3 ms·

Reading the Letters to the Editor and similar features in older magazines and newspapers reveals something that would be unthinkable today: it was common for th

Reading the Letters to the Editor and similar features in older magazines and newspapers reveals something that would be unthinkable today: it was common for the home address of the person writing to the periodical to be published along with their letter. As far as I can tell, no one had a problem with this. When I was young, drivers licenses included your Social Security number and it was common to have it printed on your personal checks. This no longer happens. Is it the information that's the problem or is the problem what others are willing to do with that information?

turk73 7y ago
Back then it was rare for anyone to try and get you fired from your job and cause other economic harm simply because you disagreed with them or held an unpopular opinion. These days, information warfare is the norm and everything is on the table because "progressives" believe they have some kind of divine right to push their agenda at all costs.
playeren 7y ago
Knowing the address of three strangers isn't very valuable, and thus less likely to be abused. Knowing the address of millions of people can be very valuable, and thus very likely to be abused. In cases like this the issue lies not in the specific datatypes, but the aggregation thereof.
lubujackson 7y ago
This is an interesting insight. I think most reactionary pro-privacy responses (the HN default perspective) really stem from a complicated internalization of data gathering/use capabilities that has been adjusted over time combined with a lizard brain feeling of invasiveness. Because almost always no one particularly gives a crap about YOU and your specific data, but they may profit from and misuse your information in passing or in aggregate. It is a lot like the feeling of having your car broken into or house robbed. You feel personally violated but more than likely you are a victim of circumstance. It can be hard to distinguish between faceless identification for (ad network data gathering, for the most part) and the risks of general data availability that makes anyone as capable as an old P. I. (especially when data leaks conflate the two).
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "almost always no one particularly gives a crap about YOU and your specific data" It's really amazing how much time people spend these days trying to gather information on people, considering how useless it is. I don't mean mass surveillance, I mean like people that you want to do business with individually.

turk73 7y ago

Back then it was rare for anyone to try and get you fired from your job and cause other economic harm simply because you disagreed with them or held an unpopular opinion. These days, information warfare is the norm and everything is on the table because "progressives" believe they have some kind of divine right to push their agenda at all costs.

playeren 7y ago

Knowing the address of three strangers isn't very valuable, and thus less likely to be abused. Knowing the address of millions of people can be very valuable, and thus very likely to be abused. In cases like this the issue lies not in the specific datatypes, but the aggregation thereof.

lubujackson 7y ago

This is an interesting insight. I think most reactionary pro-privacy responses (the HN default perspective) really stem from a complicated internalization of data gathering/use capabilities that has been adjusted over time combined with a lizard brain feeling of invasiveness. Because almost always no one particularly gives a crap about YOU and your specific data, but they may profit from and misuse your information in passing or in aggregate. It is a lot like the feeling of having your car broken into or house robbed. You feel personally violated but more than likely you are a victim of circumstance. It can be hard to distinguish between faceless identification for (ad network data gathering, for the most part) and the risks of general data availability that makes anyone as capable as an old P. I. (especially when data leaks conflate the two).

perl4ever 7y ago
"almost always no one particularly gives a crap about YOU and your specific data" It's really amazing how much time people spend these days trying to gather information on people, considering how useless it is. I don't mean mass surveillance, I mean like people that you want to do business with individually.