5 ms·

To me discussions about privacy often seem like bullshit. Here is a comment I wrote yesterday about a former AdWords employee as privacy violation apologist: H

To me discussions about privacy often seem like bullshit. Here is a comment I wrote yesterday about a former AdWords employee as privacy violation apologist: Hypocritically people bitch about intrusive data collection from governments and yet simultaneously give away the same data, and encourage others to do the same, and more to private companies knowing that data will be weaponized against them. As such it’s almost impossible to take any opinion promoting commercial violations of privacy seriously.

barrysteve 4y ago
This is only viable when viewed as an economic game. As soon as a real war breaks out or national security is threatened, privacy invasions from foreign powers and literally anyone not whitelisted, will be ended quickly and be treated as acts of war. Assuming all private companies are bent is pointless. People should be allowed the choice to keep their data private and give it whomever they please. This is a 'free market' after all.
- throwaway0asd 4y ago
  That’s an empty argument. People don’t have a choice on what third parties share and disclose. People don’t have a choice on things like HIPAA and banking regulations and they shouldn’t because those regulations protect people but don’t regulate people.
  - barrysteve 4y ago
    Choice doesn't mean controlling the other guy. At some point in the chain trust appears and canaries can be used to see if it has been violated, if you really care that much. Some people have a non-commercial precommitment to privacy and finding the companies that honor it and relate to it is the choice we want. If you want to force the discussion about privacy into regulation and non-market forces, then okay? Why would people legally and politically consent to a fully transparent world? The regulation will only end up going one way in the end and for all the split hairs along the way, it won't be in favour of ending privacy...
    - throwaway0asd 4y ago
      What other guy? Advertisers? That’s not another guy. Privacy protections benefit everyone equally.
donatj 4y ago
Companies don't kill me. It's the government I'm worried about, and the governments of the world have literally no intentions on respecting your privacy.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  But companies collect your data and sell it to the government.
  - donatj 4y ago
    Governments don't need to bother - they collect it directly. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33_Thomas_Street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33_Thomas_Street
- Qem 4y ago
  Depending on the country, companies may kill you. Even Coca-Cola would not refrain from dispatching hitmen to kill employees if given opportunity. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaltrainal_v._Coca-Cola_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaltrainal_v._Coca-Cola_Co.
monopoliessuck 4y ago
People don't have a choice about giving information to governments. There's a fourth amendment for a reason so I'm obviously anti dragnet. Private parties though may opt into providing anything legal to other private parties at their sole discretion and that's the nature of things. Despite the fact that the majority of Americans are making market choices that many of us would consider "not privacy respecting", that does not make these interactions "public" de facto. I don't have a Google account. I don't have a Facebook account. I don't take commercial genealogy tests, I'm not an Amazon Prime member. I would prefer to not have the government use the ubiquity of this kinds of behavior as a lever to usurp more information. I agree that people that bitch about corporate overreach should just not interact with bad actors instead of bitching to the government to somehow safeguard themselves from contracts they sign. At this point, it's not even an information asymmetry situation. Lots of people know Facebook and Google are untrustworthy stewards of this kind of information, but to them the ends justify the means... and that's their market decision I guess.
- monocasa 4y ago
  > I don't have a Google account. I don't have a Facebook account. They have shadow profiles of you.
  - monopoliessuck 4y ago
    I realize this. I'm not saying I avoid the bot net completely -- no one does and it's only getting harder to do so. This is a result of people I know installing LinkedIn on their phones with my number in their contacts. It's still a consumer-first problem and awareness is lacking. Every dollar, click and eyeball you give to some product is one you're divesting from another and we should consider our market engagements endorsements of corporate behavior because that's what they are. How much awareness will get people to reconsider though? People are paying out of pocket to install microphones in their own homes and cameras on their front doors. Even if dumb TVs were on offer for 2X the price, statistically no one would buy them. Privacy is only a concern if it's novel and studies show generations born into surveillance are numb to it. I feel like people need to be more aware AND more discerning in their consumption; awareness alone isn't enough. We should discriminate with our wallet more on these issues today while we still have some alternatives available.

barrysteve 4y ago

This is only viable when viewed as an economic game. As soon as a real war breaks out or national security is threatened, privacy invasions from foreign powers and literally anyone not whitelisted, will be ended quickly and be treated as acts of war. Assuming all private companies are bent is pointless. People should be allowed the choice to keep their data private and give it whomever they please. This is a 'free market' after all.

throwaway0asd 4y ago
That’s an empty argument. People don’t have a choice on what third parties share and disclose. People don’t have a choice on things like HIPAA and banking regulations and they shouldn’t because those regulations protect people but don’t regulate people.
- barrysteve 4y ago
  Choice doesn't mean controlling the other guy. At some point in the chain trust appears and canaries can be used to see if it has been violated, if you really care that much. Some people have a non-commercial precommitment to privacy and finding the companies that honor it and relate to it is the choice we want. If you want to force the discussion about privacy into regulation and non-market forces, then okay? Why would people legally and politically consent to a fully transparent world? The regulation will only end up going one way in the end and for all the split hairs along the way, it won't be in favour of ending privacy...
  - throwaway0asd 4y ago
    What other guy? Advertisers? That’s not another guy. Privacy protections benefit everyone equally.

donatj 4y ago

Companies don't kill me. It's the government I'm worried about, and the governments of the world have literally no intentions on respecting your privacy.

ALittleLight 4y ago
But companies collect your data and sell it to the government.
- donatj 4y ago
  Governments don't need to bother - they collect it directly. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33_Thomas_Street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33_Thomas_Street
Qem 4y ago
Depending on the country, companies may kill you. Even Coca-Cola would not refrain from dispatching hitmen to kill employees if given opportunity. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaltrainal_v._Coca-Cola_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaltrainal_v._Coca-Cola_Co.

monopoliessuck 4y ago

People don't have a choice about giving information to governments. There's a fourth amendment for a reason so I'm obviously anti dragnet. Private parties though may opt into providing anything legal to other private parties at their sole discretion and that's the nature of things. Despite the fact that the majority of Americans are making market choices that many of us would consider "not privacy respecting", that does not make these interactions "public" de facto. I don't have a Google account. I don't have a Facebook account. I don't take commercial genealogy tests, I'm not an Amazon Prime member. I would prefer to not have the government use the ubiquity of this kinds of behavior as a lever to usurp more information. I agree that people that bitch about corporate overreach should just not interact with bad actors instead of bitching to the government to somehow safeguard themselves from contracts they sign. At this point, it's not even an information asymmetry situation. Lots of people know Facebook and Google are untrustworthy stewards of this kind of information, but to them the ends justify the means... and that's their market decision I guess.

monocasa 4y ago
> I don't have a Google account. I don't have a Facebook account. They have shadow profiles of you.
- monopoliessuck 4y ago
  I realize this. I'm not saying I avoid the bot net completely -- no one does and it's only getting harder to do so. This is a result of people I know installing LinkedIn on their phones with my number in their contacts. It's still a consumer-first problem and awareness is lacking. Every dollar, click and eyeball you give to some product is one you're divesting from another and we should consider our market engagements endorsements of corporate behavior because that's what they are. How much awareness will get people to reconsider though? People are paying out of pocket to install microphones in their own homes and cameras on their front doors. Even if dumb TVs were on offer for 2X the price, statistically no one would buy them. Privacy is only a concern if it's novel and studies show generations born into surveillance are numb to it. I feel like people need to be more aware AND more discerning in their consumption; awareness alone isn't enough. We should discriminate with our wallet more on these issues today while we still have some alternatives available.