Live data from Hacker News

Restoring your privacy costs money, which makes it a marker of class

theregister.com

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: Restoring your privacy costs money, which makes it a marker of class

#31
post #24

It does? Maybe technical expertise, but money? https://degooglisons-internet.org/en/alternatives/ https://prism-break.org/en/ https://www.privacytools.io/ Those all list FLOSS alternatives to the services out there. Maybe one or two things needs self-hosting but ProtonMail now has ProtonCalendar, Tutanota is coming out with a calendar too, files can be synced with Syncthing, and so on and so forth. Of course, it's ni…

> It does? Maybe technical expertise, but money?

Even given enough technical expertise, there is still a need for time and effort, plus acceptance of the minor risk of unjustified lack of support from mainstream services (e.g. government apps refusing to work in custom ROMs).

While the investment in time, effort and risk does not require being anything close to wealthy, it does need some level of financial stability.

Re: Restoring your privacy costs money, which makes it a marker of class

#32

This entire article is an oxymoron. A "marker of class" is something that signals to other people which social class you belong to. The whole point of privacy is to not signal anything to anyone. Also not to mention that the biggest tracking signals companies care about are your financials: credit cards, bank accounts, etc. The largest swath of the "unbanked", people who pay with cash, etc. are poor.

That’s not quite true. There are all kinds of class signifiers that are subtle signals to in group members. High end jewelry is often quite under stated for this reason. The way you speak is also a class thing, as is a wide range of subtle social behavior. Noticeably not having a social media account clearly is a visible behavior that could be a marker of class, as would anything else privacy related.

That's an interesting take.

Privacy, to my mind, boils down to consent. And consent - whether given or not - is a behaviorism informed by context. And individual may or may not consent based on cultural norms, values, beliefs, social cues, political, economical,... affordances and so on. Consent, on the part of the individual, becomes a trade off depending on the context.

Privacy is a social construct, and what makes it so hard to discuss is that the context defines it's interpretation. While debate tends to focus on the "right to privacy", what it actually pertains to is individual agency - or lack thereof - within specific contexts to give or deny consent.

The discussion in the article revolves around two specific hot-button takes of privacy: (a) consenting to the state knowing your whereabouts, and taking restrictive action (b) private businesses tracking consumers through digital technology to further commercial interests. And how both aspects have become intertwined with each other into complex social, economical and political issues in a globalized world.

While privacy can act as a class signifier that doesn't necessarily mean the modern, present-day interpretation of privacy as a class signifier is a permanent or universal fixture of social behavior (I don't think you implied this btw). Rather, industrialized societies specifically have adopted digital technology to a point where their normative context is heavily being reshaped, and existing and rising power structures come at odds as a result. Antonio Gramsci coined the concept of "cultural hegemony" to describe that dynamic in general terms. The discussion among sociologists, activists and political thinkers that spun out of this idea is probably more interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony

Privacy as a class signifier is an interesting theory. But it only holds value if you can tie it to identifiable elites and power structures that can leverage privacy as such. Just reading through the HN comments already shows how difficult that is in itself: just defining the scope and breadth of the concept of "privacy" proves difficult as it requires you to be aware of your own context, and be able to suspend in your mind before reframing the notion within many different social contexts in order to get a good understanding of the hidden complexities.

Re: Restoring your privacy costs money, which makes it a marker of class

#33

I'm the creator of YourDigitalRights.org, a free and open source service in the privacy space. When we started 3 years ago we decided to make the service free precisely because of the reasons outlined in this article. Almost every week I get an offer to monetize the service in some way, but I still think you shouldn't need to pay for privacy (literally as I was writing this comment I got an email offering to pay for…

> we decided to make the service free

> One of the problems is that there is very little funding

I think your problem is self-made.

> Not sure how to reconcile the two.

Accept money in exchange for the value you create.

Re: Restoring your privacy costs money, which makes it a marker of class

#34
post #33

I'm the creator of YourDigitalRights.org, a free and open source service in the privacy space. When we started 3 years ago we decided to make the service free precisely because of the reasons outlined in this article. Almost every week I get an offer to monetize the service in some way, but I still think you shouldn't need to pay for privacy (literally as I was writing this comment I got an email offering to pay for…

> we decided to make the service free > One of the problems is that there is very little funding I think your problem is self-made. > Not sure how to reconcile the two. Accept money in exchange for the value you create.

