2 ms·
I won't reply to all your points, but I'll say this: I don't think I'm being overly reductive as much as you're being dismissive about the lengths tech companie
by imiric 2y ago
I won't reply to all your points, but I'll say this: I don't think I'm being overly reductive as much as you're being dismissive about the lengths tech companies go to build a profile of their users. The major difference between someone building a mental profile based on my interaction with them in the real world and the online profile companies build based on my digital footprint is that the real world profile is not stored perpetually and shared, or rather sold, behind my back to countless interested parties that will later use it to psychologically manipulate me, whether that's to get me to buy something I didn't need, or to change my mind about a political or social topic. Additionally, my real world profile is helpful in building tangible relationships, and I have full control over what I choose to share with the world. I may not be aware of all the information I'm sharing, but I'm certainly in control of it.
This is what privacy essentially is. Consent and reach _are_ keywords, since I get to decide what and how much I share publicly, and what I keep private. I can at any point stop interacting with whoever I want, at which point they only have a fading mental profile of me. This is not the case with digital profiles, since companies use dirty tricks to access as much of my data as possible, routinely exceed their boundaries, and, most crucially, they keep this data and continue profiting from it in perpetuity. Even principles like the right to be forgotten of regulations like the GDPR are not sufficient to put an end to this, since once my profile is sold on the data broker market, it is forever part of it, and will likely end up back in the hands of the company that claims to have deleted it.
This is why I maintain that these practices are vile and nefarious, and why we have far too few and far too lenient regulations to control them.
Re: tracing the Bitcoin transaction, I don't claim to be able to do this personally, just that it's technically possible. There are companies like Chainalysis that do this kind of service, and there are many examples of law enforcement agencies tracking individuals using these techniques. I'm only pointing out the flaw in your argument that cryptocurrencies are some kind of privacy standard, and extrapolating it to cash money, which would presumably foster even less of a shining example of a "pro-social culture".
In any case, I've exhausted my arguments on this topic, and it's clear we have very different views about privacy, so let's agree to disagree. Cheers!
- try_the_bass 2y ago> Consent and reach _are_ keywords, since I get to decide what and how much I share publicly, and what I keep private. I can at any point stop interacting with whoever I want, at which point they only have a fading mental profile of me. I'll just point out that I think this is where I find the flaw in your argument: You _don't_ get to decide what and how much you share in public. You might try, but you will never succeed, because it's impossible to not share what you don't realize you're sharing. I think this is why I find your argument entirely unconvincing: if you're incapable of knowing the extent of what you're sharing with other people in public, informed consent us impossible by definition. And if you don't know the extent of what you're sharing, how can you know how far that information can reach? Sure, being online makes collection and archival of what you share easier, but "more privacy" doesn't address the root cause, because the root cause is that you cannot be fully aware of what context you share with others in the world--both online and off. I don't think this is a problem, because I think this kind of unintentional information sharing provides all kinds of benefits to society at large. It's the kind of thing that drives "gut feelings" and other forms of intuition, and we'd be impoverished if everyone adopted the kind privacy maximizing standpoint you're advocating above. But opposing viewpoints are good, so I'm not super concerned if I fail to convince you of anything, really. Cheers!