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 version of Chinese social score system. For now it looks innocent, someone gave you a bad ranking on AirBnB, who cares? But in 10 years some bad ranking on some future social platform might keep person homeless because nobody will want to rent a flat because someone's kids stained the walls in the rented apartment.
Those in poverty, unemployed, in debts will be first victims of such system.
It's not about immediacy of it, privacy will never be high priority to someone whose very day to day existence is uncertain and/or who already lives in a system with much worse human rights abuses, corruption and injustices (and that describes a big part of the developing world). Not saying that it's not the real threat, but it's the 1st world type of priority for many...
> Not saying that it's not the real threat, but it's the 1st world type of priority for many...
Yeah but should it be? I am from India and we really had the opportunity to nip this in the bud. This will become a problem within the next decade, and that is the day when people will have the right but not the will to say I told you so. This thinking that you should only solve problems in their immediate time is faulty. If something can be solved now with smaller effort than later, it should be solved now.
Edit: think of how we prioritize stuff in software.
I think the problem is you're thinking in terms of cohorts, when that is obviously not how humans actually experience the world.
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.
I don't mean to make light of struggling to find somewhere to live, and I know it can be difficult for many due to reasons beyond their control, and this really sucks. Everyone should have a place to live. I'm interested in exploring the hypothetical, when you say:
> keep person homeless because nobody will want to rent a flat because someone's kids stained the walls in the rented apartment.
If Evan's kids stain the wall, then Evan's kids are more likely to stain the wall. Currently, the expectation of someone being more likely to stain the walls is "priced in" to the rental prices everywhere. People who don't stain walls pay a little more, and people whose kids stain the wall cost their owners a little more, but on average it comes out (hope you can own a lot of domiciles).
If we start to be able to measure this, doesn't this mean we can more accurately price it? People less likely will pay less, and people more likely will pay more. I think you're suggesting that "Owners will just use the likelihood of damages as a threshold, and if you're 0.01 above the Unsafe/Volatile threshold you'll not be rented to at all", but that leaves a pretty big hole in the market. If there's not enough supply, then people are being kicked out instead of Evan _now_, and if there is enough supply, then you'd rather rent to Evan at higher rates to cover your risks than to not rent at all, right?
The current situation kinda feels like an "insurance" thing, with pooled risk.
Do you have kids yourself? How much control do you ultimately have over them? How long should this metric haunt you?
When hearing how US credit scoring works I do not think it is a system worth striving for.
This quickly becomes analogue to another HN discussion today about job opportunities for felons. That is hard threshold - it is easier just to skip them.
Should we let the market forces rule freely?
If not totally free then how big a pooled risk is acceptable to you? A pool for those with kids and another for those without?
I have no kids and personally I prefer one pool. Even with those unruly kids upstairs!
When I see a society with gated communities I feel sorry for them. I live a place where we do not have them and I am grateful for that. They might be happier than me - but I do still not envy them.
I often find people who argue fair pricing are the ones who think they are in the sweet spot.
The example seems a little contrived as well. If Evans kid stains the wall he would fix it. If not - then it is when you have the deposit to mitigate that risk.
I do however get the gist of it. And personally I like the pooled risk. I think that we do much better together than as individuals. The pricing might seem unfair but sometimes it in your direct favour. And the "insurance" feels nice too.
Naturally it comes down to your own philosophy.
So while I agree that it could give a variant of more accurately pricing I do not think that kind of "precision" is healthy.
I am afraid that the privacy ship has sailed but I still think it is worth fighting as the current course have a high risk of a truly dystopian future.
I honestly think these fears are way overblown. Is a family with kids more likely to damage an apartment or simply go to bed early? I don't think anyone has these stats, and even if they did, they probably aren't material enough to overcome the added cost of complexity and social awkwardness.
> 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.
Ok but being real for a second, this is extremely difficult to imagine happening. What on earth could you write on facebook 20 years ago, short of a confession to a heinous crime, that would make you unemployable?
I would argue that it's hurting those demographics right now. It's never been easier to do a background check, which if you've had a rocky past that you're trying to change, means it's never been harder to escape you're past self. This isn't limited to criminal records, but even just having pictures of yourself underage drinking from 10 years ago, or (publicly) saying stupid things that all of have said at some point in our lives, is enough to lock you out of jobs.
We're left in a situation where -- once again -- the educated and wealthy have an advantage over the poor and unfortunate by just knowing how to hide their mistakes.
Anyone who says privacy is a privileged person's issue is shortsighted
Yes, you may have a pretty privileged live. In my opinion your obligated to think and care about such things, when you have a privileged live. I don't expect a poor 3rd world family to save privacy or the climate--but I expect it from people who have the luxury to spend time on these issues. Everyone will get reckt by lacking privacy or the collapsing climate if we don't do something about it.
The biggest issue I've faced is stubbing my toe. Being obligated to think and care about such things I've determined that stubbed toes are the most important concept of our time.
Those of us with privileged lives should feel obligated to think beyond our bubbles and look at the real issues affecting people who are less privileged.
I think the parent's point was not that privacy is unimportant, but rather that, if we want to seriously discuss what is most important, there are a number of viable candidates in addition to privacy.
The whole most important is a straw man kinda argument anyway, because it's possibly to have more than one "very important thing", and for the difficult stuff in life you often can't optimize for just one thing.
Exploiting private information has also made some companies very rich. There is an element of fairness of distribution here... If you take from me what I have not willingly given and you make huge profits, you should share your wealth and/or invest in my community.
I agree that people who live in a democracy are privileged. Whether they will be wise enough to contribute depends on their education.
