5 ms·

Sometimes I wonder if there are unintended side consequences of an explosion in the ability of people to be private and have all their concerns / issues kept pr

Sometimes I wonder if there are unintended side consequences of an explosion in the ability of people to be private and have all their concerns / issues kept private (or more strongly, anonymous). And sometimes it makes me feel like an old Scalia for asking whether privacy is really a fundamental right. Or at least, whether we're fully considering the downsides of privacy as strongly as its benefits. Privacy now lets us hide things that we didn't want others to intrude upon. That may be a good thing. But I can also imagine that a byproduct of increasingly stronger privacy is that the social function of monitoring and group shaming of bad behavior is diminished. You no longer are allowed to know what your neighbors are doing, or speak up because someone's privacy might be violated. People used to know what taxes their neighbors paid. If you didn't want to be gossipped about, you didn't engage in certain behaviors. It cuts both ways I think. People now can report on things privately, yet increasing privacy itself enabled more bad behavior. Privacy (and anonymity) allows people to get help that they previously felt ashamed to raise or report. That may be a good thing. But maybe it also lets smaller and smaller (more individual) concerns take the stage away from things that are bigger more pervasive but less attention-grabbing important issues. Maybe we become a more individual-focused society because we gravitate towards paying attention to individual stories of troubles. I don't know. I'm not an expert in this area. But I wonder if sometimes privacy isn't overdramatized by its advocates and painted with the positive brush when there are negatives as well.

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
Increasing privacy? Can you demonstrate where privacy has increased when compared to some previous time in history?
snarf21 7y ago
This is the "I've nothing to hide" fallacy. The question will become: who gets to decide? Who will watch the watchers? If everything you say and do is captured, it won't be societal norms but some singular point of view based on who is in power. Governments have shown an inability to protect citizen's rights when give this kind of power. Look at China and North Korea and Russia for proof. We don't have to conjecture about this, we know. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I prefer freedom with consequences. Honest question: do you know your neighbors are doing today, pre EARN IT passing?
- tptacek 7y ago
  Well, the courts, of course. That's the idea.
- supernova87a 7y ago
  Well, I'm certainly not advocating for the "you've got nothing to hide" position. I'm not even actually engaging on the specific topic of this thread, the journalistic vs. anti-crime etc aspect of privacy. What I'm talking about is that the technologically-driven, everyone-of-course-wants-more-privacy natural inclination will produce certain side effects that you may not realize. And at some point governments (or social networks, down to the neighbor-level) will be powerless to counter -- and again I'm not even talking about those anti-terrorist/anti-crime points. I mean the gradual degradation of a sense of community. There's a bunch of writings on this topic.
  - suizi 7y ago
    The fall of close knit communities could be attributed to the rise of urbanisation, rather than privacy.
- suizi 7y ago
  You don't have to look far. The NSA used their limitless power to spy on their lovers. The U.K. uses their powers to spy on political groups.
mattnewton 7y ago
Privacy is about protecting a minority from exactly the kinds of group shaming you have talked about. Minorities are necessary to prevent fragile monocultures of thought. I think the majority viewpoint has enough advantages without needing busybody privileges too.
- supernova87a 7y ago
  Yes, that's true. Especially, I think, the minority group known as "billionaires" needs privacy to make sure their activities are protected from being shamed, and to preserve their valuable diverse viewpoints. It's time we stopped picking on them and using our advantages to suppress their rights!
  - suizi 7y ago
    I don't really care what a billionaire is saying or doing, provided they're not bending the laws to their advantage. This is something they could do, even if privacy was outlawed and it almost certainly wouldn't be for them (EARN IT targets Section 230 of the CDA, so mainly hits the average folk) and would be for everyone else. This is still a "nothing to hide" argument.
  - mattnewton 7y ago
    Billionaires are wealthy enough to hire full time people to figure out their privacy, they aren't going to be affected by this law. Nor is "billionaires will be able to be private too" a convincing argument to me. But someone worried about being able to text a friend without their husband reading messages to find out where they are going will be affected by this law. The next Snowden story might not make it to the press in one piece. Etc etc.
suizi 7y ago
Years ago, you didn't have private companies rummaging through your mail. Years ago, you didn't have police putting cameras up on poles to look over into your home. Years ago, libraries did not report you for reading the wrong book. If you think privacy has only gotten stronger, then I have some words for you.
- supernova87a 7y ago
  We are in the most privacy-focused time in history. You can live your life without interaction, and requiring people/govt to respect your privacy more than ever before, relying on fewer and fewer others in the community. Everything is moving towards the individual. All your examples are minor tech-focused small matters in life that have little to do with fundamental shifts in society.
  - suizi 7y ago
    Face recognition, border searches rifling through your data, NSA mass-surveillance, Prism, every busybody agency going through people's data like food standards in the UK (that is the end goal of initiatives like this once they get you "used" to the lack of privacy), the CLOUD Act which lets foreign govs request any data they want from U.S. companies without oversight, giant data-stores of data which doesn't need to be stored ready to be Equifax-ed. 20 / 30 years ago, could the government identify precisely where you were and when without having to question witnesses? Was it even possible for this data to be leaked? Could they serve a warrant (or administrative order as warrants are overrated nowadays) on an Amazon Home assistant? An always-on listening device. Privacy is slipping away a bit at a time.
    - JoeSmithson 7y ago
      > "every busybody agency going through people's data like food standards in the UK" The fact that you believe this suggests to me that you have mainly acquired your opinions through highly biased and sensational sources. Perhaps you could restate more specifically what you mean by the FSA "going through people's data", or give some specific examples of what you believe are oppressive breaches of privacy that have been committed by the FSA?

