5 ms·

> The large tech companies point to our willing use of their services as proof that people don’t really care about their privacy. But this is like arguing that

by emtel 7y ago

> The large tech companies point to our willing use of their services as proof that people don’t really care about their privacy. But this is like arguing that inmates are happy to be in jail because they use the prison library. I used to really enjoy Maciej as a writer, but I've become really bothered by how bad some of his recent arguments are. This is just an amazingly bad analogy. Structurally, it's on the level of the standard libertarian "proof" that income tax is morally equivalent to slavery. Even though there seems to be some analytical validity in both cases, they are obviously bad analogies because slavery is obviously not the same as income tax, and ad tracking networks are obviously not the same as being in prison. This is a cute rhetorical flourish, but nothing more. The truth is, most people don't care about this stuff. They really just don't. You might want them to, and you might think they would if they had the same understanding of the issues as you do, but as of today, they don't. And I don't see any benefit to the mental gymnastics people go through to avoid accepting this obvious truth.

jodrellblank 7y ago
you might think they would if they had the same understanding of the issues as you do, but as of today, they don't. How many ordinary people had a good understanding of the neurological effects of leaded petrol before it got legislated against? How many ordinary people have a good understanding of which furniture padding materials give off noxious fumes when burned before that was legislated about? How many ordinary people understood Thalidomide or Vioxx - or had even heard of them - before they got removed from the market? Why is “it has to get to the level where everyone understands it before experts can recommend action” any more valid regarding tech surveillance?
- emtel 7y ago
  I never said it did, nor do I think that. I said people don't care. If we want legal privacy protections even though people don't care, that's a reasonable thing to want. What I'm reacting against is the claim I see so often which is basically "people actually care about this but they have no choice". I think people care much less, yet have much more choice than is normally claimed.
pseudalopex 7y ago
Facebook and Google track you even if you don't use their services.
idlewords 7y ago
I am glad you used to enjoy my writing! I think in this case I may be trying to draw out a narrower point than you think. My argument is that you can't infer consent from how people adapt to circumstances in a situation where they are not given a choice. The whole issue of consent in online privacy is fascinating, because I don't think even experts in the field could understand how their data is used (or will be used) enough to give meaningful consent. I certainly couldn't. I also agree with you that there is an open empirical question of how much people actually care about this stuff. One way I would like to see it tested is having a legal basis for competitors to sites like Google to give binding privacy guarantees. Then at least we'd be able to put a dollar value (positive or negative) on privacy with a market test.
- emtel 7y ago
  > I am glad you used to enjoy my writing! And I am sorry for being a bit of a dick! > My argument is that you can't infer consent from how people adapt to circumstances in a situation where they are not given a choice. I see what you mean, but I don't buy the premise that people don't have a choice, at least not in the same way in which inmates can't choose to leave prison. Technically savvy people can avoid a lot (if perhaps not all) tracking, today, if they care to put in the effort - many don't. The technology for doing this has been productized and is available for purchase to less savvy users, if they choose to buy it - hardly any do. I don't mean to suggest that there's a silver bullet that fixes this problem, that you can buy today for $19.99. My point is that when there is real demand for something (e.g. privacy protection), even imperfect solutions succeed in the market and grow in capability over time. Lots of people are attempting to satisfy this demand, duckduckgo being one good example. It looks to me like most of these products are having limited success, which I think is exactly what you'd expect if only a small number of people care about this issue.
rtpg 7y ago
I think the problem is that you can't tell what people's internal state is from their external acts on certain points. I may _want_ to be nice to you, but am bad at expressing myself, so end up saying something mean to you. You can then interpret that as me not wanting to be nice to you. But that is in a sense "double counting" the final result of me saying something mean. Similarly, people might use these services despite the privacy qualms. It _could_ be that most people don't care. It could be that people care but are accepting the tradeoff. And it could be that people are _forced_ to accept the tradeoff to participate in civil society (or at least that's their impression of things). I feel for this interpretation because I used to not really care about privacy w/r/t Google in particular, and enjoying services from putting my data in their platforms. I still use some of them but over time the privacy thing (or more specifically the advertising thing) has made me feel more and more frustrated. I still use GMail! But I kinda hate that I ahve to at this point (because I _really need_ emails to be delivered and received consistently). Similarly I used FB despite privacy up to a point, and only fairly recently finally got almost all my messenger usage down by going to different platforms. But the day before I did it, I still didn't like the privacy tradeoff! But I liked "being able to talk to friends"

