4 ms·

At the end the author asks which world are we closer to. I think we're close to both. For people that want to cloak their identity, it is getting easier to do

At the end the author asks which world are we closer to. I think we're close to both. For people that want to cloak their identity, it is getting easier to do so, while at the same time having world-wide scope for distribution or consumption. But it is also the case that for the average person their behavior is available for the government to observe. For me the problem with lack of privacy, isn't the lack of privacy itself, but rather the lack of symmetry. For example, if I had the same visibility into the individuals/orgs observing me, including knowing they were observing me -- I feel like I'd be less worried about lack of privacy.

clairity 6y ago
> "...if I had the same visibility into the individuals/orgs observing me, including knowing they were observing me -- I feel like I'd be less worried about lack of privacy." we should take this one step further and escalate transparency based on size, money, influence, and power. a poor individual generally has little power, so gets broad privacy protections, while a multi-national corporation needs to be fairly transparent in its practices and aims. the constitution (with amendments) plus public markets together sort of implement this at a course and haphazard level, but we should implement it broadly and smoothly. both democracy and fair (not simply free) markets depend on individuals having autonomy and information.
- dud7eurru 6y ago
  Poor individuals also commit most of the crime that damages their community. Focusing only on the money at stake ignores whether or not the victims matter. I care a lot more about getting thugs and shoplifters out of my neighborhood than I care if Google 'violated' my privacy since the former hurt me in the real way and the ladder only hurts me if I'm white and paranoid.
  - clairity 6y ago
    no, the poor don't commit most of the crimes, and what crimes they do commit are often crimes of necessity and of quite limited effect. whereas, the crimes of the well-to-do are often large and affect a broad range of society (y'know, like the sacklers, madoff, putin, or bashar al-assad). worrying about thugs and shoplifters makes as much sense as worrying about lightning strikes, pickpocketing, kidnapping, and drowning in a bathtub. if you worry about the former, you should seriously worry about the latter too. but you shouldn't ever worry about any of those things, since they're exceedingly unlikely and/or of limited effect. centers of power, wealth, and influence are far more likely to negatively affect your life, potentially dramatically, than a thug or a shoplifter.
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
I'm not sure it is getting easier to cloak identity, because privacy-defeating mobile phones are required to do more and more things in society, for example: 1) Around the world, ID is increasingly required to buy a SIM card, because governments want one-to-one mapping between a phone number (and IMEI) and a particular person. Surveillance-heavy countries can then trivially link all mobile web-browsing to that particular person. 2) Nearly all of the "vaccine passports" that have been announced recently are intended to be mobile phone apps that generate a limited-time QR code, ostensibly to prevent forgery as could happen with paper certificates. Knowing how lazy governments are, the Android version will probably require Play Services, which means Android phone owners will have to disclose a ton of info to Google – it won’t be as easy for people to install a de-Googled Android and still e.g. enter restaurants or cross borders. 3) The same is true of online banking, as many banks have phased out e.g. code cards and they now require a mobile app for authentication. Such mobile apps often require Play Services and, citing lack of security, refuse to launch if a user has unlocked the phone's bootloader and installed a more privacy-respecting Android version. It is not longer reasonable to tell privacy-savvy people to eschewing online banking and visiting their bank to do their business: physical bank locations are being slashed left and right, and even in the physical location they might tell you "Oh, you have to go online to do that".
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

clairity 6y ago

> "...if I had the same visibility into the individuals/orgs observing me, including knowing they were observing me -- I feel like I'd be less worried about lack of privacy." we should take this one step further and escalate transparency based on size, money, influence, and power. a poor individual generally has little power, so gets broad privacy protections, while a multi-national corporation needs to be fairly transparent in its practices and aims. the constitution (with amendments) plus public markets together sort of implement this at a course and haphazard level, but we should implement it broadly and smoothly. both democracy and fair (not simply free) markets depend on individuals having autonomy and information.

dud7eurru 6y ago
Poor individuals also commit most of the crime that damages their community. Focusing only on the money at stake ignores whether or not the victims matter. I care a lot more about getting thugs and shoplifters out of my neighborhood than I care if Google 'violated' my privacy since the former hurt me in the real way and the ladder only hurts me if I'm white and paranoid.
- clairity 6y ago
  no, the poor don't commit most of the crimes, and what crimes they do commit are often crimes of necessity and of quite limited effect. whereas, the crimes of the well-to-do are often large and affect a broad range of society (y'know, like the sacklers, madoff, putin, or bashar al-assad). worrying about thugs and shoplifters makes as much sense as worrying about lightning strikes, pickpocketing, kidnapping, and drowning in a bathtub. if you worry about the former, you should seriously worry about the latter too. but you shouldn't ever worry about any of those things, since they're exceedingly unlikely and/or of limited effect. centers of power, wealth, and influence are far more likely to negatively affect your life, potentially dramatically, than a thug or a shoplifter.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

I'm not sure it is getting easier to cloak identity, because privacy-defeating mobile phones are required to do more and more things in society, for example: 1) Around the world, ID is increasingly required to buy a SIM card, because governments want one-to-one mapping between a phone number (and IMEI) and a particular person. Surveillance-heavy countries can then trivially link all mobile web-browsing to that particular person. 2) Nearly all of the "vaccine passports" that have been announced recently are intended to be mobile phone apps that generate a limited-time QR code, ostensibly to prevent forgery as could happen with paper certificates. Knowing how lazy governments are, the Android version will probably require Play Services, which means Android phone owners will have to disclose a ton of info to Google – it won’t be as easy for people to install a de-Googled Android and still e.g. enter restaurants or cross borders. 3) The same is true of online banking, as many banks have phased out e.g. code cards and they now require a mobile app for authentication. Such mobile apps often require Play Services and, citing lack of security, refuse to launch if a user has unlocked the phone's bootloader and installed a more privacy-respecting Android version. It is not longer reasonable to tell privacy-savvy people to eschewing online banking and visiting their bank to do their business: physical bank locations are being slashed left and right, and even in the physical location they might tell you "Oh, you have to go online to do that".

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]