4 ms·

I really don't think privacy is something everyone should value equally. "Unmaskings" don't generally happen to most folks, and these "dangerous outcomes" are

by Zetice 3y ago

I really don't think privacy is something everyone should value equally. "Unmaskings" don't generally happen to most folks, and these "dangerous outcomes" are exceedingly rare. If your threat model includes the possibility of things you do online having negative consequences for you should they be discovered, that's one thing. But the vast majority of people do not fall into that category, and pretending like they do is a great way to numb folks to the very real risk some people carry. Having something to hide or not, privacy doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, and that's completely okay.

hedora 3y ago
If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide from the giant surveillance apparatus the government's been hiding. -Stephen Colbert
makeitdouble 3y ago
The other side of the question is too often left out: a vast majority of people are empowering surveilling entities. They're giving a trove of information to establish a baseline that will impact anyone diverging from there, while also helping further manipulation as the feedback loop between what they're pushed and how they react to it is transparent. So IMHO, privacy should be enforced by default if we look at it from the group's perspective.
- Zetice 3y ago
  Except that's not happening. Could my DNA be used to scan for racial anomalies in newborns? Yes. Is that actually happening? Hell no. Doomsday screeching is not a productive activity, and privacy is not the issue here. It's how people are using their collected data. Besides, caring about other people's treatment of privacy is, if you actually believe what you're saying, none of your business.
  - makeitdouble 3y ago
    > that actually happening? Hell no. I'm kinda tired of blanket dismissal of anything that could be mildly tinfoil hat looking. Not falling into a panic every thursday about random corporate action is a thing, being ultra confident that no one is ever doing anything harmful on a specific subject is unwarranted. Eugenism was a thing baked into laws not that long time ago and is still in the books depending on where you live. Patients are still suing govs for reparation because their claims were memoryholed. You can't just throw around "Is that actually happening? Hell no." rhetoric as if you were due a demonstration served on a plate before accepting that the world is 't as skweeky clean as you seem to assume it is.
    - Zetice 3y ago
      And I'm kinda tired of blanket chicken littling over privacy from folks who refuse to accept the general situation of the vast majority of people. Eugenics is not a thing modern humans in Western society need to realistically worry about, and the main reason you're not getting the traction you think you should be getting is because you keep pretending like it is. People tune this attitude out, because of how patently absurd it is. The average person operates in their own best interest. The reality is that caring deeply about privacy is not in their best interest, no matter how many boogeymen you try to pull out. It just doesn't come up nearly as often or as severely as you apparently wish.
      - defrost 3y ago
        > Eugenics is not a thing modern humans in Western society need to realistically worry about, Hard disagree, the facts are against you. My father was born in 1935 and is still alive and very healthy, during his lifetime here in Australia, a modern Western Society, a Eugenics based carding and restricted movement system was in force. https://culture.wa.gov.au/feature/perths-prohibited-area https://culture.wa.gov.au/feature/perths-prohibited-area Looking about the world there are still many examples of divided rules for colonists and indigenous peoples, if you're in North America ask your nearest Indigenous American whether any significant issues still hang on bloodlines, you'll hear a range of answers some of which might suprise you. All that aside .. never forget that what has happened in the past can happen in the future and perhaps faster than many expect. With a rise in far right policy and the US still somewhat shocked by the overturning of Roe V Wade with womens search data wrt reproductive health now a hot topic in security and law enforcement it's not at all outlandish to posit that it wouldn't take much to see the emergance of policy to seperate those that are different in some manner .. the intersex, arabs and chinese and have all been recent and current tarets of the US right.
fumblywumbly 3y ago
> If your threat model includes the possibility of things you do online having negative consequences for you should they be discovered, that's one thing. Let's start with you then, Zetice. Post your name, face, and home address.
- Zetice 3y ago
  My threat model includes negative consequences for me should I be discovered.
teddyh 3y ago
Bruce Schneier put it quite succinctly in his article The Eternal Value of Privacy (from 2006): Some clever answers: “If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me.” “Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition.” “Because you might do something wrong with my information.” My problem with quips like these – as right as they are – is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect. — <https://www.wired.com/2006/05/the-eternal-value-of-privacy/ https://www.wired.com/2006/05/the-eternal-value-of-privacy/>
kodah 3y ago
> I really don't think privacy is something everyone should value equally. > "Unmaskings" don't generally happen to most folks, and these "dangerous outcomes" are exceedingly rare Can you provide a source for this claim? I have some sources that say otherwise: - https://www.safehome.org/family-safety/doxxing-online-harassment-research/ https://www.safehome.org/family-safety/doxxing-online-harass... - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/technology/doxxing-protests.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/technology/doxxing-protes... However, doxxing/"unmasking" are really only part of the problem when talking about privacy. It opens doors for new and unfounded forms of oppression. Prior to the internet there was at least some inherent privacy in that aspects of your life were self-contained in private activities. In a world where many/most of your activities have some form of connectedness, whether shared with the public or not, "privacy" or the choice to share more widely and/or with the government becomes more paramountly important: https://learningcenter.ecnl.org/learning-package/surveillance-technology https://learningcenter.ecnl.org/learning-package/surveillanc... > If your threat model includes the possibility of things you do online having negative consequences for you should they be discovered, that's one thing. But the vast majority of people do not fall into that category, and pretending like they do is a great way to numb folks to the very real risk some people carry. An interesting take. I'm part of online gun forums; I promote good gun and safety culture among other things. One of those forums is queer-centric/leftist. The people who doxx gun owners could care less whether they're doxxing via a state agency, a leftist gun forum, or a righty gun forum - the objective is the same: guns are the enemy they're targeting and people are a mere consequence. If I ideologically allow people to doxx one part of the gun community, I have opened the door for alternative approaches, so I relinquish that right to the state who requires cause for such a thing. That is a bit at odds with my (dis-)trust towards the government to maintain cause uniformly and justly, but that's a different discussion and a different approach. Key to your argument is that privacy is one in the same with eschewing consequences, which is far from the truth. In fact, technologies like PGP prove you can maintain privacy and ensure accountability given more mainstream adoption and tooling. Who holds those people accountable and the ability to engage in moderation of online discussions are equally important parts of privacy because it involves the how of a lot of those things. Saying the vast majority of people deserve the unmasking, and the inevitable violence, they received is a lot like saying I deserved being beat as a kid. My dad would tell you that he had the best of intentions in mind and he thought he knew what we was doing and that I deserved it. My siblings and I have a life of experiences that prove why the best of intentions and his knowledge were acutely wrong. The change he wanted in each of us could've been attained in entirely different and more healthy ways.

