5 ms·

Of course there will be pain involved with giving up Google or Facebook. There's a reason millions of people use them. By choosing not to use them, you are sayi

Of course there will be pain involved with giving up Google or Facebook. There's a reason millions of people use them. By choosing not to use them, you are saying I value my privacy more than the convenience I gain from using things like Google, Facebook, or even credit cards. What I've found is many people like to complain about a lack of privacy, but are willing to make no real sacrifices to get more of it. I don't see the "lie" involved with saying "If you don't like it, don't use it". It seems more dishonest to advocate that there is a path towards retaining privacy that still allows people to use services that intrinsically involve the person turning over information about themselves to a company.

gress 12y ago
The lie is that these services intrinsically require that the companies be able to use this information for their own purposes. They only get to do that because people defend this behavior as acceptable. Also - you seem to be saying that if you want privacy you should be willing to make the sacrifice of behaving like a criminal and stressfully hiding from observers on a daily basis. I fail to see why you would want society to be this way.
pessimizer 12y ago
One of the reasons it's a lie in facebook's case is because other people will turn over information about you to those companies even if you don't use their services in any way. I can't not be on facebook, even though I closed my account 5 years ago, and block it in my browser.
amirmc 12y ago
> "What I've found is many people like to complain about a lack of privacy, but are willing to make no real sacrifices to get more of it." This is a false trade-off. Why should people have to make sacrifices to gain privacy? If people believe it's important then they'll advocate for it but that doesn't mean they should become digital hermits to prove a point. For example (if you're a US citizen), what have you personally had to sacrifice for the rights that the Constitution provides? I doubt it was much but the people who wrote it decided that 'this is how things should be' and set things up that way. Technology is moving so fast that it's the corporations who get to 'decide' things and (understandably) they default to wanting everything. People and the law are still catching up to the consequences of this.
- cube13 12y ago
  >This is a false trade-off. Why should people have to make sacrifices to gain privacy? If people believe it's important then they'll advocate for it but that doesn't mean they should become digital hermits to prove a point. But why would a privacy minded person even be willing to give third parties their information? Once it's out of your hands, it's out of your control. Forget the sale of information by Facebook or Twitter. What if they get hacked, and their entire database gets exposed to the world? You can't control that. This is why, even before the internet, those who wanted complete privacy turned into literal hermits. If one is truly concerned about privacy, they shouldn't make that information available at all. So no Facebook, Twitter, or use of Google services.
  - gress 12y ago
    It's only out of your control because we don't have any cultural standards or laws on what is considered to be acceptable.
    - cube13 12y ago
      Privacy is like cryptography. You're private/secure until you're not, and there's nothing you can do once it's been broken. So cultural or legal agreements or frameworks might provide some recompense, they will not stop the initial problem, which is the revealing of the information. The best way to remain private is to ensure that you don't tell anyone else the information you wish to be private at all.
      - gress 12y ago
        That is an absolutist view. It's strictly true, but doesn't mean we can't change the incentives using laws. We can worry less about the information we reveal if corporations are restrained from using it.
        cube13 12y ago
        But corporations aren't the only problem with privacy. There are social problems, governmental problems. The author's uncle sent a public message saying that she's pregnant on Facebook. That's not Facebook's fault at all, and it can still be a problem. Non-out GBLT people have problems with this stuff constantly, not only with Facebook screwing up and accidentally reveling information that was set to private, but with others publicly getting outed by well-meaning friends or family before they're ready to out themselves. Again, the damage is done when the information is revealed. You have to remember, for a lot of people the stakes aren't just avoiding a pile of baby-related coupons and spam in their e-mail. It is literally life and death for some people. While yes, we can punish the release of the information, it does not stop the damage from happening when the information is released. We should have stricter privacy protections, but at the same time, we need to have a conversation about what privacy actually means, and what the risks are for revealing information to someone else.
