9 ms·

I think this is a good example of how pro-privacy arguments should be framed. It is takes the varied aspects and complex implications of tracking users across t

by 40four 6y ago

I think this is a good example of how pro-privacy arguments should be framed. It is takes the varied aspects and complex implications of tracking users across the web (or even in the real world), and distills it down into an easy to understand concept. When you think privacy of in in the terms of 'social cooling', or consider things like China's 'social credit' system, I can't help be think we are much closer to the world depicted in the last season of Westworld than we might want to admit.

ptg473 6y ago
this is the kind of privacy discourse I am interested in. Whether an individual can find my ssn, location, credit cards, or whatever personal information is not really what I am thinking about when I think about “protecting my privacy” but rather reducing my data emissions that compose these ratings. in my experience it’s hard to get this across to people who are not familiar though, always get the “I have nothing to hide :) what are you trying to hide?” response. Will try this “social cooling” framework next time. maybe a little less daunting as an entry point than “surveillance capitalism”
- zwaps 6y ago
  I never understood this. Economics 101 or 102 maybe tells us that our consumer welfare will be reduced if firms have less uncertainty about how much they can extract from us. You can make this argument more sophisticated in networks, regarding ads, regarding quality and what have you. But the basic case should be enough to convince you that amazon knowing every detail about you is not going to help you. At all. So of course we have something to hide.
  - sjy 6y ago
    What Economics 101 or 102 principles are you referring to? I Googled your comment and found this 2019 research paper [1] that seems to support it, but I would have thought the Economics 101 take is more aligned with what companies tell us – more information about consumer desires allows firms to sell us products that we like more at lower cost, and competition means that the savings eventually get passed onto us rather than captured in permanently higher profits. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/reduced-demand-uncertainty-sustainability-collusion-how-ai-could-affect-competition/working_paper_341.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/reduced-d...
    - zwaps 6y ago
      Essentially, a sale contract can be written in many ways, but one can show the following generally for (more or less) all such contracts: to account for the fact that the firm is missing information about the counterparty, you, it will have to pay what is referred to as "information rent" to at least some customers. The firm ends up in a "second best" outcome merely because it does not possess all information about its customers. The difference, however, is "rent" that accrues to at least some customers. That is, you, the customer, can expect to pay less for things you care about. This in particular occurs when the contract is simply a single "price". With a price, you have to find the optimum between serving many customers and selling for high prices. One can show that without enough information, the firm can not really do better than setting a single price, which leaves rents to the consumer lest demand is lost. In contrast, if you have full information, you can construct pricing schemes that fully extract all surplus from the consumer. You can, in essence, get higher prices without losing customers. Many pricing schemes today are trying to use more information to approximate that situation (for example auctions, anything with subscriptions, fixed components, packages etc.). It is why firms like Amazon and Google hire a lot of Economics PhDs and Game Theorists. You will also notice that many products are pushing toward such pricing models. This is not by accident. So, your contention is half right and half wrong. In the greater scheme of things, full information is often (but not always) efficient for total welfare. However, in such situation total welfare also may accrue entirely to firms. That means higher profits, first, and higher costs for the consumer second. In effect, you will pay more if you are more known. It then depends on your faith in the fairness of the ownership and distributional properties of our capitalist systems, as well as the efficiency of the markets in question (e.g. competition), whether the increased profits are eventually redistributed to you, the consumer. It seems to me that in many of the markets in question, even the description of oligopoly would be rather charitable. In that case, latter parts of your post do not seem likely. Edit: Since you asked for the principles. The first iteration of this you may come across is called price discrimination. At that stage, it's not about information, but you can make that link in your head quite easily: The ability to set different prices, depends of course crucially on what you know. Next, you may hear about auctions or contract theory, where such problems are tackled explicitly. Switching the roles, you may hear about principal agent problems, where a similar (really the same thing) occurs. For full generality, you may want to read into Mechanism Design. Tillman Borgers has a great book which used to be available free as PDF and you can probably still find it. If you are interested in questions such as: "What can we say generally about any sort of sales contract", then this is a good place to start. Needs some math though.
