Has it become some sort of fashion statement to be ignorant about privacy?
Whenever I discuss this topic people seem to almost take pride in giving their information to Google, Facebook and the thousands of other companies they have no clue about.
I think it's cognitive dissonance rearing its ugly head again: those people have tied their identity at some level with the use of the products and an attack on e.g. Google becomes an attack on them.
The concept of fairness also plays a role. Most people feel that Google should get something for providing their services and they also feel that it's ok if they are shown some ads. Fair deal. What they have no idea about is how much data is extracted from them, who it's shared with and for what purposes it's used. But we can be almost certain the answers to those questions is more and more data, more and more parties and more and more purposes, because data is forever.
And yes, real harm can come to you if you are promiscuous with your information. Additional information should be accessible through your favourite search engine. Hint: home invasion.
I find I'm having trouble arguing in a meaningful way with people who don't share the same concerns regarding the privacy of their data. I'm running out of arguments - no matter what I say, they'll respond with a shrug.
"So what? I don't have anything to hide."
"So what? They are a big company, surely they won't abuse my data."
"So what? How has Cambridge Analytica affected me?"
And for the ultimate capitulation: "So what? They already have so much data on everyone, you can't avoid it anyway."
Brave new world.
This is not only coming from folks with little understanding of tech, but also from "technologically literate" people who should know better. Sticking your head in the sand is just so damn convenient.
Even a comparatively widely reported privacy scandal like FB's can't seem to sway these folks... apparently because they feel like it hasn't affected them personally.
There are some points to counter with in the article. Bruce Schneier quotes Cardinal Richelieu: give me 6 lines written by the most honest man and I'll find something in there to hang him by. Has the benefit of historical perspective!
In general I frame the discussion so that I can emphasize the effects of surveilance on society and key members of society (judges, government employees, journalists, law enforcement, doctors etc). They could be blackmailed or reveal the data of many others through their carelessnes.
The average Joe is not clever enough to figure out what's happening and is probably not worth the effort to educate them. Try it on family and friends, but don't get your hopes up :)
IT workers are a special case: they think they're super smart but are just as clueless about the topic like the general population. And they help develop these systems, so it might be worthwile to try to use social pressure to get them to quit helping the abusers.
Ultimately this can only be solved through new laws and regulations, like the GDPR.
You deal with that by giving an actual example of something bad that has happened to someone who has not worried about what Google tracking them. I haven't seen one.
I mean, people who advise me not to text and drive can give real examples of people who died because they did that. That's tangible. All I hear is a lot of people telling me what I should care about but refuse to supply anything but intangibles and theoreticals.
Do you actually play an important role in society which gives you access to the information of many people or which would make others interested in blackmailing you? If yes, you'd hopefully already be aware of those risks and also educate your contacts on how to act in a provacy-conscious way.
Otherwise use Google, use whatever you want, nobody cares.
I'm ignorant, I suppose, because you are unwilling or unable to list a single tangible potential harm. Home invasion? Please explain how Google tracking me is going to help a home invader.
Or are you talking about me posting stuff on Facebook? Because that's a very, very different thing.
My goal when commenting is to counterbalance overly pro-surveilance comments, not become somebody's privacy coach and patiently explain to them all the bad things that could happen.
That takes a lot of effort and offers me zero benefit - even in real life, people that I've known for years can be stubborn and they dig in when confronted with arguments.
I'm more concerned about the effects of mass corporate surveilance on society itself and key members of society than any particular individual.
My question was regarding the individual, not society in general. I'm not so convinced the use of Google services and the way they get revenue is such a problem for society either, but that wasn't my question. I am interested in knowing whether using these alternatives instead of Google is in my self interest, when all things are taken into account and rationally balanced. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that they are.
You don't have to explain all the bad things that happen if you don't want to, but it sure seems like you are avoiding the question.
> My goal when commenting is to counterbalance overly pro-surveilance comments
And yet answering his question directly instead of avoiding it with a strange remark (home invasion, wtf?) would done a much better job at that.
I've heard the Brave New World speech many times and I buy into the concept... but I'd also like to be educated on reality. Spouting the former when someone asks for the latter is just annoying.
Whenever I discuss this topic people seem to almost take pride in giving their information to Google, Facebook and the thousands of other companies they have no clue about.
I think it's cognitive dissonance rearing its ugly head again: those people have tied their identity at some level with the use of the products and an attack on e.g. Google becomes an attack on them.
The concept of fairness also plays a role. Most people feel that Google should get something for providing their services and they also feel that it's ok if they are shown some ads. Fair deal. What they have no idea about is how much data is extracted from them, who it's shared with and for what purposes it's used. But we can be almost certain the answers to those questions is more and more data, more and more parties and more and more purposes, because data is forever.
And yes, real harm can come to you if you are promiscuous with your information. Additional information should be accessible through your favourite search engine. Hint: home invasion.