"Privacy" has a nebulous definition, and I don't think many of us here
have concerns about supplying anonymous data to help build useful
systems. We need to re-frame the issue.
Individual and aggregated environmental sensor data could be used for
so many good things. We can track storms, fires and floods,
earthquakes, air and noise pollution, and save lives.
But it is abused by a greedy, unethical few, and so the systems can no
longer be trusted.
Medical data, individual and aggregated, can be used to stop
transmissible disease by detecting outbreaks, and improve our personal
health through exercise monitoring and early issue diagnosis.
But it is abused by a greedy, unethical few, and so the systems can no
longer be trusted.
Domestic data has the potential to manage energy, water use and air
quality, keep homes safe from intruders, protect the elderly and
babies.
But it is abused by a greedy, unethical few, and so the systems can no
longer be trusted.
The pattern here looks like a tragedy of the commons. As engineers we
can build systems with ostensible social utility which are then
hijacked (sold, acquired, infiltrated) by "digital pirates" who turn
them into systems of abuse (surveillance, manipulation and
control). Each time the empty "assurances" are the same and the
corruption predictable, inevitable and painful.
Perhaps it is time to stop thinking about "privacy" at the level of
technical measures and permissions etc, and deal with corruption and
abuse, which seems intrinsic to tech, at a different level. We have
the mathematical/cryptological knowledge to build better systems. but
it's the unethical few who benefit from stealing our data who don't
want computer systems to be secure.