4 ms·

And it's really a boon for privacy, because we will finally be forced to a) actively care about it and b) define exactly what, where, and when it is. It's not

And it's really a boon for privacy, because we will finally be forced to a) actively care about it and b) define exactly what, where, and when it is. It's not privacy that we are ultimately losing, it's obscurity.

aidenn0 15y ago
But obscurity has been good enough for privacy. Just look at the difference between a GPS tracker and assigning an FBI agent to follow someone. In theory the information you gather is the same, but the ability to do it at scale allows you to collect data on people that you otherwise never would have, thus reducing privacy.
- extension 15y ago
  It has been mostly good enough for most people, but not anymore. And that's a consequence of technological progress that we are not going to change. The sooner people realize this, the sooner they can start fighting for real privacy.
julian37 15y ago
That sounds quite optimistic. How do you "define exactly [...] where, and when" you can have privacy when you don't know where and when a camera or microphone might be aimed at you? Anthony Bourdain's photo, referenced in the article, was presumably taken by a friend or family member only to be leaked a decade later. And these days, using readily available tools such as telephoto lenses or unidirectional microphones, strangers can take part in your life from a distance of hundreds of feet. So, do you "define" privacy by making sure there never is a hill in line of sight? When people start live-tweeting events recorded by their private satellite at some point in the future, do you make sure you can't see the sky so that the sky can't see you? That's not the kind of privacy I'm looking forward to, and it's certainly not a boon. EDIT: You are certainly correct that this will force us to define what privacy is -- or, more likely, to dismiss the concept altogether. Either way, it looks like we'll have to embrace this fundamental change, I can see little point in trying to fight against it.
- extension 15y ago
  We can define private spaces that are vulnerable to eavesdropping and define such eavesdropping as a crime.

aidenn0 15y ago

But obscurity has been good enough for privacy. Just look at the difference between a GPS tracker and assigning an FBI agent to follow someone. In theory the information you gather is the same, but the ability to do it at scale allows you to collect data on people that you otherwise never would have, thus reducing privacy.

extension 15y ago
It has been mostly good enough for most people, but not anymore. And that's a consequence of technological progress that we are not going to change. The sooner people realize this, the sooner they can start fighting for real privacy.

julian37 15y ago

That sounds quite optimistic. How do you "define exactly [...] where, and when" you can have privacy when you don't know where and when a camera or microphone might be aimed at you? Anthony Bourdain's photo, referenced in the article, was presumably taken by a friend or family member only to be leaked a decade later. And these days, using readily available tools such as telephoto lenses or unidirectional microphones, strangers can take part in your life from a distance of hundreds of feet. So, do you "define" privacy by making sure there never is a hill in line of sight? When people start live-tweeting events recorded by their private satellite at some point in the future, do you make sure you can't see the sky so that the sky can't see you? That's not the kind of privacy I'm looking forward to, and it's certainly not a boon. EDIT: You are certainly correct that this will force us to define what privacy is -- or, more likely, to dismiss the concept altogether. Either way, it looks like we'll have to embrace this fundamental change, I can see little point in trying to fight against it.

extension 15y ago
We can define private spaces that are vulnerable to eavesdropping and define such eavesdropping as a crime.