12 ms·

I continue to be amazed by the level of nearly complete indifference that the general populace still has towards privacy. I don't think the politicians are goi

by 1e-9 7y ago

I continue to be amazed by the level of nearly complete indifference that the general populace still has towards privacy. I don't think the politicians are going to do much of consequence until their constituents think it is important. Those who understand the danger of what is happening should take every opportunity to help others become aware. Possibly the biggest challenge of this is how to avoid coming across as a total paranoid wacko.

waffleguy 7y ago
Easy answer... cyberstalk them and show off how much you know about their “private” lives.
- wolco 7y ago
  You have a point but somehow that just makes you the bad one. Perhaps if you exposed everyone's data but then they call it malware/virus/hacker group/rogue nation/terrorist. All that happens is scary privacy themed movies get made. Someone needs to reinvent services with privacy in mind and wait for the next generation.
- Maximus9000 7y ago
  That reminds me of this article where authorities deemed to OK to go through peoples trash... so Journalists went through those same authorities trash: https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-1616-rubbish.html-2 https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-1616-rubbish.html-2
  - itronitron 7y ago
    >> * Used pekoe tea bags, many. Sure I drink tea, if someone asks me I'm not going to lie about that.
    - michelledepeil 7y ago
      That's just because tea drinking is currently socially acceptable. As examples, in a western context: what if it wasn't tea bags but used condoms? In a middle-eastern context: empty beer bottles? Worse, you can't predict what will happen to society and its rules, up to the point of "normal" stuff becoming illegal. Take as an example the (new) laws on pornography in the UK. What if have an under-18s minor in your house and your trashbags are full of pornmags?
      - itronitron 7y ago
        i completely agree, the tea comment is a reference to this... https://youtu.be/ijFDkpNma-k?t=64 https://youtu.be/ijFDkpNma-k?t=64
- lucas_membrane 7y ago
  Dave Brin's answer: privacy is lost, but we should make sure that it is lost by all equally. We must eliminate all avenues that grant privacy to any class that is otherwise favored.
  - specialist 7y ago
    IIRC, Brin's radical transparency thesis doesn't address ownership of one's personal data.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      Is it personal if it can be inferred? When your water is used, electricity is used, internet is used, vehicle is used, all require use of infrastructure belonging to a second party, therefore the information from it is not just seen by you.
      - specialist 7y ago
        Excellent question. I don't know. My impulsive response is that any data from which identity can be inferred is PII. I'm not smart enough to understand the maths of differential privacy. I gather that it's a calculus for determining how much to fuzz the data (points) to anonymize. So car rentals may need to decrease the accuracy of both timestamps and locations to create hash collisions with other rentals. -- Maybe there's a way to create logical "data diodes", for lack of better term, for the notion of data flows and relationships go only one way. So for electricity, each meter has GUID, which is never referenced directly, meaning any external reference (foreign key) references an opaque identifier which can then be dereferenced within the system. Then anything referencing the meter will be issued its own opaque identifier, so that no two references can be linked from outside the system. I'll have to dig out my copy of Translucent Databases to see if I'm making this up or repeating something that author had already thought through.
- arvinsim 7y ago
  They will most likely end up shooting the messenger.
ivoallasap 7y ago
I agree that it's shocking to see how indifferent people are, but I think an even bigger issue is the detriment a lack of privacy might have for mental health. For a lot of people (myself included), there's a visceral repulsion to having other people know things about you that you didn't consent to sharing. It's even worse when there are multiple other entities profiting from that. There's also the fact that so many people who have grown up posting anything and everything don't have an easy way to easily remove things that they've posted. While there's a lot of interesting stuff on the right to be forgotten in the EU, I think we're really lagging behind in the US. So far, only California is making some forward strides. [0] [0] https://iapp.org/news/a/how-does-californias-erasure-law-stack-up-against-the-eus-right-to-be-forgotten/ https://iapp.org/news/a/how-does-californias-erasure-law-sta...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tareqak 7y ago
I totally agree. I think part of the problem is finding a specific case that applies to as many people as possible (a common denominator), but also elicits an extreme visceral reaction so that it easy to empathize with. There was a comment that I read here on HN about privacy being something like "everyone knows what you do in the bathroom, but you still don't want anyone to see", but I can't find it using https://hn.algolia.com/?query=&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page... . Maybe it was reddit?
privacyELI5 7y ago
That's because to the average person, the privacy fears of the average HNer make no sense. Even if something extremely bad might happen as a result of violations of my privacy, the chances seem fairly low. In that sense, it's no different than millions of other fears high-impact-low-chance fears that we happily go through life ignoring. What's your most convincing argument for why an average person should care more? Explain it to me like I'm 5.
- bradgessler 7y ago
