now being violated. I really like this definition of privacy on the Wikipedia page about the subject: > The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are part of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose
- Barrin92 8y ago
  This individualist or spacial definition of privacy doesn't make much sense in a world where the effects of privacy loss have macro effects and aren't limited to 'domains'. If you whip out your smartphone while I have a conversation next to you, even in a private or semi-public space, and my records get send somewhere without my knowledge, did you just violate my privacy? If my boss has a speaker on his desk and I can't reasonably expect to be listened to, but he records me anyway, how do I prevent this? Privacy needs to be understood as a social good, not as an individual right. Privacy is being destroyed in the same way pollution diminishes air quality, if you have privacy only locked into your home with the blinds shut you might as well not have privacy at all. Privacy needs to be drastically expanded to have meaning for connected people in a social environment. It should mean I can use the train without being tracked, state a political opinion without forever having it pinned to my name, and without having to feel supervised every time I eat something unhealthy or say something that resembles dissent.
  - jimmy1 8y ago
    > If you whip out your smartphone while I have a conversation next to you, even in a private or semi-public space, and my records get send somewhere without my knowledge, did you just violate my privacy? Yes. Privacy is everyone's responsibility. And I say this working in the digital marketing space. > If my boss has a speaker on his desk and I can't reasonably expect to be listened to, but he records me anyway, how do I prevent this? You have many options, the most extreme is by not working for people who put you in situations like that. But maybe having a talk would suffice. "Hey sorry I feel like my personal liberty is being violated here, I would prefer not to be recorded without my consent" If your boss insists, then you have the choice of not revealing anything you are not comfortable with being recorded all the way again to the extreme case of replying to everything your boss says with some same crafted response, as an example, "I would love to reply/answer, but not while being recorded". > Privacy needs to be understood as a social good, not as an individual right. 100% emphatically absolutely not if not for the simple reason that this is contrary to American liberty and where our rights come from, and once you go down that hole, there is no going back. > Privacy needs to be drastically expanded to have meaning for connected people in a social environment. One of my favorite writers on this exact topic is Daniel J Solove. (He's the author of one of my favorite papers of all time "I've got nothing to hide and other misunderstandings of privacy" which is now subsequently a book called "Nothing to Hide")
cm2012 8y ago
Okay. So what's the evil end game of FB privacy? The government doesn't need Facebook to get your data (they go straight to the ISPs, anyway). There's 10,000 companies that buy and sell your personal data already (and has been for 30 years - you can buy lists for direct mail of people's name, full addresses, numbers, marriage status, estimated income, etc.)
- reaperducer 8y ago
  The government doesn't need Facebook to get your data You're only thinking of the federal level. There are many levels of government, and local governments from states and counties all the way down to companies contracted by the local dog catcher buy the data mined by advertising companies. and has been for 30 years - you can buy lists for direct mail of people's name, full addresses, numbers, marriage status, estimated income, etc But for 30 years you haven't been able to track someone's location on a minute-by-minute basis. Or in real-time in the case of buying data from a cell phone carrier. Plus a lot of other invasive information that hasn't been available until FB, G, and others weaponized the avertising industry. We're not talking about public data. We're talking about companies selling private data.
  - cm2012 8y ago
    You can't "buy" data from FB (unless you're referring to a local state PD getting a warrant). FB sells access to ad units, not the data itself.
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      I guess you've forgotten about the thousands of Facebook "partners" who paid money for access to people's private information.
      - cm2012 8y ago
        They didn't. FB used have a more open API (Which HN and other developer communities clamored for), that meant if you you had an app you could see your users contact lists through FB. They shut this off in 2008.

cloudsinthesky 8y ago

> The unfortunate explanation for the phenomena that you're observing is that most people simply don't care about their privacy -- at least not nearly as much as you do. I don't think that is a fair assessment. Even if that is true technically, it is missing the spirit of the question at hand. I think many people are misinformed about what is happening in data collection and processing, and if they were well-informed, would care more about their privacy. Given that people are intentionally being misled about the implications of giving up their privacy - via various propaganda about how it's not-that-bad, etc - I think it is unfair to state that people "simply don't care about their privacy ... as much as you do". I think if people knew what was at stake, they would care more. Stating that they "simply don't care" is basically ending the conversation preemptively, such that the only possible future is that there is no privacy. But I think people are misinformed, greatly. Very few people have any idea how intense FB's data collection efforts are, or how insecure the data is when it goes there, etc. Even NYT pieces do not reach that many Americans. And NYT or other publications are careful and methodical about their writing, barely able to reach into the future and question out loud the future FB is building. Democracy is at stake. This is more than a question of individual privacy: people need to understand that our society is crumbling due to lack of privacy, because wealthy and powerful institutions are using that intense violation into private American lives to brainwash targeted people with conspiracy theories and other dangerous society-damaging things. Privacy matters to everyone, I'd wager even to those who think they don't value their individual privacy.