by emtel 7y ago

jodrellblank 7y ago

you might think they would if they had the same understanding of the issues as you do, but as of today, they don't. How many ordinary people had a good understanding of the neurological effects of leaded petrol before it got legislated against? How many ordinary people have a good understanding of which furniture padding materials give off noxious fumes when burned before that was legislated about? How many ordinary people understood Thalidomide or Vioxx - or had even heard of them - before they got removed from the market? Why is “it has to get to the level where everyone understands it before experts can recommend action” any more valid regarding tech surveillance?

emtel 7y ago
I never said it did, nor do I think that. I said people don't care. If we want legal privacy protections even though people don't care, that's a reasonable thing to want. What I'm reacting against is the claim I see so often which is basically "people actually care about this but they have no choice". I think people care much less, yet have much more choice than is normally claimed.

pseudalopex 7y ago

Facebook and Google track you even if you don't use their services.

idlewords 7y ago

I am glad you used to enjoy my writing! I think in this case I may be trying to draw out a narrower point than you think. My argument is that you can't infer consent from how people adapt to circumstances in a situation where they are not given a choice. The whole issue of consent in online privacy is fascinating, because I don't think even experts in the field could understand how their data is used (or will be used) enough to give meaningful consent. I certainly couldn't. I also agree with you that there is an open empirical question of how much people actually care about this stuff. One way I would like to see it tested is having a legal basis for competitors to sites like Google to give binding privacy guarantees. Then at least we'd be able to put a dollar value (positive or negative) on privacy with a market test.

emtel 7y ago
> I am glad you used to enjoy my writing! And I am sorry for being a bit of a dick! > My argument is that you can't infer consent from how people adapt to circumstances in a situation where they are not given a choice. I see what you mean, but I don't buy the premise that people don't have a choice, at least not in the same way in which inmates can't choose to leave prison. Technically savvy people can avoid a lot (if perhaps not all) tracking, today, if they care to put in the effort - many don't. The technology for doing this has been productized and is available for purchase to less savvy users, if they choose to buy it - hardly any do. I don't mean to suggest that there's a silver bullet that fixes this problem, that you can buy today for $19.99. My point is that when there is real demand for something (e.g. privacy protection), even imperfect solutions succeed in the market and grow in capability over time. Lots of people are attempting to satisfy this demand, duckduckgo being one good example. It looks to me like most of these products are having limited success, which I think is exactly what you'd expect if only a small number of people care about this issue.

rtpg 7y ago

I think the problem is that you can't tell what people's internal state is from their external acts on certain points. I may _want_ to be nice to you, but am bad at expressing myself, so end up saying something mean to you. You can then interpret that as me not wanting to be nice to you. But that is in a sense "double counting" the final result of me saying something mean. Similarly, people might use these services despite the privacy qualms. It _could_ be that most people don't care. It could be that people care but are accepting the tradeoff. And it could be that people are _forced_ to accept the tradeoff to participate in civil society (or at least that's their impression of things). I feel for this interpretation because I used to not really care about privacy w/r/t Google in particular, and enjoying services from putting my data in their platforms. I still use some of them but over time the privacy thing (or more specifically the advertising thing) has made me feel more and more frustrated. I still use GMail! But I kinda hate that I ahve to at this point (because I _really need_ emails to be delivered and received consistently). Similarly I used FB despite privacy up to a point, and only fairly recently finally got almost all my messenger usage down by going to different platforms. But the day before I did it, I still didn't like the privacy tradeoff! But I liked "being able to talk to friends"