3 ms·

I think kids of today (teens and twenty-somethings) don't care as much. They don't mind telling the world they are at a bar tonight. But is this view the resul

I think kids of today (teens and twenty-somethings) don't care as much. They don't mind telling the world they are at a bar tonight. But is this view the result of rational consideration, with full knowledge of all the implications, or is it something these young people have been drawn into without stopping to think about the implications? Or worse: without the full implications even being clear? In other words: is this really a demographic shift we're seeing, or simply a stage-of-life effect? Will the same teens holding the quoted view of privacy recoil in horror at their actions twenty years later? Will these privacy choices alter the courses of the lives in ways they wish they could later undo? If so, then it seems unreasonable to wave away this mass choice as morally or societally neutral. Simply put: is privacy a public safety issue or not? If it is, then an argument can be made to restrict young people's (and even grown adults') freedom to choose their "policy" on it, just as many societies do with drugs, alcohol, driving, etc. I think Charlie's post makes a pretty strong argument that privacy is a matter of public safety and societal well-being. Putting words in his mouth, his argument might be that companies like Facebook are inducing people to relinquish their privacy rights without the full knowledge of the long-term implications -- just as profit-seeking tobacco companies induced large numbers of people to smoke without full knowledge of the long-term implications. Many governments now see the public policy advantages to making the consequences of smoking clear to the public; the same is not yet true of privacy rights.

SoftwareMaven 15y ago
Unfortunately, governments have as much to gain (probably more) as the commercial entities with the end of privacy. Search warrants aren't needed when your life is an email to the company's government liaison away.
SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
> Or worse: without the full implications even being clear? the implications of making this kind of data public are not going to be clear. The data can be combined with other data or mined later in unexpected and surprising ways. Most people are surprised at how few data points are required to uniquely identify them. Most people will cheerfully enter their first name, family name and date of birth into any website that asks for it. A while ago I heard the term "retroactive privacy invasion" applied to things such as good cheap facial recognition becoming available and being applied to existing archives of social photos or surveillance video.
oillio 15y ago
Strong privacy regulation might slow down the progress, but there is no way to stop the tide. The technologies to identify, categorize, and link people are only going to get better. In 100 years, privacy as we know it will not exist. We can accept this fact and educate ourselves about the implications, or we can stick our heads in the sand and hope it all goes away. In this specific example, I would hope this app gets widely publicized, not shut down. I would rather more people understand the implications of social networks, instead of trying to protect "the innocent" from the inevitable. A sleezeball that uses this app to manipulate women will likely cause considerable pain. But I expect women would adapt rather quickly and be less likely to trust some random guy in a bar just because he seems to know everything about them. This technology can also be used in reverse. A woman could run an analysis on the guy they just met and verify that he is actually who he claims to be. The technology will be developed, either in secret or in public. I would rather everyone have the tool, rather than the few that want it bad enough to develop it in secret. This change in privacy will likely cause social upheaval and change they way we interact with people. Is that a bad thing, or is it just different? In my opinion, regulation will never beat technology. You can slow it down for a time, but the consequences of our progress are eventually realized.

SoftwareMaven 15y ago

Unfortunately, governments have as much to gain (probably more) as the commercial entities with the end of privacy. Search warrants aren't needed when your life is an email to the company's government liaison away.

SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago

> Or worse: without the full implications even being clear? the implications of making this kind of data public are not going to be clear. The data can be combined with other data or mined later in unexpected and surprising ways. Most people are surprised at how few data points are required to uniquely identify them. Most people will cheerfully enter their first name, family name and date of birth into any website that asks for it. A while ago I heard the term "retroactive privacy invasion" applied to things such as good cheap facial recognition becoming available and being applied to existing archives of social photos or surveillance video.

oillio 15y ago

Strong privacy regulation might slow down the progress, but there is no way to stop the tide. The technologies to identify, categorize, and link people are only going to get better. In 100 years, privacy as we know it will not exist. We can accept this fact and educate ourselves about the implications, or we can stick our heads in the sand and hope it all goes away. In this specific example, I would hope this app gets widely publicized, not shut down. I would rather more people understand the implications of social networks, instead of trying to protect "the innocent" from the inevitable. A sleezeball that uses this app to manipulate women will likely cause considerable pain. But I expect women would adapt rather quickly and be less likely to trust some random guy in a bar just because he seems to know everything about them. This technology can also be used in reverse. A woman could run an analysis on the guy they just met and verify that he is actually who he claims to be. The technology will be developed, either in secret or in public. I would rather everyone have the tool, rather than the few that want it bad enough to develop it in secret. This change in privacy will likely cause social upheaval and change they way we interact with people. Is that a bad thing, or is it just different? In my opinion, regulation will never beat technology. You can slow it down for a time, but the consequences of our progress are eventually realized.