3 ms·

Giving these big detailed anecdotes about how we're actively in a surveillance state isn't working. People don't care. A lot of those same people have probably

by kodah 6y ago

Giving these big detailed anecdotes about how we're actively in a surveillance state isn't working. People don't care. A lot of those same people have probably helped, in the form of public opinion solidarity, to make it this way. When you support or make excuses for engineering firms that engage in aggressive tracking, you give them clearance. When you constantly murmur about immigration or terrorism, it provides tools and reasoning for these systems to exist. If you fear monger about all the "bad people" on the internet, you create pathways for things like real name policies, sentiment analysis, or private data collection to prove who you are and what faith you come in. Then there's people who will aid these people and say things like, "Well those governments and companies aren't quite sharing data yet!" as if mass aggregation at a governmental level or through private partnerships isn't already happening. When you put all this hand wringing together it forms a useful set of tools for governments and private companies to abuse or misuse. Privacy on the internet was never about one small thing, it was always about an aggregate of decisions that achieve an outcome.

pksebben 6y ago
My interpretation of this article is that the author wanted to remind us to engage, and to contribute the conversation because we don't know how to manage the situation. It sounds like you have some format of a game plan to deal with this, would you care to share it? I'm legitimately interested.
- kodah 6y ago
  > There is no simple solution to the problem of privacy, because privacy itself is a solution to societal challenges that are in constant flux. Some are natural and beyond our control; others are technological and should be within our control but are shaped by a panoply of complex social and material forces with indeterminate effects. Privacy does not mean stopping the flow of data; it means channeling it wisely and justly to serve societal ends and values and the individuals who are its subjects, particularly the vulnerable and the disadvantaged. Innumerable customs, concepts, tools, laws, mechanisms, and protocols have evolved to achieve privacy, so conceived, and it is to that collection that we add obfuscation to sustain it — as an active conversation, a struggle, and a choice. The author comes to the same conclusion I do. I just stated that making vivid images of what your loss of privacy looks like aren't really making a dent. The author also says it best: there is no simple solution. Rather, the problem exists in people's behavior and belief systems. They feel justified in their beliefs for a cause, and once they are galvanized into that belief system they are no longer required to consider second and third order effects from their belief support. In fact, they're totally allowed to just dismiss people altogether as long as they are doing so in support of the cause. This isn't anything new. Hot topics show that people just do this when they feel some type of way about a given topic. If you want to solve these problems I think the place to start is making vocal calls to people within your belief system that are encouraging a loss of privacy. This must be from within your belief system because people don't listen fully to people of polar belief systems and it must be vocal so that everyone sees the example. More or less saying: privacy must be a common concern that is continually addressed and answered for in every discussion where we encourage change. It can no longer be an option.
  - pksebben 6y ago
    Thank you for this. You managed to put fairly specific words to something that I constantly struggle to define, which is the process by which one affects and influences the culture they exist in. I think it's important to bring these things up and talk about them, especially with people who are not exposed to echo chambers like this one. Talking about these issues on HN is important, but only matters if you take the subject matter and expose it to folks in other contexts. You describe this process really well. I wonder, too, how we as tech-minded hackers and programmers and doers can use what we have and what we work with to strengthen these signals. Like, facebook and twitter et al have optimized for things like raw engagement numbers / advertising exposure etc. Are there things we could do to optimize for engagement / cultural development? I pose this question in earnest. It's something I have thought about a lot without many good answers to show for it.

by kodah 6y ago

pksebben 6y ago

My interpretation of this article is that the author wanted to remind us to engage, and to contribute the conversation because we don't know how to manage the situation. It sounds like you have some format of a game plan to deal with this, would you care to share it? I'm legitimately interested.

kodah 6y ago
> There is no simple solution to the problem of privacy, because privacy itself is a solution to societal challenges that are in constant flux. Some are natural and beyond our control; others are technological and should be within our control but are shaped by a panoply of complex social and material forces with indeterminate effects. Privacy does not mean stopping the flow of data; it means channeling it wisely and justly to serve societal ends and values and the individuals who are its subjects, particularly the vulnerable and the disadvantaged. Innumerable customs, concepts, tools, laws, mechanisms, and protocols have evolved to achieve privacy, so conceived, and it is to that collection that we add obfuscation to sustain it — as an active conversation, a struggle, and a choice. The author comes to the same conclusion I do. I just stated that making vivid images of what your loss of privacy looks like aren't really making a dent. The author also says it best: there is no simple solution. Rather, the problem exists in people's behavior and belief systems. They feel justified in their beliefs for a cause, and once they are galvanized into that belief system they are no longer required to consider second and third order effects from their belief support. In fact, they're totally allowed to just dismiss people altogether as long as they are doing so in support of the cause. This isn't anything new. Hot topics show that people just do this when they feel some type of way about a given topic. If you want to solve these problems I think the place to start is making vocal calls to people within your belief system that are encouraging a loss of privacy. This must be from within your belief system because people don't listen fully to people of polar belief systems and it must be vocal so that everyone sees the example. More or less saying: privacy must be a common concern that is continually addressed and answered for in every discussion where we encourage change. It can no longer be an option.
- pksebben 6y ago
  Thank you for this. You managed to put fairly specific words to something that I constantly struggle to define, which is the process by which one affects and influences the culture they exist in. I think it's important to bring these things up and talk about them, especially with people who are not exposed to echo chambers like this one. Talking about these issues on HN is important, but only matters if you take the subject matter and expose it to folks in other contexts. You describe this process really well. I wonder, too, how we as tech-minded hackers and programmers and doers can use what we have and what we work with to strengthen these signals. Like, facebook and twitter et al have optimized for things like raw engagement numbers / advertising exposure etc. Are there things we could do to optimize for engagement / cultural development? I pose this question in earnest. It's something I have thought about a lot without many good answers to show for it.