  I would also add that some of the most compelling rationale, at least in the US, would likely cite oppressive regimes that seem distant geographically and historically. “That would never happen here!” is the thinking.
- mbesto 7y ago
  > What's your most convincing argument for why an average person should care more? Laymen Argument 1: Mark Zuckerburg who has majority control of the largest source of private data in the world bought the two plots of land next to him for privacy reasons. Laymen Argument 2: Forward me all of your emails if privacy isn't an issue. crickets The average person doesn't care about these because it doesn't affect them right now, but it's a "boil the frog" situation...you won't know you're getting boiled to death until it's too late.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > Forward me all of your emails if privacy isn't an issue. What do I get in return? Privacy is a trade off, and that's how it's sold. "We need more CCTV cameras to stop crime". Do you want more crime or more privacy? Depends on how bad the crime is, I guess. "We need to record your likes to show you more stuff you like". Is FB worth it? It is to many, apparently.
    - sgift 7y ago
      > "We need more CCTV cameras to stop crime" The point that the people who argue against privacy are liars which will abuse fears to try to get people on their side was missing so far. Thanks for adding it. > "We need to record your likes to show you more stuff you like" Okay. You can only use it for that.
em-bee 7y ago
the problem is that it is hard to figure out what to do about it. i can't avoid public cameras. should i run around with a full-face mask? (illegal in austria). refuse to go outside? (not healty, and hardly possible for most without risking your job) move to the countryside? (away from the crowd?) seriously? what can the average person do against all this privacy invasion except for burying their head in the sand? the only viable action is education. as you say, talk about the problem, spread awareness, until the majority of the population is better informed. and even that looks futile (though i believe it isn't) everything else is hopeless.
- lmm 7y ago
  No, the "problem" is that it's not even an issue. If the average person wanted to avoid being recorded in public, then we would find ways to. But there's no point "spreading awareness" if you don't have a convincing explanation for what exactly the actual problem is.
novaleaf 7y ago
today my wife did a search and found her info on a site called mylife<dot com>. She was seriously creeped out. I did a little research into that site. I hope they scrape more data on everybody, so when the public finally becomes aware of it it'll finally bring some sane regulations to all this
- abledon 7y ago
  Lol there are so many fake loading bars on that sites ‘get full profile info’ feature
specialist 7y ago
People are concerned. They just don't understand what's what. This is not an easy issue to grok. A friend is writing a book about privacy, surveillance. I had done some policy work (voting, medical records). He solicited my input. I shared my conclusions. What I was saying didn't match his preconceived notions, so he blew me off. Some time later, friend contacts me, apologizes. Him: "You tried to tell me, I just didn't get it yet." Me: "Yup. Me neither at first. This issue is an ass kicker."
Kiro 7y ago
Here we have some of the brightest and most privacy-aware people in the world trying to come up with ways to convince family and friends that privacy is important. And still, I can't see a single compelling argument that would actually work or even make my friends and family think twice about it.
checkyoursudo 7y ago
> I don't think the politicians are going to do much of consequence until their constituents think it is important. My fear is that most politicians don't often seem to do much about any given issue even what their constituents do think it is important. I would guess that when there isn't much campaign financing/donor money behind any particular issue, even if it has popular support, then most politicians feel relatively safe ignoring it. Certainly some politicians care about average voters' issues. A long time ago, I worked for one who did. But most seem like they don't. Most seem like they care mainly about their own pet issues, or merely getting re-elected as many times as they can. Or I am just getting more cynical as I get older. I guess that could be as well.
prawn 7y ago
"I continue to be amazed by the level of nearly complete indifference that the general populace still has towards privacy." Where should it fit on their list of concerns? Let's say the average person is struggling to fit their current life into their day, to add their aspirations and bucket lists. Then they have concerns or arguments about the political landscape or the climate or they're worried about job security. Or they're worried about immigration one way or another. Or about security of themselves and their property. About the future for their children. Personal health concerns. When are they going to have time to go through a seemingly distant issue which isn't impacting them right now and doesn't really have an analog in basic instincts? The apathy doesn't amaze me at all.
gargravarr 7y ago
The only thing that will make politicians sit up and take notice of privacy issues is for them to experience first-hand what loss of control of their private data does to someone's life - identity theft, poor decisions or benign mistakes catching up with you/being re-interpretted, merciless judgment from others, relentless targeted advertising... Especially since politicians are notoriously cagey about their private lives, this sort of experience would be quite an eye-opener.
tokyodude 7y ago
I think someone needs to leak all Congress people's network history from phones and desktops and Facebook before they will act it worked for video rental history back in the 80s

by 1e-9 7y ago

waffleguy 7y ago

Easy answer... cyberstalk them and show off how much you know about their “private” lives.