by Zetice 3y ago

hedora 3y ago

If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide from the giant surveillance apparatus the government's been hiding. -Stephen Colbert

makeitdouble 3y ago

The other side of the question is too often left out: a vast majority of people are empowering surveilling entities. They're giving a trove of information to establish a baseline that will impact anyone diverging from there, while also helping further manipulation as the feedback loop between what they're pushed and how they react to it is transparent. So IMHO, privacy should be enforced by default if we look at it from the group's perspective.

Zetice 3y ago
Except that's not happening. Could my DNA be used to scan for racial anomalies in newborns? Yes. Is that actually happening? Hell no. Doomsday screeching is not a productive activity, and privacy is not the issue here. It's how people are using their collected data. Besides, caring about other people's treatment of privacy is, if you actually believe what you're saying, none of your business.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  > that actually happening? Hell no. I'm kinda tired of blanket dismissal of anything that could be mildly tinfoil hat looking. Not falling into a panic every thursday about random corporate action is a thing, being ultra confident that no one is ever doing anything harmful on a specific subject is unwarranted. Eugenism was a thing baked into laws not that long time ago and is still in the books depending on where you live. Patients are still suing govs for reparation because their claims were memoryholed. You can't just throw around "Is that actually happening? Hell no." rhetoric as if you were due a demonstration served on a plate before accepting that the world is 't as skweeky clean as you seem to assume it is.
  - Zetice 3y ago
    And I'm kinda tired of blanket chicken littling over privacy from folks who refuse to accept the general situation of the vast majority of people. Eugenics is not a thing modern humans in Western society need to realistically worry about, and the main reason you're not getting the traction you think you should be getting is because you keep pretending like it is. People tune this attitude out, because of how patently absurd it is. The average person operates in their own best interest. The reality is that caring deeply about privacy is not in their best interest, no matter how many boogeymen you try to pull out. It just doesn't come up nearly as often or as severely as you apparently wish.
    - defrost 3y ago
      > Eugenics is not a thing modern humans in Western society need to realistically worry about, Hard disagree, the facts are against you. My father was born in 1935 and is still alive and very healthy, during his lifetime here in Australia, a modern Western Society, a Eugenics based carding and restricted movement system was in force. https://culture.wa.gov.au/feature/perths-prohibited-area https://culture.wa.gov.au/feature/perths-prohibited-area Looking about the world there are still many examples of divided rules for colonists and indigenous peoples, if you're in North America ask your nearest Indigenous American whether any significant issues still hang on bloodlines, you'll hear a range of answers some of which might suprise you. All that aside .. never forget that what has happened in the past can happen in the future and perhaps faster than many expect. With a rise in far right policy and the US still somewhat shocked by the overturning of Roe V Wade with womens search data wrt reproductive health now a hot topic in security and law enforcement it's not at all outlandish to posit that it wouldn't take much to see the emergance of policy to seperate those that are different in some manner .. the intersex, arabs and chinese and have all been recent and current tarets of the US right.