The title of the article is "Restoring your privacy costs money, which makes it a marker of class", GP says they want to avoid that problem, and your solution is to have them charge money?

Re: Restoring your privacy costs money, which makes it a marker of class

#35
post #14

I feel like the idea of privacy as a luxury is not limited to high-tech society. Do poor people in a primitive society have more privacy than poor people in a developed country? We're always so concerned with machines recognizing us, but what about other people? If I live in a small village, the owner of the general store will surely remember my face just like an ML-laden camera or POS system. We get creeped out when…

Beside the difference in scale, there are also different incentives. The bartender typically doesn't sell your data. They probably don't have a list of favourite drinks which they could share with others, they just have the information in their head. As soon as that data can be collected and sold at scale, there's an incentive to collect and sell as much data as possible, without any repercussions. Spreading rumours…

> The bartender typically doesn't sell your data.

Scammers sell your data all the time. Try going to some third world country to some shady hotel, and the receptionist will tell the taxi driver exactly whre you came from and how rich they think you are, taxi driver will then take you to a scammy club, where they'll already know how much they can scam out of you, sometimes even the police is in the whole scam, so even the police officer knows all your data, before you even see them.

Re: Restoring your privacy costs money, which makes it a marker of class

#36

I feel like the idea of privacy as a luxury is not limited to high-tech society. Do poor people in a primitive society have more privacy than poor people in a developed country? We're always so concerned with machines recognizing us, but what about other people? If I live in a small village, the owner of the general store will surely remember my face just like an ML-laden camera or POS system. We get creeped out when…

"Do poor people in a primitive society have more privacy than poor people in a developed country?"

Are you kidding? If I move to a different town, I can take on a whole new identity, a new name, hide my heritage.

Good luck tracking me down in medieval society if I move provinces, let alone countries.

Re: Restoring your privacy costs money, which makes it a marker of class

#37
Err, you shouldn't conflate privacy from private companies with privacy from the government.

The latter always was and always will be around, you can't hide from the ultimate authority.

Nothing will help you, short of living completely off the grid in an RV, maybe.

It's not a good thing, but governments everywhere are pushing for more surveillance and knowledge and they will get it.

But they also help increase privacy from private entities (at least in some countries), so there's that.

Re: Restoring your privacy costs money, which makes it a marker of class

#38

Everyone seem to forget the fact that, if you are able to pay just for the sake of privacy, your data is now even more valuable, since you signal that you have disposable income to spend on things that "common folk" can not afford to. Advertisers want to target you specifically. The better idea should be to feed them incorrect information and intentionally poison the data.

What are the best ways to feed advertisers incorrect data? If they already have valid data on who I am and what I do, what could make them overwrite this knowledge?

Re: Restoring your privacy costs money, which makes it a marker of class

#39
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The pay version is about $7.50 USD a month, which is not cost prohibitive if you care about it. It’s possible for someone to care about privacy but not have the means to do anything about it. The fact that $7.50 a month _is_ cost prohibitive for some people is the point of the article.

GP's point is that it may be cost prohibitive to some but it's too cheap to be a marker of class in developed countries. It'd be like saying a Netflix subscription is a marker of class.

I think if you added up all software you might need as paid, from MS Word to a VPN, cloud storage ala dropbox, password manager, imagine google searxh was a oaid service instead, etc. you would arrive at circa $100.

Re: Restoring your privacy costs money, which makes it a marker of class

#40

I feel like the idea of privacy as a luxury is not limited to high-tech society. Do poor people in a primitive society have more privacy than poor people in a developed country? We're always so concerned with machines recognizing us, but what about other people? If I live in a small village, the owner of the general store will surely remember my face just like an ML-laden camera or POS system. We get creeped out when…

"Do poor people in a primitive society have more privacy than poor people in a developed country?" Are you kidding? If I move to a different town, I can take on a whole new identity, a new name, hide my heritage. Good luck tracking me down in medieval society if I move provinces, let alone countries.

Forget medieval society, this is like 1980.

When your information was on paper in file cabinets with thousands of other people it wasn't much better than having nothing at all.

Post reply on HN