wolco 7y ago
You have a point but somehow that just makes you the bad one. Perhaps if you exposed everyone's data but then they call it malware/virus/hacker group/rogue nation/terrorist. All that happens is scary privacy themed movies get made. Someone needs to reinvent services with privacy in mind and wait for the next generation.
Maximus9000 7y ago
That reminds me of this article where authorities deemed to OK to go through peoples trash... so Journalists went through those same authorities trash: https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-1616-rubbish.html-2 https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-1616-rubbish.html-2
- itronitron 7y ago
  >> * Used pekoe tea bags, many. Sure I drink tea, if someone asks me I'm not going to lie about that.
  - michelledepeil 7y ago
    That's just because tea drinking is currently socially acceptable. As examples, in a western context: what if it wasn't tea bags but used condoms? In a middle-eastern context: empty beer bottles? Worse, you can't predict what will happen to society and its rules, up to the point of "normal" stuff becoming illegal. Take as an example the (new) laws on pornography in the UK. What if have an under-18s minor in your house and your trashbags are full of pornmags?
    - itronitron 7y ago
      i completely agree, the tea comment is a reference to this... https://youtu.be/ijFDkpNma-k?t=64 https://youtu.be/ijFDkpNma-k?t=64
lucas_membrane 7y ago
Dave Brin's answer: privacy is lost, but we should make sure that it is lost by all equally. We must eliminate all avenues that grant privacy to any class that is otherwise favored.
- specialist 7y ago
  IIRC, Brin's radical transparency thesis doesn't address ownership of one's personal data.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Is it personal if it can be inferred? When your water is used, electricity is used, internet is used, vehicle is used, all require use of infrastructure belonging to a second party, therefore the information from it is not just seen by you.
    - specialist 7y ago
      Excellent question. I don't know. My impulsive response is that any data from which identity can be inferred is PII. I'm not smart enough to understand the maths of differential privacy. I gather that it's a calculus for determining how much to fuzz the data (points) to anonymize. So car rentals may need to decrease the accuracy of both timestamps and locations to create hash collisions with other rentals. -- Maybe there's a way to create logical "data diodes", for lack of better term, for the notion of data flows and relationships go only one way. So for electricity, each meter has GUID, which is never referenced directly, meaning any external reference (foreign key) references an opaque identifier which can then be dereferenced within the system. Then anything referencing the meter will be issued its own opaque identifier, so that no two references can be linked from outside the system. I'll have to dig out my copy of Translucent Databases to see if I'm making this up or repeating something that author had already thought through.
arvinsim 7y ago
They will most likely end up shooting the messenger.

ivoallasap 7y ago

I agree that it's shocking to see how indifferent people are, but I think an even bigger issue is the detriment a lack of privacy might have for mental health. For a lot of people (myself included), there's a visceral repulsion to having other people know things about you that you didn't consent to sharing. It's even worse when there are multiple other entities profiting from that. There's also the fact that so many people who have grown up posting anything and everything don't have an easy way to easily remove things that they've posted. While there's a lot of interesting stuff on the right to be forgotten in the EU, I think we're really lagging behind in the US. So far, only California is making some forward strides. [0] [0] https://iapp.org/news/a/how-does-californias-erasure-law-stack-up-against-the-eus-right-to-be-forgotten/ https://iapp.org/news/a/how-does-californias-erasure-law-sta...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tareqak 7y ago

I totally agree. I think part of the problem is finding a specific case that applies to as many people as possible (a common denominator), but also elicits an extreme visceral reaction so that it easy to empathize with. There was a comment that I read here on HN about privacy being something like "everyone knows what you do in the bathroom, but you still don't want anyone to see", but I can't find it using https://hn.algolia.com/?query=&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page... . Maybe it was reddit?

privacyELI5 7y ago

That's because to the average person, the privacy fears of the average HNer make no sense. Even if something extremely bad might happen as a result of violations of my privacy, the chances seem fairly low. In that sense, it's no different than millions of other fears high-impact-low-chance fears that we happily go through life ignoring. What's your most convincing argument for why an average person should care more? Explain it to me like I'm 5.