- oopsiforgot7 6y ago
  It is enough in the present, but I'm not sure that will be enough in the future. People have always been distrustful of faraway strangers hiding their faces in hoodies and sunglasses. Similarly for a good credit score you need a history of taking and paying off loans. You may need a good life on display rather than just an absence of bad things.
smolder 6y ago
Right. Apart from the sci-fi tropes, the extreme drama, and aesthetics, it's a spitting image. A great deal of effort is quietly spent on social control, keeping things as they are, and extracting value from people-as-cows, both here and there. Any technology in a position to add robustness to that system, to reduce its upkeep effort, or improve its efficiency at generating wealth for the privileged is likely to succeed, so it's reasonable to think some of the not-yet-here but possible aspects their world will make it to ours in time. Sometimes I think that authors who see patterns and make reasonable but dire predictions about where society is going actually end up providing a game plan to career oppressors.
- jawarner 6y ago
  People-as-cows, huh? What does that mean to you?
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Probably a reference to the individual user as an member of an aggregate “herd” that produces value for the social media platform from the perspective of the business.
    - pixl97 6y ago
      There are also deeper potential meanings, though the OP did clarify some. Cattle are products on a farm. They have purposes. A few bulls are left for breeding, the rest are gelded. Some cows are for milk. Others are fattened up as much as possible. But all end up in the slaughterhouse. Anyone that steps out of line causes problems before that time may find themselves culled from the herd. The purpose of the system is not to make cows happy, or meet cow needs. It's to produce as much economic product as possible.
      - 082349872349872 6y ago
        Animal Farm uses the farm metaphor for a reason.
bonestamp2 6y ago
Agreed. I think the audience matters too -- different messages appeal to different people. My dad is one of those old school guys who thinks law enforcement can do no wrong and nobody needs to hide anything unless they're doing something wrong. Even if that were true and I think it is true that many law enforcement personnel are trying to do good, that doesn't always mean the results will always reflect their intentions. When the sample size of facts is too small, as is often the case with mass collection, it's too easy for your sample to get mixed up with someone else's. Maybe your phone is the only other phone in the area when a murder is committed. That doesn't mean you did it, but it sure makes you look like the only suspect. I was never able to gain an inch on his argument until I asked him why he has curtains on his living room window. I mean, it faces North, so there's no need to block intense sunlight, yet he closes them every night when he's sitting there reading a book or watching TV. Why? He's not doing anything illegal, yet he still doesn't want people watching him. He said he would not be ok with the Police standing at his window all night watching him. That's when he finally understood that digital privacy is not just for criminals, but for everyone who wants to exist in a peaceful state and not a police state.
- 542354234235 6y ago
  > I was never able to gain an inch on his argument until I asked him why he has curtains on his living room window. I'm not doing anything wrong, but I still close the door when I take a dump. The idea that someone wanting privacy means it is nefarious or wrong is ridiculous.
  - ekanes 6y ago
    While crass, that's a great way to put it. Why can't I just want my conversations to be private because eavesdropping without cause is icky. Just like in person.
  - dariosalvi78 6y ago
    that would be a nice way to get spies out of our data: flood them with pictures of our dumps :)
bogwog 6y ago
Yes, this was great. I think the slogans "Privacy is the right to be imperfect" and "Privacy is the right to be human" are both great, relatable, non-controversial, and easy to understand.
- zajio1am 6y ago
