The privacy paradox is no paradox To live in a modern society, particularly if one is active in discussion and social life, can feel like incurring the costs of being a celebrity with none of the benefits. We have to watch ourselves and be careful of any ‘misstep’ or ‘gaffe’, yet we have no adoring fans.
> The distinction between ‘legitimately’ public information and private information is less important than often thought. The most obvious examples here are related to the internet- if I posted raunchy photos of myself on Facebook publicly ten years ago, it’s still a privacy breach if someone goes out of their way to find that and use it against me. We have the right to use the internet freely without being transformed into public figures.
This is the weakest part of the article, IMO. Phrases like ‘less important’, ‘use against me’ and ‘use the internet’ are doing a lot of the heavy lifting while being too abstract. Important for what purpose? Use against me how? Use the internet how?
The last one is what doesn’t sit right with me. I find something wrong about the idea of demanding all of the benefits and none of the consequences of an action. If by ‘use the internet’ we mean to wilfully make some private information public and not bother to take steps securing it back, the burden of the consequences of said publicity cannot be simply shrugged off. To say nothing about how something like this would even be enforced justifiably. If I choose to colour my house bright pink, others are allowed to use that information to build my character in their minds.
But then again, Google Maps allows you to blur your house front in Street View, so maybe there’s something there. Certainly a discussion to be had.
> “Permission”, even if given in the light of full understanding, means very little when it is extracted from you through unequal bargaining power- e.g., employer-employee relations.
This part seems wrong to me. There's a huge difference between "choosing to work an unpleasant job for money" and "being forced into slavery where they also give me some money". Requiring consent creates a lower bound on how bad the thing can be for the person, since if it's worse than their other options, they'll choose to do something else.
Society of course should work to provide people with more alternative options to raise the overall "quality of life" bar, but the key is that we should be providing people with *more* choices, not fewer. Trying to fix exploitative jobs by banning exploitative jobs is like trying to fix expensive housing by banning expensive housing.
Unfortunately, we are not able to hold true privacy. To live in a society one has to give away their total freedom and settle for civilian freedom. The same applies to privacy.
I think this is poorly thought out and lives only off your recent experience. If you post on facebook about your bad breakup, and a prospective partner reads it, concludes youre too much drama, and doesnt give you a chance - is that a privacy issue? If not, you have to guard who youre friends with on facebook. And if the people who read it talk about it with someone else who then judges you, is that a problem? Is it bad to ask a mutual aquaintance about you? Absent an extremely clear line of who is supposed to know something - like there can easily appear to be when thinking about only a single context - its not clear how to enact your demands.
While at the topic of employer snooping though... I do wonder if some will reject people for being too guarded in their online presentation? That seems like the next logical step. Ultimately, expecting people to trust you if you might have "remade yourself" 3 months ago just isnt realistic.
>As Graukroger argues, part of the purpose of privacy is to protect people who engage in wrongdoing. This isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. Life is very long, how many of us could stand the scrutiny of all our deeds? Even if you have something to hide, you shouldn’t necessarily have something to fear.
Are you familiar with the Rationalist blackmail discourse? Attached a leftists "pro" take. Im very much "anti", but the argument of this bullet point doesnt seem straightforwardly true.
> The distinction between ‘legitimately’ public information and private information is less important than often thought. The most obvious examples here are related to the internet- if I posted raunchy photos of myself on Facebook publicly ten years ago, it’s still a privacy breach if someone goes out of their way to find that and use it against me. We have the right to use the internet freely without being transformed into public figures.
This is the weakest part of the article, IMO. Phrases like ‘less important’, ‘use against me’ and ‘use the internet’ are doing a lot of the heavy lifting while being too abstract. Important for what purpose? Use against me how? Use the internet how?
The last one is what doesn’t sit right with me. I find something wrong about the idea of demanding all of the benefits and none of the consequences of an action. If by ‘use the internet’ we mean to wilfully make some private information public and not bother to take steps securing it back, the burden of the consequences of said publicity cannot be simply shrugged off. To say nothing about how something like this would even be enforced justifiably. If I choose to colour my house bright pink, others are allowed to use that information to build my character in their minds.
But then again, Google Maps allows you to blur your house front in Street View, so maybe there’s something there. Certainly a discussion to be had.
> “Permission”, even if given in the light of full understanding, means very little when it is extracted from you through unequal bargaining power- e.g., employer-employee relations.
This part seems wrong to me. There's a huge difference between "choosing to work an unpleasant job for money" and "being forced into slavery where they also give me some money". Requiring consent creates a lower bound on how bad the thing can be for the person, since if it's worse than their other options, they'll choose to do something else.
Society of course should work to provide people with more alternative options to raise the overall "quality of life" bar, but the key is that we should be providing people with *more* choices, not fewer. Trying to fix exploitative jobs by banning exploitative jobs is like trying to fix expensive housing by banning expensive housing.
Unfortunately, we are not able to hold true privacy. To live in a society one has to give away their total freedom and settle for civilian freedom. The same applies to privacy.
And now Ferdinand Waldo Demara can never again exist.
I think this is poorly thought out and lives only off your recent experience. If you post on facebook about your bad breakup, and a prospective partner reads it, concludes youre too much drama, and doesnt give you a chance - is that a privacy issue? If not, you have to guard who youre friends with on facebook. And if the people who read it talk about it with someone else who then judges you, is that a problem? Is it bad to ask a mutual aquaintance about you? Absent an extremely clear line of who is supposed to know something - like there can easily appear to be when thinking about only a single context - its not clear how to enact your demands.
While at the topic of employer snooping though... I do wonder if some will reject people for being too guarded in their online presentation? That seems like the next logical step. Ultimately, expecting people to trust you if you might have "remade yourself" 3 months ago just isnt realistic.
>As Graukroger argues, part of the purpose of privacy is to protect people who engage in wrongdoing. This isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. Life is very long, how many of us could stand the scrutiny of all our deeds? Even if you have something to hide, you shouldn’t necessarily have something to fear.
Are you familiar with the Rationalist blackmail discourse? Attached a leftists "pro" take. Im very much "anti", but the argument of this bullet point doesnt seem straightforwardly true.
http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/blackmailers-are-privateers-in-the-war-on-hypocrisy/
Robustness isn't an on-off lever, so what _level_ of robustness is sufficient?