fumblywumbly 3y ago

> If your threat model includes the possibility of things you do online having negative consequences for you should they be discovered, that's one thing. Let's start with you then, Zetice. Post your name, face, and home address.

Zetice 3y ago
My threat model includes negative consequences for me should I be discovered.

teddyh 3y ago

Bruce Schneier put it quite succinctly in his article The Eternal Value of Privacy (from 2006): Some clever answers: “If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me.” “Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition.” “Because you might do something wrong with my information.” My problem with quips like these – as right as they are – is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect. — <https://www.wired.com/2006/05/the-eternal-value-of-privacy/ https://www.wired.com/2006/05/the-eternal-value-of-privacy/>

kodah 3y ago

> I really don't think privacy is something everyone should value equally. > "Unmaskings" don't generally happen to most folks, and these "dangerous outcomes" are exceedingly rare Can you provide a source for this claim? I have some sources that say otherwise: - https://www.safehome.org/family-safety/doxxing-online-harassment-research/ https://www.safehome.org/family-safety/doxxing-online-harass... - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/technology/doxxing-protests.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/technology/doxxing-protes... However, doxxing/"unmasking" are really only part of the problem when talking about privacy. It opens doors for new and unfounded forms of oppression. Prior to the internet there was at least some inherent privacy in that aspects of your life were self-contained in private activities. In a world where many/most of your activities have some form of connectedness, whether shared with the public or not, "privacy" or the choice to share more widely and/or with the government becomes more paramountly important: https://learningcenter.ecnl.org/learning-package/surveillance-technology https://learningcenter.ecnl.org/learning-package/surveillanc... > If your threat model includes the possibility of things you do online having negative consequences for you should they be discovered, that's one thing. But the vast majority of people do not fall into that category, and pretending like they do is a great way to numb folks to the very real risk some people carry. An interesting take. I'm part of online gun forums; I promote good gun and safety culture among other things. One of those forums is queer-centric/leftist. The people who doxx gun owners could care less whether they're doxxing via a state agency, a leftist gun forum, or a righty gun forum - the objective is the same: guns are the enemy they're targeting and people are a mere consequence. If I ideologically allow people to doxx one part of the gun community, I have opened the door for alternative approaches, so I relinquish that right to the state who requires cause for such a thing. That is a bit at odds with my (dis-)trust towards the government to maintain cause uniformly and justly, but that's a different discussion and a different approach. Key to your argument is that privacy is one in the same with eschewing consequences, which is far from the truth. In fact, technologies like PGP prove you can maintain privacy and ensure accountability given more mainstream adoption and tooling. Who holds those people accountable and the ability to engage in moderation of online discussions are equally important parts of privacy because it involves the how of a lot of those things. Saying the vast majority of people deserve the unmasking, and the inevitable violence, they received is a lot like saying I deserved being beat as a kid. My dad would tell you that he had the best of intentions in mind and he thought he knew what we was doing and that I deserved it. My siblings and I have a life of experiences that prove why the best of intentions and his knowledge were acutely wrong. The change he wanted in each of us could've been attained in entirely different and more healthy ways.