  > "Privacy is the right to be human" are both great, relatable, non-controversial, and easy to understand. And misleading. Privacy in private interactions (personal or closed groups) is basic human right. But in public interactions (public space or open groups) the concept of privacy is much more problematic. One can argue for less accountability for social progress, another for more accountability to weed-out bad actors. Seems to me that using word 'privacy' for both of these different concepts is source of confusion. Perhaps we should limit term 'privacy' for private interactions and use some other (like 'non-accountability') for public ones.
  - matheusmoreira 6y ago
    > But in public interactions (public space or open groups) the concept of privacy is much more problematic. I don't see what's so problematic. If someone is in public, they are exposed and obviously don't have any privacy. Same logic applies to data people publish on the internet. People can attempt to create some privacy for themselves in these contexts but it's not really a violation or invasion if some stranger shows up and witnesses things they weren't supposed to. It's completely different from someone's house or computer. These are our spaces and we have complete control over them. So someone installing sensors such as microphones and cameras inside our own homes is a massive violation of our rights. Everybody understands this. It's offensive when the state does it even when warranted. So it is also not acceptable for mere corporations to turn on our microphones in order to listen to keywords or some other surveillance capitalism bullshit.
    - darkerside 6y ago
      > If someone is in public, they are exposed and obviously don't have any privacy Rights to wear clothes. Rights to not speak to anyone they don't want to. Rights against unreasonable search. These are all privacy related, and while we give some up to be a part of society, we retain some as well. Looking at this as black and white (on either side) is an obstacle to finding a sustainable and constructive path forward.
jondubois 6y ago
I was thinking more about the Black Mirror episode 'Nosedive'.
joe_the_user 6y ago
Considering we're see "social heating" if not "social fire" all around us, I'm not sure this is informs people correctly. My local Facebook group seethes with an angry discussion just below threats of actual violence - and the actual violence was on display only a short time ago when Back The Blue physically assaulted a black lives matter demonstration (in a smallish city where "BLM" is just earnest liberals as you'd expect). And the miscreants were readily identifiable by Facebook (which hurt their business if nothing else but still basically weren't all that bothered by the situation). Another thing about the heated local-group arguments is that few people have a good idea how unprivate their situation really is. The paranoia of Bill Gates "microchipping" people is a cartoonish example but there's a vast group people very concerned with privacy but having close to no understanding of what it actually involves (or how much they don't have). If anything, the noxious effect of massive collection is most evidenced by micro-marketing of a variety of crazed ideas to those most susceptible to them - and employers and landlords being able to harass their own employees for particular things they object to (but lets a lot of things through, and business owners have less to worry about).
- NiloCK 6y ago
  I believe that social cooling is a thing, and I also believe that the observations you're making are legitimate. Three points that might reconcile these ideas: 1) social cooling is a long-term, slow-burn, bring-pot-to-boil-so-slowly-the-frogs-don't-notice problem. Pointing out some social heat to discredit it is analogous to people discrediting global warming because they've experienced an unseasonable cold snap in their town. 2) By your own description, there are knowledge gaps inside the "social fire" crowd - they don't understand (potential, future) consequences like housing discrimination, work prospects, etc. I don't think it will take more than one generation for these realities to become common knowledge. 3) Finally, people who consider themselves hopelessly marginalized will be susceptible to 'social fire'. People who don't have anything to lose are prone to this (eg, what factors go into someone's decision to get on board with looting?). More solidly situated members of the public, with reputations (salaries, ongoing business concerns, etc) at stake, are likely to be more careful.
OpticalWindows 6y ago
> When you think privacy of in in the terms of 'social cooling', or consider things like China's 'social credit' system, I can't help be think we are much closer to the world depicted in the last season of Westworld than we might want to admit. We were 'almost' there 20 years ago. We are firmly near Westworld (everything outside of androids).

