"Privacy" has a nebulous definition, and I don't think many of us here have concerns about supplying anonymous data to help build useful systems. We need to re-

"Privacy" has a nebulous definition, and I don't think many of us here have concerns about supplying anonymous data to help build useful systems. We need to re-frame the issue. Individual and aggregated environmental sensor data could be used for so many good things. We can track storms, fires and floods, earthquakes, air and noise pollution, and save lives. But it is abused by a greedy, unethical few, and so the systems can no longer be trusted. Medical data, individual and aggregated, can be used to stop transmissible disease by detecting outbreaks, and improve our personal health through exercise monitoring and early issue diagnosis. But it is abused by a greedy, unethical few, and so the systems can no longer be trusted. Domestic data has the potential to manage energy, water use and air quality, keep homes safe from intruders, protect the elderly and babies. But it is abused by a greedy, unethical few, and so the systems can no longer be trusted. The pattern here looks like a tragedy of the commons. As engineers we can build systems with ostensible social utility which are then hijacked (sold, acquired, infiltrated) by "digital pirates" who turn them into systems of abuse (surveillance, manipulation and control). Each time the empty "assurances" are the same and the corruption predictable, inevitable and painful. Perhaps it is time to stop thinking about "privacy" at the level of technical measures and permissions etc, and deal with corruption and abuse, which seems intrinsic to tech, at a different level. We have the mathematical/cryptological knowledge to build better systems. but it's the unethical few who benefit from stealing our data who don't want computer systems to be secure.