smallgovt 8y ago
>> I think many people are misinformed about what is happening in data collection and processing, and if they were well-informed, would care more about their privacy. Yea, people are uninformed. But, I think you're overestimating people's capacity to care about issues that will have no real consequence on their life. The average person just wants to spend time with their family/friends, gossip, and enjoy their hobbies. Facebook helps them do just that. >> But I think people are misinformed, greatly. Very few people have any idea how intense FB's data collection efforts are, or how insecure the data is when it goes there, etc. This is exactly the type of information that people don't care about. "So, you're telling me FB knows I'm browsing Groupon for wedding gift deals and looking at cat pictures on Reddit? O, and other people could have access to that data?" Shoulder shrug... >> Democracy is at stake. This is more than a question of individual privacy: people need to understand that our society is crumbling due to lack of privacy. I guess this is the type of argument people actually care about. The problem is that their uninstalling Facebook isn't going to change anything, other than making their lives less fun. If there's a real threat to democracy, the solutions need to come via regulation.

ganzuul 8y ago

It's not simply 'their' privacy in social networks. The insight that they need to protect their friends is usually very convincing. - My hope is to spread this narrative.

throw2016 8y ago

Most have no clue of the scope of stalking and creepiness currently ongoing, or in fact the depth of data being collected, collated and invasive profiling involved. Google, Facebook and others have a whole collection of intentionally misleading dialogues and practices that deceptively conceal what they are doing under the catchall of 'improving user experience' or some such thing. Surely if they actually thought people 'don't care' all these firms and technical folks involved won't feel the need to be deceptive. This comes across more as tech folks trying to offload their own responsibility in designing, building and profiting from surveillance systems by wishing that people didn't care.

matz1 8y ago

Its like smoking, the danger to oneself and other is clear but yet you can't convince a person to stop smoking if they simply just don't care. I imagine with privacy it will be even harder because the danger is much less clear.

rootusrootus 8y ago
And like smoking, it is addictive.

elagost 8y ago

At the very least, I do what I can for myself and my family. I should take that as a small victory. I was talking to my uncle, a very smart man and a lawyer, about privacy concerns. He said something that will stick with me for years: "You're like a prophet about this stuff, but like every prophet, you're 30 years too early for us to believe you."

hackinthebochs 8y ago

But the important point that it lost on the tech crowd is that being unconcerned about their privacy doesn't make them wrong. Tech people think because they know more about the details of the system and they've deemed it a clear and present danger to civilization, that everyone who disagrees is wrong or stupid. But this is nothing more than extreme hubris.

blub 8y ago
Actually it does make them wrong. Privacy is not a "tech crowd" concern, it's a fundamental aspect of our societies and a human right. Most people don't have to think too much about their freedoms because others fought for them and continue to do so.
- hackinthebochs 8y ago
  >fundamental aspect of our societies and a human right. "Privacy" isn't an absolute term, so saying privacy is a human right is pretty vacuous.
krageon 8y ago
You start with a premise: "They are not wrong", but you then don't really make a case for why it doesn't make them wrong. All you say is "if you don't agree with me, that's hubris". That's not a very compelling argument and it's also humorous to me for how ironic that is.
- hackinthebochs 8y ago
  There's nothing "ironic" about challenging a unsupported moral claim with its negation. That's usually the only response such claims warrant.
  - smallgovt 8y ago
    I think you'll find a lot of coherent arguments for privacy's value in this thread. It goes along the lines of: Privacy is valuable because without privacy A, B, and C will be possible. And, we can all agree A, B, and C would be very very bad. There are two ways to attack this argument: 1) A, B, and C aren't that bad when compared to the benefits of operating in an environment with less privacy. 2) A, B, and C are possible but unlikely. I.e. this is fearmongering. I tend to go with 2.