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago

Increasing privacy? Can you demonstrate where privacy has increased when compared to some previous time in history?

snarf21 7y ago

This is the "I've nothing to hide" fallacy. The question will become: who gets to decide? Who will watch the watchers? If everything you say and do is captured, it won't be societal norms but some singular point of view based on who is in power. Governments have shown an inability to protect citizen's rights when give this kind of power. Look at China and North Korea and Russia for proof. We don't have to conjecture about this, we know. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I prefer freedom with consequences. Honest question: do you know your neighbors are doing today, pre EARN IT passing?

tptacek 7y ago
Well, the courts, of course. That's the idea.
supernova87a 7y ago
Well, I'm certainly not advocating for the "you've got nothing to hide" position. I'm not even actually engaging on the specific topic of this thread, the journalistic vs. anti-crime etc aspect of privacy. What I'm talking about is that the technologically-driven, everyone-of-course-wants-more-privacy natural inclination will produce certain side effects that you may not realize. And at some point governments (or social networks, down to the neighbor-level) will be powerless to counter -- and again I'm not even talking about those anti-terrorist/anti-crime points. I mean the gradual degradation of a sense of community. There's a bunch of writings on this topic.
- suizi 7y ago
  The fall of close knit communities could be attributed to the rise of urbanisation, rather than privacy.
suizi 7y ago
You don't have to look far. The NSA used their limitless power to spy on their lovers. The U.K. uses their powers to spy on political groups.

mattnewton 7y ago

Privacy is about protecting a minority from exactly the kinds of group shaming you have talked about. Minorities are necessary to prevent fragile monocultures of thought. I think the majority viewpoint has enough advantages without needing busybody privileges too.

supernova87a 7y ago
Yes, that's true. Especially, I think, the minority group known as "billionaires" needs privacy to make sure their activities are protected from being shamed, and to preserve their valuable diverse viewpoints. It's time we stopped picking on them and using our advantages to suppress their rights!
- suizi 7y ago
  I don't really care what a billionaire is saying or doing, provided they're not bending the laws to their advantage. This is something they could do, even if privacy was outlawed and it almost certainly wouldn't be for them (EARN IT targets Section 230 of the CDA, so mainly hits the average folk) and would be for everyone else. This is still a "nothing to hide" argument.
- mattnewton 7y ago
  Billionaires are wealthy enough to hire full time people to figure out their privacy, they aren't going to be affected by this law. Nor is "billionaires will be able to be private too" a convincing argument to me. But someone worried about being able to text a friend without their husband reading messages to find out where they are going will be affected by this law. The next Snowden story might not make it to the press in one piece. Etc etc.

suizi 7y ago

Years ago, you didn't have private companies rummaging through your mail. Years ago, you didn't have police putting cameras up on poles to look over into your home. Years ago, libraries did not report you for reading the wrong book. If you think privacy has only gotten stronger, then I have some words for you.

supernova87a 7y ago
We are in the most privacy-focused time in history. You can live your life without interaction, and requiring people/govt to respect your privacy more than ever before, relying on fewer and fewer others in the community. Everything is moving towards the individual. All your examples are minor tech-focused small matters in life that have little to do with fundamental shifts in society.
- suizi 7y ago
  Face recognition, border searches rifling through your data, NSA mass-surveillance, Prism, every busybody agency going through people's data like food standards in the UK (that is the end goal of initiatives like this once they get you "used" to the lack of privacy), the CLOUD Act which lets foreign govs request any data they want from U.S. companies without oversight, giant data-stores of data which doesn't need to be stored ready to be Equifax-ed. 20 / 30 years ago, could the government identify precisely where you were and when without having to question witnesses? Was it even possible for this data to be leaked? Could they serve a warrant (or administrative order as warrants are overrated nowadays) on an Amazon Home assistant? An always-on listening device. Privacy is slipping away a bit at a time.
  - JoeSmithson 7y ago
    > "every busybody agency going through people's data like food standards in the UK" The fact that you believe this suggests to me that you have mainly acquired your opinions through highly biased and sensational sources. Perhaps you could restate more specifically what you mean by the FSA "going through people's data", or give some specific examples of what you believe are oppressive breaches of privacy that have been committed by the FSA?