4 ms·

I'm not sure that's always a good start to a line of questioning? Don't get me wrong, I like the reasoning, but perhaps, "what expectations of privacy do you ha

by Folcon 6y ago

I'm not sure that's always a good start to a line of questioning? Don't get me wrong, I like the reasoning, but perhaps, "what expectations of privacy do you have for yourself or your family?". Their answer to that might be a better starting point? If they don't have any, then at least they would be consistent =)... You can also then discuss what kind of a society comes from that position and whether that's a good one to live in? Alternatively another question is, "do you and your colleagues want to be stewards of this data you collect?" What's an appropriate / reasonable punishment for failing to be good stewards? Jail time? Fines? Personal or organisational? Paying money into charities designed to act as public oversight? Starting off combative feels nice, but just gets people's hackles up in my experience =)...

feanaro 6y ago
> Don't get me wrong, I like the reasoning, but perhaps, "what expectations of privacy do you have for yourself or your family?". I feel like some people flippantly respond "none" to this, which they can afford because they are not expecting to really be compelled to give away their personal information on the spot. The response suggested by the OP would give them an opportunity to prove their position immediately.
- Folcon 6y ago
  That's true, but starting the question on that basis and also framing the question around it is important. The public / audience of the debate need to be constantly reminded that these rules apply to them as well and they need to ask themselves, what am I comfortable with living under? Do I trust this administration? The current law enforcement? Forever? What could they do to me or my family if we suddenly become persona non grata? To be honest even under this system people can reason that this is just giving the police etc powers, so even then their "privacy" isn't really at risk. They aren't necessarily thinking that: - data can be leaked - data could be sold - you can get malicious officers - the data can be used for other purposes - etc These are the other parts of the conversation that need to also be thought about because otherwise this is just another security blanket.
- stronglikedan 6y ago
  My answer, since I love to play devil's advocate, would be, "No, you can't have any of that information, because I only trust governments and corporations with it!" Then watch them twitch a little.
tareqak 6y ago
Your phrasing is definitely a better initial starting point. I do think that my phrasing has its place if a non-answer is given after the second or third time. Your follow-up questions are great too. This sort of dialog / FAQ for “what do you have to hide” needs to be available somewhere online with a catchy URI e.g. https://privacymatters.org https://privacymatters.org (I don’t know if this is real just an example).
- Folcon 6y ago
  Definitely agree that your stronger take is needed if people say none. But that's why in my opinion, a question about what society people are looking to live in is important. We can start to draw out what people are and aren't comfortable with. Personally I think that in addition to websites, more media needs to be available for the public to discuss this topic more and get a feel for it. EG: Mr Robot raised some questions about whether the hacking and casual discovery of personal information they were showing was realistic. Perhaps "Man in the High Castle", I've not seen it, so not sure if it covers the notion of the nation state turning hostile and then leveraging collected information to attack specific citizens, but something along those lines. Also things like the munk debates to foster discussion. In my experience media does a much better job of getting people to empathise with different circumstances which would get them really thinking what these things might mean for them.
AmericanChopper 6y ago
They’re probably not the best people to be asking that question anyway. Police, politicians, and especially anybody who works in a national security role, are all people who have already accepted living with seriously diminished privacy in order to do their jobs. It’s also not terribly surprising the journalists are mostly rather delinquent when it comes to privacy controversies, as privacy gets in the way of a journalist doing their job as often as it does a police officer.
- Folcon 6y ago
  This is a really good point and I'm not sure how to really tackle it other than ask if they're also comfortable with the same being true for their families as well as themselves? There were cases where lack of privacy for public figures family members have caused issues[0][1]. I don't want to focus on that specific story, it's just an example. This might be a case where people are happy about that information being public? Or maybe they have a more nuanced take? For example, report that it happened, but don't print their name / picture? (for example both articles below did name, but only nytimes seems to have also done picture) Where you draw the lines on this stuff can be really important. - [0]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/george-floyd-protests-new-york-city-bill-de-blasio-daughter-chiara-a9542541.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... - [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/nyregion/chiara-de-blasio-arrest.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/nyregion/chiara-de-blasio...

by Folcon 6y ago

feanaro 6y ago

> Don't get me wrong, I like the reasoning, but perhaps, "what expectations of privacy do you have for yourself or your family?". I feel like some people flippantly respond "none" to this, which they can afford because they are not expecting to really be compelled to give away their personal information on the spot. The response suggested by the OP would give them an opportunity to prove their position immediately.

Folcon 6y ago
That's true, but starting the question on that basis and also framing the question around it is important. The public / audience of the debate need to be constantly reminded that these rules apply to them as well and they need to ask themselves, what am I comfortable with living under? Do I trust this administration? The current law enforcement? Forever? What could they do to me or my family if we suddenly become persona non grata? To be honest even under this system people can reason that this is just giving the police etc powers, so even then their "privacy" isn't really at risk. They aren't necessarily thinking that: - data can be leaked - data could be sold - you can get malicious officers - the data can be used for other purposes - etc These are the other parts of the conversation that need to also be thought about because otherwise this is just another security blanket.
stronglikedan 6y ago
My answer, since I love to play devil's advocate, would be, "No, you can't have any of that information, because I only trust governments and corporations with it!" Then watch them twitch a little.

tareqak 6y ago

Your phrasing is definitely a better initial starting point. I do think that my phrasing has its place if a non-answer is given after the second or third time. Your follow-up questions are great too. This sort of dialog / FAQ for “what do you have to hide” needs to be available somewhere online with a catchy URI e.g. https://privacymatters.org https://privacymatters.org (I don’t know if this is real just an example).

Folcon 6y ago
Definitely agree that your stronger take is needed if people say none. But that's why in my opinion, a question about what society people are looking to live in is important. We can start to draw out what people are and aren't comfortable with. Personally I think that in addition to websites, more media needs to be available for the public to discuss this topic more and get a feel for it. EG: Mr Robot raised some questions about whether the hacking and casual discovery of personal information they were showing was realistic. Perhaps "Man in the High Castle", I've not seen it, so not sure if it covers the notion of the nation state turning hostile and then leveraging collected information to attack specific citizens, but something along those lines. Also things like the munk debates to foster discussion. In my experience media does a much better job of getting people to empathise with different circumstances which would get them really thinking what these things might mean for them.

AmericanChopper 6y ago

They’re probably not the best people to be asking that question anyway. Police, politicians, and especially anybody who works in a national security role, are all people who have already accepted living with seriously diminished privacy in order to do their jobs. It’s also not terribly surprising the journalists are mostly rather delinquent when it comes to privacy controversies, as privacy gets in the way of a journalist doing their job as often as it does a police officer.

Folcon 6y ago
This is a really good point and I'm not sure how to really tackle it other than ask if they're also comfortable with the same being true for their families as well as themselves? There were cases where lack of privacy for public figures family members have caused issues[0][1]. I don't want to focus on that specific story, it's just an example. This might be a case where people are happy about that information being public? Or maybe they have a more nuanced take? For example, report that it happened, but don't print their name / picture? (for example both articles below did name, but only nytimes seems to have also done picture) Where you draw the lines on this stuff can be really important. - [0]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/george-floyd-protests-new-york-city-bill-de-blasio-daughter-chiara-a9542541.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... - [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/nyregion/chiara-de-blasio-arrest.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/nyregion/chiara-de-blasio...