by 40four 6y ago

ptg473 6y ago

this is the kind of privacy discourse I am interested in. Whether an individual can find my ssn, location, credit cards, or whatever personal information is not really what I am thinking about when I think about “protecting my privacy” but rather reducing my data emissions that compose these ratings. in my experience it’s hard to get this across to people who are not familiar though, always get the “I have nothing to hide :) what are you trying to hide?” response. Will try this “social cooling” framework next time. maybe a little less daunting as an entry point than “surveillance capitalism”

zwaps 6y ago
I never understood this. Economics 101 or 102 maybe tells us that our consumer welfare will be reduced if firms have less uncertainty about how much they can extract from us. You can make this argument more sophisticated in networks, regarding ads, regarding quality and what have you. But the basic case should be enough to convince you that amazon knowing every detail about you is not going to help you. At all. So of course we have something to hide.
- sjy 6y ago
  What Economics 101 or 102 principles are you referring to? I Googled your comment and found this 2019 research paper [1] that seems to support it, but I would have thought the Economics 101 take is more aligned with what companies tell us – more information about consumer desires allows firms to sell us products that we like more at lower cost, and competition means that the savings eventually get passed onto us rather than captured in permanently higher profits. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/reduced-demand-uncertainty-sustainability-collusion-how-ai-could-affect-competition/working_paper_341.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/reduced-d...
  - zwaps 6y ago
    Essentially, a sale contract can be written in many ways, but one can show the following generally for (more or less) all such contracts: to account for the fact that the firm is missing information about the counterparty, you, it will have to pay what is referred to as "information rent" to at least some customers. The firm ends up in a "second best" outcome merely because it does not possess all information about its customers. The difference, however, is "rent" that accrues to at least some customers. That is, you, the customer, can expect to pay less for things you care about. This in particular occurs when the contract is simply a single "price". With a price, you have to find the optimum between serving many customers and selling for high prices. One can show that without enough information, the firm can not really do better than setting a single price, which leaves rents to the consumer lest demand is lost. In contrast, if you have full information, you can construct pricing schemes that fully extract all surplus from the consumer. You can, in essence, get higher prices without losing customers. Many pricing schemes today are trying to use more information to approximate that situation (for example auctions, anything with subscriptions, fixed components, packages etc.). It is why firms like Amazon and Google hire a lot of Economics PhDs and Game Theorists. You will also notice that many products are pushing toward such pricing models. This is not by accident. So, your contention is half right and half wrong. In the greater scheme of things, full information is often (but not always) efficient for total welfare. However, in such situation total welfare also may accrue entirely to firms. That means higher profits, first, and higher costs for the consumer second. In effect, you will pay more if you are more known. It then depends on your faith in the fairness of the ownership and distributional properties of our capitalist systems, as well as the efficiency of the markets in question (e.g. competition), whether the increased profits are eventually redistributed to you, the consumer. It seems to me that in many of the markets in question, even the description of oligopoly would be rather charitable. In that case, latter parts of your post do not seem likely. Edit: Since you asked for the principles. The first iteration of this you may come across is called price discrimination. At that stage, it's not about information, but you can make that link in your head quite easily: The ability to set different prices, depends of course crucially on what you know. Next, you may hear about auctions or contract theory, where such problems are tackled explicitly. Switching the roles, you may hear about principal agent problems, where a similar (really the same thing) occurs. For full generality, you may want to read into Mechanism Design. Tillman Borgers has a great book which used to be available free as PDF and you can probably still find it. If you are interested in questions such as: "What can we say generally about any sort of sales contract", then this is a good place to start. Needs some math though.
oopsiforgot7 6y ago
It is enough in the present, but I'm not sure that will be enough in the future. People have always been distrustful of faraway strangers hiding their faces in hoodies and sunglasses. Similarly for a good credit score you need a history of taking and paying off loans. You may need a good life on display rather than just an absence of bad things.

smolder 6y ago

Right. Apart from the sci-fi tropes, the extreme drama, and aesthetics, it's a spitting image. A great deal of effort is quietly spent on social control, keeping things as they are, and extracting value from people-as-cows, both here and there. Any technology in a position to add robustness to that system, to reduce its upkeep effort, or improve its efficiency at generating wealth for the privileged is likely to succeed, so it's reasonable to think some of the not-yet-here but possible aspects their world will make it to ours in time. Sometimes I think that authors who see patterns and make reasonable but dire predictions about where society is going actually end up providing a game plan to career oppressors.

jawarner 6y ago
People-as-cows, huh? What does that mean to you?
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Probably a reference to the individual user as an member of an aggregate “herd” that produces value for the social media platform from the perspective of the business.
  - pixl97 6y ago
    There are also deeper potential meanings, though the OP did clarify some. Cattle are products on a farm. They have purposes. A few bulls are left for breeding, the rest are gelded. Some cows are for milk. Others are fattened up as much as possible. But all end up in the slaughterhouse. Anyone that steps out of line causes problems before that time may find themselves culled from the herd. The purpose of the system is not to make cows happy, or meet cow needs. It's to produce as much economic product as possible.
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      Animal Farm uses the farm metaphor for a reason.

bonestamp2 6y ago

Agreed. I think the audience matters too -- different messages appeal to different people. My dad is one of those old school guys who thinks law enforcement can do no wrong and nobody needs to hide anything unless they're doing something wrong. Even if that were true and I think it is true that many law enforcement personnel are trying to do good, that doesn't always mean the results will always reflect their intentions. When the sample size of facts is too small, as is often the case with mass collection, it's too easy for your sample to get mixed up with someone else's. Maybe your phone is the only other phone in the area when a murder is committed. That doesn't mean you did it, but it sure makes you look like the only suspect. I was never able to gain an inch on his argument until I asked him why he has curtains on his living room window. I mean, it faces North, so there's no need to block intense sunlight, yet he closes them every night when he's sitting there reading a book or watching TV. Why? He's not doing anything illegal, yet he still doesn't want people watching him. He said he would not be ok with the Police standing at his window all night watching him. That's when he finally understood that digital privacy is not just for criminals, but for everyone who wants to exist in a peaceful state and not a police state.

