4 ms·

This article is really out of left field for me. It doesn't do anything to justify the assumption that online-born people value privacy and offline-born people

This article is really out of left field for me. It doesn't do anything to justify the assumption that online-born people value privacy and offline-born people don't. It just launches into a tirade about how offline-born people are abusing their power. However I see plenty of young people who don't care about the NSA scandal ranging from apathy to "what do I have to hide?", and I see plenty of old people who understand the evils of mass surveillance even if they don't understand the technology. If there's a generational correlation then first that should be established. It seems dangerous to simply assume it is generational warfare and demonize the older generation who actually should know a thing or two about surveillance states since they've definitely been around for a while.

gizzlon 13y ago
"It doesn't do anything to justify the assumption that online-born people value privacy and offline-born people don't" I think you misunderstood, and that his point is that offline-born do not understand and value privacy online. He backs it up, kind of, with the statements he then goes on to discuss.
- dasil003 13y ago
  Yeah I guess I glossed over that. Certainly a lot of people, particularly older people don't really understand tech and the magnitude of spying that is possible through Google, Facebook, et al. That's pretty much a moot point though, when you consider what this surveillance apparatus enables. The vast majority of people use some tech (eg. telephone) that will enable inappropriate data to be collected and stored, and even if they are hermits living off the grid, they can still be implicated as a subject of interest simply by being named in a third-party email exchange. Getting all up in arms about the government snooping our Facebook data seems to be almost completely missing the point.
  - xyzzy123 13y ago
    > they can still be implicated as a subject of interest simply by being named in a third-party email exchange. Facebook and Glass both have this property. Technologies which harness the privacy-unaware to compromise the privacy-aware really shit me. Fortunately I have nothing to hide. Naturally ;)

gizzlon 13y ago

"It doesn't do anything to justify the assumption that online-born people value privacy and offline-born people don't" I think you misunderstood, and that his point is that offline-born do not understand and value privacy online. He backs it up, kind of, with the statements he then goes on to discuss.

dasil003 13y ago
Yeah I guess I glossed over that. Certainly a lot of people, particularly older people don't really understand tech and the magnitude of spying that is possible through Google, Facebook, et al. That's pretty much a moot point though, when you consider what this surveillance apparatus enables. The vast majority of people use some tech (eg. telephone) that will enable inappropriate data to be collected and stored, and even if they are hermits living off the grid, they can still be implicated as a subject of interest simply by being named in a third-party email exchange. Getting all up in arms about the government snooping our Facebook data seems to be almost completely missing the point.
- xyzzy123 13y ago
  > they can still be implicated as a subject of interest simply by being named in a third-party email exchange. Facebook and Glass both have this property. Technologies which harness the privacy-unaware to compromise the privacy-aware really shit me. Fortunately I have nothing to hide. Naturally ;)