3 ms·
It's a form of the tragedy of the commons. Any given individual generally has little to actually lose by allowing themselves to be surveilled by corporations. I
by rebuilder 7y ago
It's a form of the tragedy of the commons. Any given individual generally has little to actually lose by allowing themselves to be surveilled by corporations. In aggregate, however, that increasing surveillance has a deleterious effect on society.
- lambertsimnel 7y agoYou make a good point, but I think individuals underestimate what they have to lose. We all have something to hide (in many cases including intimacy, trade secrets, client confidentiality and our plans for negotiations/auctions/etc). To submit to blanket corporate surveillance is to risk that data leaking to criminals or being taken by governments.
- tjoff 7y agoThey aren't aware of it though. I guarantee you that if brand X would have explicitly stated what they were doing the outcry would have ended it all rather quickly. They have nothing to fear or lose. So that one guy gets his promotion while everyone's privacy is sold for pennies.
- rapind 7y agoFacebook popularity (among others) challenges your guarantee :) I recently lost a domestic argument over Google Home Minis in my kid's rooms... we just sound like conspiracy theorists, even in this post-Snowden era. The response is a shrug of the shoulders more often than not. Honestly it's just going to be played out. The masses will need to get screwed badly before we collectively wake up. I'm opting to simply prepare myself for the fallout, like rampant identity theft, loss of privacy, lack of objective / critical news coverage, etc. As an example, the SASS service I built and run does absolutely zero user tracking / analytics, anticipating that some day this will be appreciated.