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 -
There are unloaded terms for these activities: census or polling statistics.
They are opt-in and don't infringe on privacy, and only the most hardline small government libertarians usually object to them.
People are generally uncomfortable with widespread/automatic surveillance because it's
opaque; inspecting the methodology and ethics thereof can often only done post-hoc, often with leaks and after non-trivial social costs are already borne
surprisingly effective and perceptive; see how much information can be gleaned from metadata with phone calls, or IP connections that are encrypted with TLS, but not routed over TOR
susceptible to abuse; you want to shift the framing to gloss over this, but is that logically honest? is it reasonable to assume organizations have individuals best interests in mind? it is always tempting to label dissidents as terrorists and crack down on them with the full force of the state, but does that lead to a productive and free society? would you rather live in China, where discussions about the CCP are mired in doublespeak/downright avoided, or the US, which has pretty robust protections of speech that don't have clear National Security dynamics (see Snowden and Assange as obvious counterexamples)?
I think it's also important to understand the unease around privacy is not necessarily utilitarian and logically consistent: Alexa listening in on your sex life and giving you sex toys recommendations based on orgasm frequency is certainly useful, but would make almost anyone I know very uncomfortable.
More options
Context Copy link