enraged_camel 12y ago
>>What I've found is many people like to complain about a lack of privacy, but are willing to make no real sacrifices to get more of it. The point is that you should not have to make sacrifices for privacy.
- crazy1van 12y ago
  > The point is that you should not have to make sacrifices for privacy. I don't see a realistic way for that to happen. Sure we could change things, but there will be a sacrifice by someone in the system as a whole. For example, we could pass laws banning targeted marketing. That will make advertising less valuable and companies who sell them will get less revenue because surely an advertiser won't pay the same price to show an ad for a diapers to a pregnant woman than to show it to a random sampling of society? So now my ad-supported website will make less showing ads. I'll have to compensate somehow. Maybe I'll start charging for access to make up the difference. Some people will be fine with that -- they'd rather pay more for privacy. Others won't. This kind of a solution would improve privacy. But there is still a cost. Some people won't mind the cost. Others would rather pay by losing privacy instead. Passing laws takes away that choice from the consumer. Personally, I'd rather decide for myself than have someone make that choice for me no matter how much they think they have my interests at heart.
  - vitd 12y ago
    Yeah, but this happens with any change. It's the same with the minimum wage, for example. The argument is, "Well, if my business is required to pay a living wage, I'll go out of business because people won't pay more for my product or service." Yep. If your business can't follow the law, you will likely go out of business trying to. And laws change, and that can affect your business. This is the same as it's always been. If your business goes away, some other business that can sustain itself under the law will pop up there (possibly in the same area of business, possibly a completely different one), or the economy will start tanking because no business can sustain themselves due to the new laws. Sometimes it's not a good idea to leave the choice up to the consumer. (for example: If you stop allowing us to keep slaves, we'll have to pay workers and prices will rise!) Sometimes there are bigger considerations. I feel that privacy is one of those, personally, but it's valid to disagree with me.
tedks 12y ago
>What I've found is many people like to complain about a lack of privacy, but are willing to make no real sacrifices to get more of it. At some point in the lifetime of a technology, choosing not to use that technology is tantamount to choosing to not participate in society. Humans are social animals. Depriving humans of human contact is one of the worst, most barbaric punishments, and will cause insanity in a short amount of time. The choice isn't Google or privacy. It's panopticon or solitary confinement.
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  In the case of Google the search engine, not necessarily. You can still reap the benefits from Google without having your data (minus your HTTP request, of course) recorded by using services like Startpage, which proxy your queries for you. In the case of Google the platform, perhaps. The main attraction is YouTube, assuming you're not working for a company that uses Docs, Hangouts or the like. While they can build a profile from you by your search queries, if you take necessary precautions to make sure that they're going to a bogus profile (and don't do any vlogging, plus limit your commenting, obviously), you'll be fine. Avoiding smartphones is easy, because they're not a necessity. Prepaid dumbphones are cheap and disposable. Smartphones are walled gardens, anyway, so unless you want to develop apps, they're of not much use. It goes without saying that you will not be using Snapchat, Vine, Instagram or any services like that. That's hardly being deprived of contact. It's certainly possible and manageable to opt out, you just need perseverance and a certain technical inclination.
  - jakub_g 12y ago
    To stay truly private, one should also stop using email. Even if one doesn't have Gmail account but a self-hosted email server and what not, there's big chance most of their friends will only use Gmail, so Google can gather lots of data anyway.
  - gress 12y ago
    Have you tried any of this out ?
jacquesm 12y ago
Google, probably. Facebook, not so much. It could disappear tomorrow and people would get on with their lives much as before. Though cheap hosting providers and flickr would likely see an uptick in usage.

