28 ms·
The idolization of privacy undermines American economic progress. Especially the new virulent variation which defends privacy in public. 1) Privacy in Public i
by wildermuthn 7y ago
The idolization of privacy undermines American economic progress. Especially the new virulent variation which defends privacy in public.
1) Privacy in Public is impossible
Besides being a contradiction in terms, imagine what an ideal society of public privacy looks like: a society where everyone is masked, where voices are obscured, where names are anonymized, where everyone is isolated from everyone by a wall that says, “why do you need to know?” It is patently absurd to promote privacy in public. And ultimately the winners are those who don’t follow the law — those in power in the first place. Do you really think governments and corporations are going to follow their own laws, or fail to ensure loopholes which only their and the cronies can fit through? Yes, look at China. The solution to advanced technology is not to pretend it can be stopped. The solution is to make it available widely and freely. Technology can’t be stopped. But it can be monopolized and misused.
2) Privacy in Public is economic sabotage
Economically, the more corporations know about their customers the more that their business decisions — both strategic and tactical — will be made upon data rather than intuition. The less they know about their users — as any HN reader should know — the more their business is at risk of dying. The presumption of corporations as evil is simply unintelligent. It is especially galling to see such knee-jerk stupidity in a forum dedicated to making corporations. The greatest engine of wealth mankind has ever invented are corporations unhindered by market manipulations. The one exception being rules against monopolization and labor-abuse — i.e, practices that undermine the existence of corporations.
3) Privacy in private is overrated
I received an amber alert on my phone a few days ago. If even one child could be saved from abominable acts of evil, even if it meant privacy was abolished in public and private, I for one would be willing to make that sacrifice. Yes, I’d be embarrassed. Yes, it would put an enormous weight on me to know that anyone could find out about anything I’d ever do or am doing. But for me, a society of truth is a society without a place for evil to hide — whether that evil is kidnapping or corporate corruption.
3) Privacy is going to be lost.
The war is over. We shouldn’t pretend that those who stand most to abuse privacy — the powerful — are the ones best suited to control their own behaviors. Laws won’t stop those passing the laws. Only unhindered permeation of technology will.
I recognize I’m saying something unconventional if not provocative. But when people are scared they make irrational decisions. I’ve never seen so much irrationality among the intelligent as when it comes to privacy. People’s “thinking” on this topic is akin to religious devotion, and that’s what scares me the most.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- prophesi 7y ago"I recognize I’m saying something unconventional if not provocative." On the contrary, you're preaching the conventional wisdom of today. And I also don't think you read the short article; it's simply about making more common-sense laws to at least achieve a modicum of privacy and put a leash on the data broker industry. The technology can't be stopped, but we're still early enough in the game to limit data identification, correlation and discrimination. Edit: I'd also like to recommend Schneier's books. For instance, his "Click Here To Kill Everybody" is a great look at how security with IoT is failing, why companies _want_ it to fail, and what sort of actionable legislation would fix these issues. He's not a pie-in-the-sky zealot for privacy.
- wildermuthn 7y agoI did read the article, but sometimes the reader-mode cuts the article off. Will check it out again, but I disagree that the convention thinking is to allow unfettered violations of privacy. At least in the tech world, it seems privacy is treated an absolute good.
- prophesi 7y agoYeah, there's quite the echo chamber on Hacker News, and most other tech-oriented forums. Everywhere else is full of "Nothing to hide" arguments and Alexas.
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y agoWhy the f... the technology can't be stopped? Lead could be stopped, Mercury could be stopped, PCBs could be stopped, Asbestoes could be stopped. Why even start something which is obviously toxic?
- prophesi 7y agoErm, none of those things were _stopped_. Heck, even Asbestos lacks a full ban in the USA. These hazardous materials were just heavily regulated, which is what we're arguing should be done with surveillance tech as well. So even with obviously hazardous chemicals, it still takes literal decades for the research and law to catch up. I'm imagining it will take twice as long for surveillance, which doesn't directly kill people/wildlife. Unless, perhaps, China's usage of the tech to oppress Uighur muslims gets decent coverage.