101–110 of 226 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is disinformation entangled with privacy?
“The Great Hack” documentary captures how Cambridge Analytica takes the 10s of thousands of data points per person to identify opportunities to divide people and the design a misinformation campaign that will resonate with each faction.
If you think privacy is the major concern of most people then no offence, but you've had a pretty privileged life. I doubt it's even the major concern of most people in Western countries due to unemployment, poverty, debt etc. let alone developing nations which have the real risk of actual famine and so on.
Same you can say about global warming. Is this immediate threat? This year? Next year? In 10 years? Violation of privacy might lead to the situation that someone will be unemployed forever because of something that he or she wrote 20 years ago on Facebook or employees managed to fetch data that a person was depressed, has many kids, etc. Massive abuse of privacy will lead sooner or later to some kind corporate versio…
If you think privacy is the major concern of most people then no offence, but you've had a pretty privileged life. I doubt it's even the major concern of most people in Western countries due to unemployment, poverty, debt etc. let alone developing nations which have the real risk of actual famine and so on.
Are you saying that privacy should be trade for less poverty, less unemployment, less debt, etc? Lot of people do not have the luxury to focus on privacy concerns, the same way lot of people do not have the luxury to care or focus on climate issues. Does that make privacy and climate concerns something reserved for "people with privileged life"? It seems quite clear to me that's not the case. They are both a concern…
Just out this month is an excellent book: Privacy is Power: Why and How You Should Take Back Control of Your Data by Carissa Véliz Written by a philosophy professor of Ethics and AI at Oxford. https://www.amazon.com/Privacy-Power-Should-Take-Control/dp/...
I wanted to like this essay, because I also worry about the loss of privacy today, but the goofy paragraph about borders turned me off. To believe that borders are conducive to peace sounds like a bad case of internet-brain.
I've always wondered how people who advocate for more open borders justify their position. Could you expand? Naively I would think regulating borders is an essential function in maintaining rule of law - undocumented workers are fodder for exploitation. But I'm honestly open to being wrong.
From my own experience it is far easier to dehumanize and even demonize someone or some group of people that you don't personally know. I was lucky enough to have the experience of living in another country outside of the US for a large period of childhood and personally knowing and loving people in that country has shaped how I view every "dispute" between the US them. It reminded me that these countries are not faceless titans battling each other like some kind of Olympic competition, but rather are made up of individuals whom I care deeply about and any blow to the country is a blow to them. They are not just a soulless "them" but are instead individual people and it hurts me when they are hurt. I can talk all day about utilitarian ethics and maximizing happiness on all the globe but at the end of the day I care so very much more about those who I know. While war is not even really close to being on the table for this country, I know that I would vehemently oppose it. If borders were more closed it is very likely I never would have gone to that country, in fact restrictions in place already made it difficult though achievable. Even if someone has not traveled to a foreign country, every immigrant that he or she will meet is an ambassador for their home country.
Of course, many of the more despicable acts in history come not from physical borders between countries but borders put in place by more invisible factors like societal norms. Barriers between men and women, the old and young, and naturally between those of different caste and ethnicity. To continue the parallels in the article, with privacy we have seen the borders shift from some vaguely defined border on individual social media platforms to closer and closer to each individuals mouth, where we increasingly act with restraint on what we say for fear of retribution from friends, family, or even the government. As you touch on with things like immigrants being fodder for exploitation, when the borders of a country open we often simply move the true borders between humans from those of a country to those of society.
"[...] But saying that you don't need or want privacy because you have nothing to hide is to assume that no one should have, or could have, to hide anything -- including their immigration status, unemployment history, financial history, and health records. You're assuming that no one, including yourself, might object to revealing to anyone information about their religious beliefs, political affiliations, and sexual activities, as casually as some choose to reveal their movie and music tastes and reading preferences." Edward Snowden in Permanent Record
If you think privacy is the major concern of most people then no offence, but you've had a pretty privileged life. I doubt it's even the major concern of most people in Western countries due to unemployment, poverty, debt etc. let alone developing nations which have the real risk of actual famine and so on.
Same you can say about global warming. Is this immediate threat? This year? Next year? In 10 years? Violation of privacy might lead to the situation that someone will be unemployed forever because of something that he or she wrote 20 years ago on Facebook or employees managed to fetch data that a person was depressed, has many kids, etc. Massive abuse of privacy will lead sooner or later to some kind corporate versio…
A person that is starving right now does not care that the poor will be the first on the proverbial chopping block when global warming comes home to roost... because they are starving right now.
The author goes too far when they suggest there should be laws (and one imagines punishments for those who break them) that prevent something being shared in one space from being shared elsewhere. For example, if I share something with my family, there should be a law that prevents a family member from making what I said public. Not only would this be a nightmare to police but it would give rise to some anti-social o…
>If I was flat out telling my family I didn't like race X and wished that religion Y could be outlawed, and then shared in the public realm that racists are terrible and that freedom of religion for all is paramount...shouldn't someone be able to call me out on it? I think this goes to the heart of the problem with the article in the OP. Everyone knowing everyone's business leads to a lot of good things. Like if you…
Skipping the semi-clickbait title. I like how the author goes into a deeper analysis of the concept, but I, too, don't agree with stressing the privacy-freedom of speech link. Privacy is about denying other people the information that they may use to obtain power over you in some way. This may include politics, but mainly the personal things that shouldn't concern other people at all. Being able to say anything contr…
The connection between freedom of speech and privacy was just an example of how privacy affect other rights, too. I used it because I did not want to be too abstract. I used just one example, because I did not want to write too much on this. I wanted to write something that could be shared and read by a few people, rather than just hardcore privacy enthusiast.
Actually I really like your observations. Frankly this is another way (maybe a better one) to say what I was thinking:
>Privacy is about denying other people the information that they may use to obtain power over you in some way.
If you think privacy is the major concern of most people then no offence, but you've had a pretty privileged life. I doubt it's even the major concern of most people in Western countries due to unemployment, poverty, debt etc. let alone developing nations which have the real risk of actual famine and so on.