gress 12y ago

The lie is that these services intrinsically require that the companies be able to use this information for their own purposes. They only get to do that because people defend this behavior as acceptable. Also - you seem to be saying that if you want privacy you should be willing to make the sacrifice of behaving like a criminal and stressfully hiding from observers on a daily basis. I fail to see why you would want society to be this way.

pessimizer 12y ago

One of the reasons it's a lie in facebook's case is because other people will turn over information about you to those companies even if you don't use their services in any way. I can't not be on facebook, even though I closed my account 5 years ago, and block it in my browser.

amirmc 12y ago

> "What I've found is many people like to complain about a lack of privacy, but are willing to make no real sacrifices to get more of it." This is a false trade-off. Why should people have to make sacrifices to gain privacy? If people believe it's important then they'll advocate for it but that doesn't mean they should become digital hermits to prove a point. For example (if you're a US citizen), what have you personally had to sacrifice for the rights that the Constitution provides? I doubt it was much but the people who wrote it decided that 'this is how things should be' and set things up that way. Technology is moving so fast that it's the corporations who get to 'decide' things and (understandably) they default to wanting everything. People and the law are still catching up to the consequences of this.

cube13 12y ago
>This is a false trade-off. Why should people have to make sacrifices to gain privacy? If people believe it's important then they'll advocate for it but that doesn't mean they should become digital hermits to prove a point. But why would a privacy minded person even be willing to give third parties their information? Once it's out of your hands, it's out of your control. Forget the sale of information by Facebook or Twitter. What if they get hacked, and their entire database gets exposed to the world? You can't control that. This is why, even before the internet, those who wanted complete privacy turned into literal hermits. If one is truly concerned about privacy, they shouldn't make that information available at all. So no Facebook, Twitter, or use of Google services.
- gress 12y ago
  It's only out of your control because we don't have any cultural standards or laws on what is considered to be acceptable.
  - cube13 12y ago
    Privacy is like cryptography. You're private/secure until you're not, and there's nothing you can do once it's been broken. So cultural or legal agreements or frameworks might provide some recompense, they will not stop the initial problem, which is the revealing of the information. The best way to remain private is to ensure that you don't tell anyone else the information you wish to be private at all.
    - gress 12y ago
      That is an absolutist view. It's strictly true, but doesn't mean we can't change the incentives using laws. We can worry less about the information we reveal if corporations are restrained from using it.
      - cube13 12y ago
        But corporations aren't the only problem with privacy. There are social problems, governmental problems. The author's uncle sent a public message saying that she's pregnant on Facebook. That's not Facebook's fault at all, and it can still be a problem. Non-out GBLT people have problems with this stuff constantly, not only with Facebook screwing up and accidentally reveling information that was set to private, but with others publicly getting outed by well-meaning friends or family before they're ready to out themselves. Again, the damage is done when the information is revealed. You have to remember, for a lot of people the stakes aren't just avoiding a pile of baby-related coupons and spam in their e-mail. It is literally life and death for some people. While yes, we can punish the release of the information, it does not stop the damage from happening when the information is released. We should have stricter privacy protections, but at the same time, we need to have a conversation about what privacy actually means, and what the risks are for revealing information to someone else.

enraged_camel 12y ago

>>What I've found is many people like to complain about a lack of privacy, but are willing to make no real sacrifices to get more of it. The point is that you should not have to make sacrifices for privacy.

crazy1van 12y ago
> The point is that you should not have to make sacrifices for privacy. I don't see a realistic way for that to happen. Sure we could change things, but there will be a sacrifice by someone in the system as a whole. For example, we could pass laws banning targeted marketing. That will make advertising less valuable and companies who sell them will get less revenue because surely an advertiser won't pay the same price to show an ad for a diapers to a pregnant woman than to show it to a random sampling of society? So now my ad-supported website will make less showing ads. I'll have to compensate somehow. Maybe I'll start charging for access to make up the difference. Some people will be fine with that -- they'd rather pay more for privacy. Others won't. This kind of a solution would improve privacy. But there is still a cost. Some people won't mind the cost. Others would rather pay by losing privacy instead. Passing laws takes away that choice from the consumer. Personally, I'd rather decide for myself than have someone make that choice for me no matter how much they think they have my interests at heart.
- vitd 12y ago
  Yeah, but this happens with any change. It's the same with the minimum wage, for example. The argument is, "Well, if my business is required to pay a living wage, I'll go out of business because people won't pay more for my product or service." Yep. If your business can't follow the law, you will likely go out of business trying to. And laws change, and that can affect your business. This is the same as it's always been. If your business goes away, some other business that can sustain itself under the law will pop up there (possibly in the same area of business, possibly a completely different one), or the economy will start tanking because no business can sustain themselves due to the new laws. Sometimes it's not a good idea to leave the choice up to the consumer. (for example: If you stop allowing us to keep slaves, we'll have to pay workers and prices will rise!) Sometimes there are bigger considerations. I feel that privacy is one of those, personally, but it's valid to disagree with me.

tedks 12y ago

>What I've found is many people like to complain about a lack of privacy, but are willing to make no real sacrifices to get more of it. At some point in the lifetime of a technology, choosing not to use that technology is tantamount to choosing to not participate in society. Humans are social animals. Depriving humans of human contact is one of the worst, most barbaric punishments, and will cause insanity in a short amount of time. The choice isn't Google or privacy. It's panopticon or solitary confinement.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
In the case of Google the search engine, not necessarily. You can still reap the benefits from Google without having your data (minus your HTTP request, of course) recorded by using services like Startpage, which proxy your queries for you. In the case of Google the platform, perhaps. The main attraction is YouTube, assuming you're not working for a company that uses Docs, Hangouts or the like. While they can build a profile from you by your search queries, if you take necessary precautions to make sure that they're going to a bogus profile (and don't do any vlogging, plus limit your commenting, obviously), you'll be fine. Avoiding smartphones is easy, because they're not a necessity. Prepaid dumbphones are cheap and disposable. Smartphones are walled gardens, anyway, so unless you want to develop apps, they're of not much use. It goes without saying that you will not be using Snapchat, Vine, Instagram or any services like that. That's hardly being deprived of contact. It's certainly possible and manageable to opt out, you just need perseverance and a certain technical inclination.
- jakub_g 12y ago
  To stay truly private, one should also stop using email. Even if one doesn't have Gmail account but a self-hosted email server and what not, there's big chance most of their friends will only use Gmail, so Google can gather lots of data anyway.
- gress 12y ago
  Have you tried any of this out ?

jacquesm 12y ago

Google, probably. Facebook, not so much. It could disappear tomorrow and people would get on with their lives much as before. Though cheap hosting providers and flickr would likely see an uptick in usage.