11–20 of 54 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People do care. They have very limited ability to make meaningful changes. But you can look at the national do not call registry in the US, and it's popularity to see that when there are options, people are happy to use them.
Do not call list is about avoiding annoying calls, not privacy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do not call list is about avoiding annoying calls, not privacy
Annoying calls invade privacy.
Most people don't care nearly as much that a telemarketer knows their name and that they have an above average chance of being interested in refinancing their house as they do about the fact that the call interrupted dinner.
Yeah! Maybe we can model it after the big 3 consumer credit agencies! We can centralize all ppls info in one easy to access place! This new organization will be much more honest than the current ones! IMO For this to happen correctly it has to be decentralized, perhaps blockchain style.
..or, people can just wise up to what is happening to them. For me, the key moment, was when Microsoft gave away Windows 10. I knew then, that I was the product, however I suspect that most people would not chew on why.
[1] blackviper.com
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do not call list is about avoiding annoying calls, not privacy
Annoying calls invade privacy.
backup: https://web.archive.org/web/20180409214613/https://privacy.o...
Yeah! Maybe we can model it after the big 3 consumer credit agencies! We can centralize all ppls info in one easy to access place! This new organization will be much more honest than the current ones! IMO For this to happen correctly it has to be decentralized, perhaps blockchain style.
The fundamental issue is that the average person in the United States and Austrailia simply don't really care for their online privacy. Offer something free and people will happily sign up and give all sorts of personal information without any hesitation. Offer a loyalty card at a store with discounts, and people will happily sign up for it. Even after the Snowden revelations, not much really happened to the governme…
Once this acceptance of zero privacy cemented and we had the Snowden revelations a lot of people seem to have just capitulated: "they already know everything, why bother fixing it" which itself is a fallacy that only results in sort of fulfilling itself.
The fundamental issue is that the average person in the United States and Austrailia simply don't really care for their online privacy. Offer something free and people will happily sign up and give all sorts of personal information without any hesitation. Offer a loyalty card at a store with discounts, and people will happily sign up for it. Even after the Snowden revelations, not much really happened to the governme…
The fundamental issue is that the average person in the United States and Austrailia simply don't really care for their online privacy. Offer something free and people will happily sign up and give all sorts of personal information without any hesitation. Offer a loyalty card at a store with discounts, and people will happily sign up for it. Even after the Snowden revelations, not much really happened to the governme…
This article is arguing for government regulation in the area of privacy. You state how the killers and abusers of privacy in the past in Europe were the government. I am not able to connect the dots between your point and this article.
You seem to think that the rich minority will always win out. But sometimes the poor majority can change the system. For example in the USA in the Great Depression, and after WW2, government tended to favor the working classes much more than it does now.
The fundamental issue is that the average person in the United States and Austrailia simply don't really care for their online privacy. Offer something free and people will happily sign up and give all sorts of personal information without any hesitation. Offer a loyalty card at a store with discounts, and people will happily sign up for it. Even after the Snowden revelations, not much really happened to the governme…
This article is arguing for government regulation in the area of privacy. You state how the killers and abusers of privacy in the past in Europe were the government. I am not able to connect the dots between your point and this article.