Privacy is overrated. The problems with the discourse around privacy are framing¹ (cached meanings of words in the minds of the populace) and pre-conceived guilt, resulting in secrecy by the data-collecting party.
- Two things:
(i) The regular use of words within certain contexts biases their meanings.
(ii) Deliberate framing: death tax vs inheritance tax, pro choice vs pro life, undocumented immigrants vs illegal aliens.
Surveillance by the state, and data collection by big orgs are means to information gathering. In the case of the state, to ensure security — of all kinds, and of all things within its territory. In the case of big organizations to (i) learn about the user so as to improve the product, and (ii), learn about the user to recommend better ads.
So, if the intentions are good, why is everyone wary of data collection by central organizations? The problem people have with constant surveillance or collection of data is creepiness, in three parts:
-
Collection methods
-
Secrecy of the fact of collection
-
Abuse of collected data
Any organization surveiling/data-collecting needs to re-define the discourse and attempt to shift the framing. They cannot admit to surveillance/collection of data. 'Admitting to' a thing already frames you as guilty. They need to get in front of the inevitable leak to the general public by:
(i) Explaining what they do and why they need to do it. They cannot call it 'surveillance'. The cached meaning of 'surveillance' in the minds of the people is ... erm ... not good. They need to invent a new phrase. Cc: 'global warming' needed to be jetissoned for 'climate change'.
(ii) Designing only non-creepy data gathering methods.
(iii) Doing whatever they need data collection for greatly, building trust from the get-go, and never deliberately violating it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So as I understand your argument is:
Knowing more things leads to more efficient outcomes
Central organizations are well intentioned
Therefore Central organizations knowing more things leads to better outcomes
Let us for a moment assume this is correct.
Better outcomes for whom? You assume, incorrectly that the interests of individuals and organizations are aligned, when nothing could be further from the truth. It could very well be in the interest of the organization you work for or live in the jurisdiction of for you to be a slave of them, which I don't believe would be in your interest.
You propose more power be given to organizations. What makes you think it will be used to improve outcomes for anybody but those organizations?
A fascist would here simply stand by the idea only the welfare of organizations matter. But fascism is an insane ideology that holds the existence of the individual is mental illness.
This argument is not necessary because your premise is flawed.
Central organizations are not well intentioned. They, in fact, do not have the ability to be well intentioned and are necessarily pushing for worse outcomes by virtue of their existence.
An organization does not wish to accomplish any goals, it wishes to survive and grow in size. This means that it has, to a degree, to pretend to accomplish a goal to convince people to let it live and give it ressources. Any power given to it will be used to service this pretending only if it is absolutely necessary and all the rest goes to growing it's influence. As has happened to every organization throughout history, because the game theory of power requires it.
Organizations unfortunately have to exist despite these deadly flaws because their pretending to care about something scales, and individual conviction does not.
But any power given to them at the expense of humans is just one more step down towards the inevitable goal of all human power structures: totalitarianism. That state where the one power manages to absorb all competition and wins the ultimate prize of politics. And then proceeds to destroy itself because it has to handle an infinitely complex world with finite information.
As you know this process usually involves millions of deaths, and people aren't too keen on it. Hence we've invented guidelines as to when power should stop being given to organizations. These are commonly called "rights" and they include privacy because we've noticed that learning all about a person's life gives organizations such a tremendous power over humans that the slide to total control is easy to see from there.
I hence enjoin you to renounce this silly idea, lest you be enslaved and murdered by systems that seek to make sure your thoughts are what they want.
More options
Context Copy link