Thomas Delrue on 28 Apr 2017 03:38:22 -0700

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PLUG] Webroot

On April 28, 2017 12:01:46 AM GMT+02:00, Rich Freeman <> wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Thomas Delrue
><> wrote:
>> On April 27, 2017 7:38:09 PM GMT+02:00, "Keith C. Perry"
><> wrote:
>>>LOL, I think I'm going to have to start doing that too Tom :D
>> When you put the problem in that phrasing,  people seem a little more
>'receptive' for the idea of privacy
>> because now they have to defend why they don't (and they really
>don't) want to give you the passwords
>> to their accounts  (include social media for better effect) without
>using any argument in favor of privacy.
>> As you can tell, they don't succeed very often...
>> It's super effective!
>About as effective as climate change denial, IMO.
>At no point did I say that I didn't need privacy.  At no point did I
>say that we shouldn't have privacy.
>My argument was that as time goes on we simply won't have privacy, and
>there is nothing we can do to change it.
>I'm not under the impression that I have nothing to hide.  I have
>plenty to hide.  However, as time goes on I doubt I'll be able to hide
>much of anything.
>Again, this is like debating the morality of trading mp3 files in a
>world where any 7-year-old can trade mp3 files with near-impunity.  It
>is a purely academic argument that has no bearing on what happens in
>the real world.
>And I closed by saying that society is going to need to adapt.  Right
>now if any of us divulged everything we do in private it would
>probably hurt our careers, and possibly some of our close
>relationships.  At some point in the future we won't be given any
>choice in the matter, which means that everybody either needs to live
>like perfect saints, or they need to accept that we don't always
>behave the way others might prefer that we behave.
>Sure, in the short term we can pass laws to try to put the genie back
>in the bottle, and in the short term they'll work.  RIght now it is
>only really big companies that have the ability to aggregate all this
>information.  Once upon a time it was thought that shutting down
>Napster would stop mp3 trading.
>However, privacy is about controlling the flow of information, just as
>copyright is about controlling the flow of information.  Right now
>your personal info is in a limited number of very large databases.  As
>the cost of data storage goes down it will become easier and easier to
>distribute.  When anybody with a camera and a Pi can point a camera
>out the window and log every face and car that drives by and upload
>the info to a distributed database, and there is such a logger on
>every street corner, we'll have the same situation but with no big
>company to regulate.  They might also wear such a device and just
>continuously log everything they see all day.  The technology isn't
>quite there for this to happen, but there is no reason to think that
>this day won't come.
>Why would people want to do that?  This is like asking why do people
>have hard drives full of 3TB of mp3 files when they only listen to
><0.01% of them?  They'll do it because they can, and because it costs
>them next to nothing.
>I don't think it will be an entirely negative thing either.  Sure, bad
>things happen when you give up your privacy today, but this is because
>most people are hypocrites who are happy to collectively punish
>somebody for something they themselves do.  That simply won't be
>sustainable in a world where everybody needs to be punished.  However,
>I don't doubt that the change will not come easily.
>So, by all means demand privacy today.  You might get a little of it.
>However, I think the very nature of technology makes this a losing
>battle.  Maybe it shouldn't be, but it will be so all the same.

You hang out with a different crowd than I do. And yours is more fatalistic than mine. ;-P
I didn't say you claimed that you don't need privacy or that we shouldn't have it. 

The problem isn't technological. The problem is apathy: people feel like they have no choice over something about which they don't understand the consequences for themselves. And so they don't care about it. 
But make it about them and their stuff instead of this abstract concept of privacy as a GoodThing(tm) and they are more likely to start caring. Because now it is about THEIR stuff instead of someone else's. It's about something they themselves lose that is concrete and tangible to them. Suddenly they feel the level of invasion. 

First you have to make them care. Without that, it is a losing battle. 

/That/ was my point.
(Sent from my mobile device,  please forgive brevity or typos.)
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --
Announcements -
General Discussion  --