2 ms·
> It often feels like privacy advocates start from a position that anyone who doesn't hold the same view as them must be missing some key piece of information,
by kodah 5y ago
> It often feels like privacy advocates start from a position that anyone who doesn't hold the same view as them must be missing some key piece of information, and are unwilling to accept that a person might decide that the tradeoff is actually worth it to them?
That could be the case, albeit that's fairly uncharitable. Usually when I talk to anti-privacy people they have a strong bond to a particular thing that makes them anti-privacy. That could be a bond with corporations that benefit from a lack of privacy or it could be some moral community that tells them a lack of privacy let's them find all the "bad guys". Of course, that's anecdotal.
Personally speaking, I don't mind decreased privacy as long as I have a way to opt out and data stays very anonymized. Providing that kind of choice, and minimal negative effects that negate the ability of a person to opt out, is the optimal choice for me.
- 636rydy 5y agoThis is a position I could support if most privacy advocates didn't also expect accommodation to access services that would normally be funded by their information. I like that my information has value and I'm happy to spend it in place of currency to support a service. Why should someone get the same access I do if they're not willing to pay the toll? It's like listening to a bittorrent leech try to justify themselves.
- kodah 5y agoThe bottom line I have is choice and a bit of transparency. If I don't want to give you my data, I should be able to pay a reasonable, uninflated price. If I do, I should get the service based on the value of the data I provide. The second thing is that services need to be transparent with who they're brokering or selling data to, they need to be upfront about how that data will be used, and if they violate any of these conditions you should be able to flush your data.