But education is a hard problem. Instead of citizens, we often find foolish purchase-zombies. "Why vote? It's all so corrupt, what can we do? Let's go to the sale instead!"
Weapons of Math destruction points out how a lack of privacy can hurt your job prospects. You post something stupid on Facebook , a future employer declines to hire you . An insurance company sees many of your friends are poor , your insurance rates may rise.
At this point I do my best to avoid social media , theirs a ton of potential downside for very little benefit.
When cars were invented, producing them in large numbers, operating them efficiently and comfortably would have been a major concern while anyone talking about safety would be ridiculed. As it turned out engineering challenges were sorted out by economic incentives but car safety/pollution control had to be legislated.
In case of cars though wrong design choices in older cars could be phased out eventually but in case of online platforms the choices will remain there for more number of people in terms of market penetration given the explosion social networks are having in the last decade. Even if vast majority of people prioritize other things over privacy, vocal and knowledgeable minority need to raise the concerns of the choices unknowingly being made by less knowledgeable people.
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 for everyone but some have more freedom to spend time caring about them. Lot of people are struggling with other more immediate issues, but that doesn't reduce in any case the importance of privacy.
Caring about privacy is the luxury. Not privacy itself, neither does it imply that privacy is less important. Just that people who have to care about more urgent dangers won't always have to capacity to take in account something like privacy issues. But these people still deserve of privacy, and we should try to build solution that embrace both privacy AND helping them with their unemployment, poverty, or other more urgent issue.
Yes, people deserve privacy and education and many other things. The point is that food security and shelter are even more important by a very large margin.
Well how about we don't try to compare pears with apples. Privacy and poverty are both pretty important in their own way, let's not make clickbaity claims just for the sake of it.
Interesting comment. What is the argument you're trying to make? I am from a western country, and I do see privacy as one of the most important concepts of our time. And I do feel privileged that I am in such a position that I can think of it. Especially since privacy is so easily traded in poorer countries for needs like internet and communication. Yes these problems as famine and unemployment need attention they do. But in the meantime, privacy needs a lot of attention too. And like Europe started with GDPR it paves a way for other countries to follow or draw inspiration. It's not one or the other. And to be honest I am happy that I can ask these questions before it takes a larger hold on society. And again, yes we need to help other countries with those issues.
When those nations are solved from their immediate problems, they will also need to deal with privacy and these ethical questions. We just have a head start and we can already ask the the questions and find solutions for it.
Equating privacy and privilege is not helpful. It is true that the privileged in our society wield more capability to enact protect and enact change for themselves and others in society, and privacy may not be top of mind when ranked against more immediate concerns such as those you have listed, but that doesn't change the fact that privacy is a universal human right and essential to our dignity and the functioning of society. It is something to be valued and upheld for everyone, not dismissed as a concern for the privileged alone.
People with privileged lives can still set the political agenda. That hasn’t happened with privacy. I don’t think the argument is screwed. But the present mode of messaging, which can border on patronising towards the technically unsophisticated and uncompromising to an extreme degree, isn’t working.
"If you care about <X>, check your privilege" is one of the most obnoxious and counterproductive put-downs. You're allowed to care about things that affect you even if they aren't as relevant to the poorest people in the world.
What matters is not how much people care about it but rather how much it shapes our lives every day, how much it shapes the geopolitical landscape, and how much of a negative influence it threatens to have over us all.
Privacy was a major concern in former socialist countries like East Germany were the Stasi and hundreds-of-thousands of "Unofficial Collaborators" spied on millions of citizens. People were very alert in their everyday lives about who they could talk to about what topics (because talking about the wrong things to the wrong people could easily cost you your carreer or land you in jail).
I would hardly call life in the GDR 'privileged'.
It's easy to forget today and from a Western point of view that privacy is a basic human right, not a feature of your smartphone to protect from tracking ads.
Sure, but it was the dictatorship locking people up for wrongthink that was the problem, not the lack of privacy.
I don't think many East Germans would take the GDR back in return for guarantees that views would stay private so long as they were expressed in private...
The dictatorship was enabled by violation of people's privacy, that's why it managed to survived so long.
Privacy isn't an optional feature you can "chose" to have or even have much control over, it is a basic right that is either violated or honored by those in power.
What enabled the dictatorship was punishing people for perceived disloyalty and shooting people who tried to leave. Privacy was, at best, a weak defence against that, and arguably much of the Stasi's raison d'etre was to convince citizens their concerns about the government ought to stay private.
Better a Germany where people feel safe to share far more on social media than the Stasi could ever have collected, because they don't expect to suffer consequences from doing so.
Famine, debt, etc are well known issues but we know about them from bygone eras.
Privacy is changing in ways that are only apparent recently. Who'd have thought 20 years ago about your personal data being mined for profit? Apart from a few forward thinkers, probably not too many.
Lack of privacy is the capitalists' distributed social credit system. We have thousands of companies that mine massive data to spy on people in all ways. And that data can and will be used in hiring, firing, monetary credit, clearances, customer acceptance, and more.
The hardness to maintain privacy will be used as a means of significant control over access to money in all ways.
As the article states: those without means and power are the most vulnerable to their privacy being taken away and the information being used against them.
Also: I hate your use of "priviledge" to argue anything anytime in any context without a proper thought. You haven't even made a point.
Did you click on the article? Quoting from the top of the landing page, "It [privacy] concerns the very fabric of society." Writing about privacy as a concept isn't nearly the same thing as trying to draw legitimate concern to an important issue. An important issue, but inarguably neither the most pertinent concept or concern of our time - currently.
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.