bradgessler 7y ago
I would also add that some of the most compelling rationale, at least in the US, would likely cite oppressive regimes that seem distant geographically and historically. “That would never happen here!” is the thinking.
mbesto 7y ago
> What's your most convincing argument for why an average person should care more? Laymen Argument 1: Mark Zuckerburg who has majority control of the largest source of private data in the world bought the two plots of land next to him for privacy reasons. Laymen Argument 2: Forward me all of your emails if privacy isn't an issue. crickets The average person doesn't care about these because it doesn't affect them right now, but it's a "boil the frog" situation...you won't know you're getting boiled to death until it's too late.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > Forward me all of your emails if privacy isn't an issue. What do I get in return? Privacy is a trade off, and that's how it's sold. "We need more CCTV cameras to stop crime". Do you want more crime or more privacy? Depends on how bad the crime is, I guess. "We need to record your likes to show you more stuff you like". Is FB worth it? It is to many, apparently.
  - sgift 7y ago
    > "We need more CCTV cameras to stop crime" The point that the people who argue against privacy are liars which will abuse fears to try to get people on their side was missing so far. Thanks for adding it. > "We need to record your likes to show you more stuff you like" Okay. You can only use it for that.

em-bee 7y ago

the problem is that it is hard to figure out what to do about it. i can't avoid public cameras. should i run around with a full-face mask? (illegal in austria). refuse to go outside? (not healty, and hardly possible for most without risking your job) move to the countryside? (away from the crowd?) seriously? what can the average person do against all this privacy invasion except for burying their head in the sand? the only viable action is education. as you say, talk about the problem, spread awareness, until the majority of the population is better informed. and even that looks futile (though i believe it isn't) everything else is hopeless.

lmm 7y ago
No, the "problem" is that it's not even an issue. If the average person wanted to avoid being recorded in public, then we would find ways to. But there's no point "spreading awareness" if you don't have a convincing explanation for what exactly the actual problem is.

novaleaf 7y ago

today my wife did a search and found her info on a site called mylife<dot com>. She was seriously creeped out. I did a little research into that site. I hope they scrape more data on everybody, so when the public finally becomes aware of it it'll finally bring some sane regulations to all this

abledon 7y ago
Lol there are so many fake loading bars on that sites ‘get full profile info’ feature

specialist 7y ago

People are concerned. They just don't understand what's what. This is not an easy issue to grok. A friend is writing a book about privacy, surveillance. I had done some policy work (voting, medical records). He solicited my input. I shared my conclusions. What I was saying didn't match his preconceived notions, so he blew me off. Some time later, friend contacts me, apologizes. Him: "You tried to tell me, I just didn't get it yet." Me: "Yup. Me neither at first. This issue is an ass kicker."

Kiro 7y ago

Here we have some of the brightest and most privacy-aware people in the world trying to come up with ways to convince family and friends that privacy is important. And still, I can't see a single compelling argument that would actually work or even make my friends and family think twice about it.

checkyoursudo 7y ago

> I don't think the politicians are going to do much of consequence until their constituents think it is important. My fear is that most politicians don't often seem to do much about any given issue even what their constituents do think it is important. I would guess that when there isn't much campaign financing/donor money behind any particular issue, even if it has popular support, then most politicians feel relatively safe ignoring it. Certainly some politicians care about average voters' issues. A long time ago, I worked for one who did. But most seem like they don't. Most seem like they care mainly about their own pet issues, or merely getting re-elected as many times as they can. Or I am just getting more cynical as I get older. I guess that could be as well.

prawn 7y ago

"I continue to be amazed by the level of nearly complete indifference that the general populace still has towards privacy." Where should it fit on their list of concerns? Let's say the average person is struggling to fit their current life into their day, to add their aspirations and bucket lists. Then they have concerns or arguments about the political landscape or the climate or they're worried about job security. Or they're worried about immigration one way or another. Or about security of themselves and their property. About the future for their children. Personal health concerns. When are they going to have time to go through a seemingly distant issue which isn't impacting them right now and doesn't really have an analog in basic instincts? The apathy doesn't amaze me at all.

gargravarr 7y ago

The only thing that will make politicians sit up and take notice of privacy issues is for them to experience first-hand what loss of control of their private data does to someone's life - identity theft, poor decisions or benign mistakes catching up with you/being re-interpretted, merciless judgment from others, relentless targeted advertising... Especially since politicians are notoriously cagey about their private lives, this sort of experience would be quite an eye-opener.

tokyodude 7y ago

I think someone needs to leak all Congress people's network history from phones and desktops and Facebook before they will act it worked for video rental history back in the 80s