4 ms·

> violated user privacy since the beginning But why is there an expectation of privacy on the web, anyway? When browsing the web you're utilizing hundreds or t

> violated user privacy since the beginning But why is there an expectation of privacy on the web, anyway? When browsing the web you're utilizing hundreds or thousands of other peoples' infrastructure, going to sites that are public or semi-public (aka "public spaces"), and otherwise interacting with strangers in shared spaces. In the physical world, there is no common expectation of privacy in public spaces. If you go to a shopping mall, you may be observed by either the mall itself or its client stores, and this is not a "violation of your privacy". You elected to go to a public space, knowing you might or would be observed by any other occupant of that space. If you go to your friend's house, you may be observed by their security cameras, if they have them. This is also not really a violation of your privacy. You could also have a conversation with your friend about not being on their cameras, and maybe come to an agreement--presumably because they trust you. This isn't something that scales to hundreds of strangers, much less thousands or millions. I think the core issue I see with the stance you appear to hold is this: privacy is not a fundamental feature of anything. Any interaction with another person involves the exchange of information, and the amount of information exchanged is neither fair nor necessarily finite. How much information is exchanged is not just a function of the purpose of the interaction. It's also determined by the abilities of all parties to observe and analyze the interaction. Trying to argue that privacy should be a fundamental right seems to ignore the obvious: that forcing any particular level of privacy requires making sacrifices that significantly impede the quality of interactions, especially those involving parties that do not necessarily trust each other. If you care about privacy, interact with other privacy-minded individuals and establish a common set of norms amongst yourselves, and acknowledge that those norms will be different for every group. This is sane and defensible. What isn't is demanding that the world adhere to your standards of privacy, while claiming that it's some sort of right that should be protected by someone other than yourself. Understand that privacy cuts both ways: most of the world is apparently fine with having no expectation of privacy on public places--online or offline. They're okay with this because it makes antisocial behavior harder to hide, and makes pro-social behavior easier to verify. If everyone demanded there be an expectation of privacy in those public places, the world would be very different, and not in a good way. Distrust would be the norm, and cooperative endeavors would be bogged down by the endless need to make sure those you're working with are indeed who they say they are. If you want good examples of what it looks like when privacy in public spaces is the norm on a large scale, look no further than the cryptocurrency world. Not exactly a shining example of a "pro-social culture".

imiric 2y ago
> In the physical world, there is no common expectation of privacy in public spaces. Oh, please. This is a false equivalence if I ever read one. When you're in public nobody is building a profile on you. Nobody is tracking where you go, what you buy, how you behave, and what your interests are. Nobody is then storing this data and getting rich from it in perpetuity. If privacy online were limited to companies knowing just your IP address and general location, and not storing this data, _that_ would be equivalent to public spaces in the real world. The fact it's not, and companies actively try to gather as much information they can about you, often in scammy ways that forces governments to come up with new regulations, where getting fined for violating them is just the cost of doing business... is beyond nefarious and any reasonable defense. > privacy is not a fundamental feature of anything Huh? Privacy has been a fundamental human right for millennia, codified as part of many legal jurisdictions. > Any interaction with another person involves the exchange of information, and the amount of information exchanged is neither fair nor necessarily finite. Again, the difference is in how this information is used. The keywords here are _reach_ and _consent_. We implicitly consent to sharing a limited set of information when interacting with another person or in public, but when that information and its use goes far beyond what we implicitly agree to, then this needs to be clarified, and explicit consent must be given. > Understand that privacy cuts both ways: most of the world is apparently fine with having no expectation of privacy on public places--online or offline. This boils down to two things: a) most of the world doesn't understand the implications of the transaction they're a part of when they use online services. The use of their data is hidden behind cryptic privacy policies (which are often violated and don't explain the full picture), and data collection happens in obscure ways without any consent. And b) even if they're aware of this, most users simply accept the transaction because "they have nothing to hide", or the value they get from the service is greater than their privacy concerns. Users are often never given the option of an alternative business model, and even when they are, the data collection machine never stops. Companies know that the allure of getting something for "free" is far more profitable than putting up a paywall, and so they justify extracting as much value as they can from their users' data. We're stuck in an endless cycle of having "free" services where the business transaction is far more valuable to the company than its users. And it's in the companies' best interest to keep the users, the general public and governments in the dark as far as the extent and details of how value is actually extracted. This is the most vile business model we've ever invented. > If you want good examples of what it looks like when privacy in public spaces is the norm on a large scale, look no further than the cryptocurrency world. What privacy? The blockchain of most cryptocurrencies is a public ledger where all transactions are visible to everyone. Transactions are done almost exclusively via exchanges that follow strict KYC regulations. So it's pretty easy to identify the person behind any transaction. Following your logic, should we ban all cash transactions, since they're even more private than cryptocurrencies? You have a twisted sense of the world, friend. My guess would be that you work for one of these companies, and this is how you rationalize the harm you're putting out in the world.

imiric 2y ago

> In the physical world, there is no common expectation of privacy in public spaces. Oh, please. This is a false equivalence if I ever read one. When you're in public nobody is building a profile on you. Nobody is tracking where you go, what you buy, how you behave, and what your interests are. Nobody is then storing this data and getting rich from it in perpetuity. If privacy online were limited to companies knowing just your IP address and general location, and not storing this data, _that_ would be equivalent to public spaces in the real world. The fact it's not, and companies actively try to gather as much information they can about you, often in scammy ways that forces governments to come up with new regulations, where getting fined for violating them is just the cost of doing business... is beyond nefarious and any reasonable defense. > privacy is not a fundamental feature of anything Huh? Privacy has been a fundamental human right for millennia, codified as part of many legal jurisdictions. > Any interaction with another person involves the exchange of information, and the amount of information exchanged is neither fair nor necessarily finite. Again, the difference is in how this information is used. The keywords here are _reach_ and _consent_. We implicitly consent to sharing a limited set of information when interacting with another person or in public, but when that information and its use goes far beyond what we implicitly agree to, then this needs to be clarified, and explicit consent must be given. > Understand that privacy cuts both ways: most of the world is apparently fine with having no expectation of privacy on public places--online or offline. This boils down to two things: a) most of the world doesn't understand the implications of the transaction they're a part of when they use online services. The use of their data is hidden behind cryptic privacy policies (which are often violated and don't explain the full picture), and data collection happens in obscure ways without any consent. And b) even if they're aware of this, most users simply accept the transaction because "they have nothing to hide", or the value they get from the service is greater than their privacy concerns. Users are often never given the option of an alternative business model, and even when they are, the data collection machine never stops. Companies know that the allure of getting something for "free" is far more profitable than putting up a paywall, and so they justify extracting as much value as they can from their users' data. We're stuck in an endless cycle of having "free" services where the business transaction is far more valuable to the company than its users. And it's in the companies' best interest to keep the users, the general public and governments in the dark as far as the extent and details of how value is actually extracted. This is the most vile business model we've ever invented. > If you want good examples of what it looks like when privacy in public spaces is the norm on a large scale, look no further than the cryptocurrency world. What privacy? The blockchain of most cryptocurrencies is a public ledger where all transactions are visible to everyone. Transactions are done almost exclusively via exchanges that follow strict KYC regulations. So it's pretty easy to identify the person behind any transaction. Following your logic, should we ban all cash transactions, since they're even more private than cryptocurrencies? You have a twisted sense of the world, friend. My guess would be that you work for one of these companies, and this is how you rationalize the harm you're putting out in the world.