542354234235 6y ago
> I was never able to gain an inch on his argument until I asked him why he has curtains on his living room window. I'm not doing anything wrong, but I still close the door when I take a dump. The idea that someone wanting privacy means it is nefarious or wrong is ridiculous.
- ekanes 6y ago
  While crass, that's a great way to put it. Why can't I just want my conversations to be private because eavesdropping without cause is icky. Just like in person.
- dariosalvi78 6y ago
  that would be a nice way to get spies out of our data: flood them with pictures of our dumps :)

bogwog 6y ago

Yes, this was great. I think the slogans "Privacy is the right to be imperfect" and "Privacy is the right to be human" are both great, relatable, non-controversial, and easy to understand.

zajio1am 6y ago
> "Privacy is the right to be human" are both great, relatable, non-controversial, and easy to understand. And misleading. Privacy in private interactions (personal or closed groups) is basic human right. But in public interactions (public space or open groups) the concept of privacy is much more problematic. One can argue for less accountability for social progress, another for more accountability to weed-out bad actors. Seems to me that using word 'privacy' for both of these different concepts is source of confusion. Perhaps we should limit term 'privacy' for private interactions and use some other (like 'non-accountability') for public ones.
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  > But in public interactions (public space or open groups) the concept of privacy is much more problematic. I don't see what's so problematic. If someone is in public, they are exposed and obviously don't have any privacy. Same logic applies to data people publish on the internet. People can attempt to create some privacy for themselves in these contexts but it's not really a violation or invasion if some stranger shows up and witnesses things they weren't supposed to. It's completely different from someone's house or computer. These are our spaces and we have complete control over them. So someone installing sensors such as microphones and cameras inside our own homes is a massive violation of our rights. Everybody understands this. It's offensive when the state does it even when warranted. So it is also not acceptable for mere corporations to turn on our microphones in order to listen to keywords or some other surveillance capitalism bullshit.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    > If someone is in public, they are exposed and obviously don't have any privacy Rights to wear clothes. Rights to not speak to anyone they don't want to. Rights against unreasonable search. These are all privacy related, and while we give some up to be a part of society, we retain some as well. Looking at this as black and white (on either side) is an obstacle to finding a sustainable and constructive path forward.

jondubois 6y ago

I was thinking more about the Black Mirror episode 'Nosedive'.

joe_the_user 6y ago

Considering we're see "social heating" if not "social fire" all around us, I'm not sure this is informs people correctly. My local Facebook group seethes with an angry discussion just below threats of actual violence - and the actual violence was on display only a short time ago when Back The Blue physically assaulted a black lives matter demonstration (in a smallish city where "BLM" is just earnest liberals as you'd expect). And the miscreants were readily identifiable by Facebook (which hurt their business if nothing else but still basically weren't all that bothered by the situation). Another thing about the heated local-group arguments is that few people have a good idea how unprivate their situation really is. The paranoia of Bill Gates "microchipping" people is a cartoonish example but there's a vast group people very concerned with privacy but having close to no understanding of what it actually involves (or how much they don't have). If anything, the noxious effect of massive collection is most evidenced by micro-marketing of a variety of crazed ideas to those most susceptible to them - and employers and landlords being able to harass their own employees for particular things they object to (but lets a lot of things through, and business owners have less to worry about).

NiloCK 6y ago
I believe that social cooling is a thing, and I also believe that the observations you're making are legitimate. Three points that might reconcile these ideas: 1) social cooling is a long-term, slow-burn, bring-pot-to-boil-so-slowly-the-frogs-don't-notice problem. Pointing out some social heat to discredit it is analogous to people discrediting global warming because they've experienced an unseasonable cold snap in their town. 2) By your own description, there are knowledge gaps inside the "social fire" crowd - they don't understand (potential, future) consequences like housing discrimination, work prospects, etc. I don't think it will take more than one generation for these realities to become common knowledge. 3) Finally, people who consider themselves hopelessly marginalized will be susceptible to 'social fire'. People who don't have anything to lose are prone to this (eg, what factors go into someone's decision to get on board with looting?). More solidly situated members of the public, with reputations (salaries, ongoing business concerns, etc) at stake, are likely to be more careful.

OpticalWindows 6y ago

> When you think privacy of in in the terms of 'social cooling', or consider things like China's 'social credit' system, I can't help be think we are much closer to the world depicted in the last season of Westworld than we might want to admit. We were 'almost' there 20 years ago. We are firmly near Westworld (everything outside of androids).