3 ms·

Again, you have a misguided mental model of what it means for something to be private information. If several of your colleagues know your job title and employe

Again, you have a misguided mental model of what it means for something to be private information. If several of your colleagues know your job title and employer then you have already surrendered control over the dissemination of those pieces of information to them and they are no longer private.

oarsinsync 7y ago
I feel like there's a line between private and public information that's getting lost here. Maybe 'non-public'? Just because I've shared something with someone (by necessity, in some cases - they work for the same employer as me, so they know I work here) doesn't mean it's public information. Or to follow that on, if several people see what medication you've purchased in a shop, is that information now public information? Has the expectation of privacy gone out of the window because it was witnessed by another person? Does that then justify that information being shared with 1+ corporations to add to their profile of you?
- MereInterest 7y ago
  I'd definitely agree with that, and think that is what esoterica is missing. I don't think it is reasonable to have a strict binary line between public and private, because there exist many gradations. If I am in my home, I can reasonably expect that nobody is going to be watching through my windows with a telescope from a hundred yards away. If I am at the White House, I can reasonably expect that my every movement is going to be tracked. If I am at the grocery store, it is somewhere in-between. People can see me, what I am buying, and what I look at, but that is transient information. This transient information is the category that modern surveillance is destroying. I think this is a useful category, as it allows for less stress of interaction, as each interaction is only relevant for a few days. Previously, it decayed over time as people forgot, or as tapes were overwritten. Soon, we are going to need mandatory data expiration policies to maintain this category of things that are public for a short time, and private afterward.

oarsinsync 7y ago

I feel like there's a line between private and public information that's getting lost here. Maybe 'non-public'? Just because I've shared something with someone (by necessity, in some cases - they work for the same employer as me, so they know I work here) doesn't mean it's public information. Or to follow that on, if several people see what medication you've purchased in a shop, is that information now public information? Has the expectation of privacy gone out of the window because it was witnessed by another person? Does that then justify that information being shared with 1+ corporations to add to their profile of you?

MereInterest 7y ago
I'd definitely agree with that, and think that is what esoterica is missing. I don't think it is reasonable to have a strict binary line between public and private, because there exist many gradations. If I am in my home, I can reasonably expect that nobody is going to be watching through my windows with a telescope from a hundred yards away. If I am at the White House, I can reasonably expect that my every movement is going to be tracked. If I am at the grocery store, it is somewhere in-between. People can see me, what I am buying, and what I look at, but that is transient information. This transient information is the category that modern surveillance is destroying. I think this is a useful category, as it allows for less stress of interaction, as each interaction is only relevant for a few days. Previously, it decayed over time as people forgot, or as tapes were overwritten. Soon, we are going to need mandatory data expiration policies to maintain this category of things that are public for a short time, and private afterward.