3 ms·

Just about every survey on this topic clarifies people are nowhere remotely near 'post-privacy.' [1] That's a random one, but they all say the exact same thing.

Just about every survey on this topic clarifies people are nowhere remotely near 'post-privacy.' [1] That's a random one, but they all say the exact same thing. Basically everybody, by an absolutely overwhelming margin, feels that the risks of mass surveillance (including from the government) outweigh the benefits, with a similarly overwhelming majority also concerned about how the data is being [mis]used. The problem is our democracy is completely broken, and the fact that 80%+ of people agree on something that would even be socially beneficial, means absolutely nothing in terms of getting it done. Politicians and corporations love hoovering data for the exact same reason - perceived power. So nothing changes. And no politicians run on topics that people care about because you don't get to the point of being able to run for the presidency unless they're a billionaire, or have become really good at greasing the bellies of those that matter. And those that matter, only want even more surveillance. It's topics like this, and others, that lead individuals like me to think our system is due to collapse. Not the issue in and of itself, but the fact we have a democracy that seems to have little to nothing to do with the interests of the people. Instead it's just propagandized crap after propagandized crap made into the issue of the day (that incidentally tends to have absolutely 0 benefit to the lives of the average American), while what people actually care about is completely ignored. Anyhow, rant over. Point being, no nobody is "post-privacy", let alone comfortably. It's more like we're a democracy that's become "post-democracy", and seemingly comfortably so. Plato is more a prophet than a philosopher at this point. [1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-an...

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
I respectfully disagree. While I agree with the inclusion of corps and governments as interested parties bent on getting as much information as possible, I am unwilling to exclude just average people living in America. Last time I suggested a more private forum for something the response was an overwhelming, 'but X is free'. People are may be choosing between partial privacy and subsidized non-private services, but they are actually overwhelmingly voting with their money for post-privacy stuff. I am saying this as the odd sheep in the family. Everyone else has kids running with Chromebooks, Ipads, every app imaginable, self imposed house wiretap and TV that carefully tracks their choices. And I have a wife too, which does put up with some of my craziness, but is unwilling to give up facebook so I need to carve out an exception for her on my network. You are not wrong about our democracy, but have you considered that it is partially by design?
- pessimizer 3y ago
  This sentiment lacks perspective. You know yourself how much of a hassle it is to preserve your privacy or rights, and how ineffective it can still be with lots of effort and a lot of technical knowledge. Tech is not other people's hobby and job, they've got other things to worry about. If you ask them, they'll tell you how they feel about their privacy, but they can't invest the time you have into understanding how to preserve it. They give up their privacy and go to work. They give up their privacy and go to school. They give up their privacy to have a laugh. It's a horrible investment of time and effort for them to live in hyperawareness of actual threats that are also almost impossible to avoid. That doesn't make them responsible for their plight any more than a antebellum slave that fails to escape the plantation.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
    It is a valid argument. I actually agree with you ( and OP ). The point I am making is that we simply cannot take the blame off the victims either. Unlike plantation slaves they actually do have a choice ( an annoying choice, but a choice nonetheless ). It is hard, if not plain impossible, to move the needle if the general population response is a generalized shrug. They need to get angry. They are not there. So yeah, I am accepting my share of the blame. People in general need to accept theirs. Once that happens, we can go after the actual culprits. Things don't change until we recognize reality for what it is.
whimsicalism 3y ago
I don’t think it is correct to reason from generic survey question to specific policy proposal. There is a revealed preference that privacy is not a major factor to many Americans when competing interests are thrown into the mix.
pessimizer 3y ago
> Basically everybody, by an absolutely overwhelming margin, feels that the risks of mass surveillance (including from the government) outweigh the benefits, with a similarly overwhelming majority also concerned about how the data is being [mis]used. And this has always been true. People blame the victims of surveillance for not being concerned enough to stop the perpetrators, who somehow come off as innocent by comparison; i.e. if you let them get away with it, of course they'll do it - who wouldn't! You might as well say it of a murder victim (if you empathize with murderers like coders empathize with tech giants.) As Stallman says, you're compelled to sign away your rights, because they'll make you do it to send your kids to school, to have a phone, to pay your taxes, to go to court, to interview for a job, to pay your rent, etc. For the average person this entails signing dozens of EULAs with dozens of different companies. We can pretend that we're living in a democracy, but if the current actual material reality of citizenship necessarily requires signing all of your rights away (most often your right to privacy, your right to trial, or your right to speak), you know where you're living. You don't need to be a techie to know what that is; everybody knows what that is.

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago

I respectfully disagree. While I agree with the inclusion of corps and governments as interested parties bent on getting as much information as possible, I am unwilling to exclude just average people living in America. Last time I suggested a more private forum for something the response was an overwhelming, 'but X is free'. People are may be choosing between partial privacy and subsidized non-private services, but they are actually overwhelmingly voting with their money for post-privacy stuff. I am saying this as the odd sheep in the family. Everyone else has kids running with Chromebooks, Ipads, every app imaginable, self imposed house wiretap and TV that carefully tracks their choices. And I have a wife too, which does put up with some of my craziness, but is unwilling to give up facebook so I need to carve out an exception for her on my network. You are not wrong about our democracy, but have you considered that it is partially by design?

pessimizer 3y ago
This sentiment lacks perspective. You know yourself how much of a hassle it is to preserve your privacy or rights, and how ineffective it can still be with lots of effort and a lot of technical knowledge. Tech is not other people's hobby and job, they've got other things to worry about. If you ask them, they'll tell you how they feel about their privacy, but they can't invest the time you have into understanding how to preserve it. They give up their privacy and go to work. They give up their privacy and go to school. They give up their privacy to have a laugh. It's a horrible investment of time and effort for them to live in hyperawareness of actual threats that are also almost impossible to avoid. That doesn't make them responsible for their plight any more than a antebellum slave that fails to escape the plantation.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  It is a valid argument. I actually agree with you ( and OP ). The point I am making is that we simply cannot take the blame off the victims either. Unlike plantation slaves they actually do have a choice ( an annoying choice, but a choice nonetheless ). It is hard, if not plain impossible, to move the needle if the general population response is a generalized shrug. They need to get angry. They are not there. So yeah, I am accepting my share of the blame. People in general need to accept theirs. Once that happens, we can go after the actual culprits. Things don't change until we recognize reality for what it is.

whimsicalism 3y ago

I don’t think it is correct to reason from generic survey question to specific policy proposal. There is a revealed preference that privacy is not a major factor to many Americans when competing interests are thrown into the mix.

pessimizer 3y ago

> Basically everybody, by an absolutely overwhelming margin, feels that the risks of mass surveillance (including from the government) outweigh the benefits, with a similarly overwhelming majority also concerned about how the data is being [mis]used. And this has always been true. People blame the victims of surveillance for not being concerned enough to stop the perpetrators, who somehow come off as innocent by comparison; i.e. if you let them get away with it, of course they'll do it - who wouldn't! You might as well say it of a murder victim (if you empathize with murderers like coders empathize with tech giants.) As Stallman says, you're compelled to sign away your rights, because they'll make you do it to send your kids to school, to have a phone, to pay your taxes, to go to court, to interview for a job, to pay your rent, etc. For the average person this entails signing dozens of EULAs with dozens of different companies. We can pretend that we're living in a democracy, but if the current actual material reality of citizenship necessarily requires signing all of your rights away (most often your right to privacy, your right to trial, or your right to speak), you know where you're living. You don't need to be a techie to know what that is; everybody knows what that is.