Great and what if a dictatorship takes over and starts looking through historical data. This is a depressingly high possibility in my country.
But even going less extreme than that, what about just draconian surveillance laws. In my country they’ve already tried to ban VPNs fortunately they’re technologically illiterate so they’ve been massively unsuccessful at that one. But what if they grow a collective brain?
Even though you’re completely right, there are 2 issues.
Most people are status quo adherents. The threat, even a real threat, of a totalitarian dictatorship take over of their country won’t ever be perceived as credible because in their mind “it’s just not possible” (at least in western nations). Second issue is that most people don’t understand, even in a post-Snowden world, what surveillance is actively being performed on them. A percent of a percent of smart phone users are even aware of what PRISM is, and most people don’t understand how that information can be weaponized against them.
Getting people to care about privacy means educating people on how computers work. But we’re about 40 to 50 years too late for that.
It also works with opening up the info to anyone, not just you. That’s one of the key issues, even if a trusted party is accessing the info there’s a chance that a malicious party can get access too. Or the trusted party becomes malicious later (government changes, company changes hands, etc.)
People generally don’t want everything in their home live streamed 24/7. If anything it has the potential for abuse, like if someone knows when you’ll be out of home for a few hours
Or use their app on your phone, which will “detect your driving patterns” and adjust your rates accordingly.
But honestly, even without all that, modern cars already have trackers and Internet connections even without your knowledge. (Mine did a couple of impromptu OTA updates for the media center at the beginning. It also has an SOS button on the roof, which you need to be subscribed to use, but can activate the subscription through the button. This implies there is a GPS tracker, as well as a cellular connection).
Pretty much. Do your thing, talk to people about it if they seem genuinely interested but definitely don’t go around trying to convince people that they need to take their digital privacy more seriously. They will view you as annoying and/or a lunatic and become permanently turned off to the concept. The hard sell isn’t anywhere near as effective as some people think.
That’s a choice they can make for themselves, not a choice tech companies and governments should make for everyone. If they want to trade their privacy, and I don’t - fine. All I want is the power to choose and know that choice will be respected.
I love the selfish/enmeshed subtle agenda to that. I will decide and since I believe I’m covered, I required everyone to be compelled into the same dragnet I bless with my consensual presence. We may all be fish but there’s oxygen in heaven/the sky
Ask to watch them pee. When they say no, ask what they do when they pee that they don’t want you to know about; that is the only reason they could want privacy, right?
Well if you live in a democracy you should. It’s not about your data alone, its everyone else’s. It’s social media company XYZ determining how each individual is going to vote, then, on election day sending all people on one side get out and vote messages, and sending people on the other side a tsunami of unrelated bs to make sure they don’t know about the election. Or push a bunch of fakenews to make them feel both sides are the same and why even vote?
Do this in a couple key areas and you only need to hit a few tens of thousands of people to turn a presidential race.
We know it can be done because it already has been. If you live in a democracy you should care a good deal about privacy, even if you somehow have nothing to hide
a healthy democracy requires others to have privacy. people like investigative journalists need to be able to blend in with the crowd and expose government wrongdoing
blending in the the crowd is the important part: if everyone cares about privacy, nobody sticks out for caring about privacy… but if nobody cares about privacy, the investigative journalist suddenly looks really obvious and can be targeted much more easily
if someone doesn’t think they have anything to hide, that’s fine (wrong, but fine) however they can help to make sure the government acts appropriately simply by not splashing data around everywhere for all to see
We’re entitled to a reasonable amount of privacy, such as locks on our doors and curtains on our windows, why shouldn’t reasonable privacy also apply to our lives online?
Add comment