3 ms·
Reading the title, I assumed that the article would talk about what people mean by privacy. However, it really is about how people try to achieve privacy (by re
by loicd 4y ago
Reading the title, I assumed that the article would talk about what people mean by privacy. However, it really is about how people try to achieve privacy (by reducing the mount of collected data, or by reducing the amount of collectible data). The thing is how you do it depends on what you are trying to achieve. When discussing privacy, I find it useful to distinguish three types: a) privacy from government, which is fondamentally not a technical problem but a political one, b) privacy from big corporations, and c) privacy from criminals (i.e. "hackers"). In my experience, people are really mostly interested in c) and so-called privacy conscious people are mostly interested in b). As for how to achieve b), I (perhaps naively) assume that corporate data collection obeys a law of diminishing returns, so the best strategy is simply to do more than the masses who do not care.
- JadeNB 4y ago> When discussing privacy, I find it useful to distinguish three types: a) privacy from government, which is fondamentally not a technical problem but a political one I think that this is not quite true. At its best, privacy from the government is granted willingly by the government; this is a political process. However, one might be dealing with a government that explicitly revokes certain privacies, or one might not trust a government's guarantee to respect certain privacies, in which case the political problem is once again technological. (Or of course one could trust one's government implicitly but not the next government, or one could trust one's government to try to do things well but fear government stores of data as a juicy target for hackers.)
- loicd 4y agoI mostly agree. What I mean by "fondamentally not a technical problem but a political one" is that technological solutions to bad or incompetent government policies seem to me to be band-aids that do not actually solve the problem. They are useful if this is all you have, but they are no substitutes for good policies.
- denton-scratch 4y ago> of course one could trust one's government implicitly but not the next government Quite so. Consequently my priority is a); if I can keep my information away from the government, then b) and c) follow along. That is, if government can't get the data, then (unless I'm careless) nor can corporations and crooks. The government is the toughest nut; they have the whip hand. I need to interact with the government to get government services I've paid for, such as my pension and medical treatment.