Skip to main content

View Diary: I don't get it. Just what do you mean by privacy? More meta... (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Things we do in public places (4+ / 0-)

    (which includes the tubes and the phone companies) aren't ever going to be private any more than what we do on the street.

    Technology has evolved to the point that anything done in public can be saved as data, which can be accessed by anybody with enough computing muscle or skills.  We should expect this.

    •  We should, but evidently we mostly don't, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yasuragi, Urizen, Onomastic

      and we're surprised when it happens.

      What are the critical assumptions about privacy (or possibly about trust) that make it so hard to comprehend? Or conversely, what new statement about reality do we need to make before it's acceptable?

      At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

      by serendipityisabitch on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 10:57:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It seems to me that some people (3+ / 0-)

        will always opt for seeing themselves as victims no matter what reality would suggest.  They create a fantasy world of expectations and then freak out when life isn't like that.  That's pretty much the ethos of the teabaggers and some of us behave the same way.

        •  It's possible that you're right. OTOH, thinking (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Urizen, Yasuragi, Onomastic

          that doesn't offer any solutions, and it strikes me as a bit simplistic. I'd be tempted to make a few psych references, except that I don't want to thread-jack my own diary.

          So I'll only say that I know what life is like for me, and which pieces of my reality tend to be mostly internal rather than generally verifiable. I'm not too tempted to say 'life isn't like that' about anyone else's reality.

          At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

          by serendipityisabitch on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 11:56:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I was meaning the common reality (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yasuragi, Onomastic

            The one in which technology has developed to the point where it's easy and cheap to know almost anything about anybody.  Life is like that for all of us, regardless of our expectations.

            •  And as I've said elsewhere, we sow the (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              deep info, Onomastic

              seeds of the destruction of our own "privacy" every time we agree to any digital "terms of service."

              They got us good in the beginning, and we were happy to click away our rights.

              Now I wonder -- given that one can't seriously function in our time (and most don't want to) without using Google and Yahoo etc., buying software, downloading apps and products -- if there isn't a case for a class action suit against several key companies, demanding that their terms of service be revised, or that they offer us a lower level of use for a greater level of privacy.

              "Throwing a knuckleball for a strike is like throwing a butterfly with hiccups across the street into your neighbor's mailbox." -- Willie Stargell

              by Yasuragi on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 01:07:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Most of the things we used to do even out on the (5+ / 0-)

      street used to essentially be private.  Before cameras on every mobile phone, and many buildings and streets, you could pick your nose or scratch your butt in 'public', with a relatively small chance anyone would even see, and certainly without any expectation that such might be preserved digitally for longer than you might live.

      •  dunno . . . (4+ / 0-)

        Oldschool, smalltown people knew everything about everybody, except (maybe) for what went on behind closed doors.  Out of politeness they may have looked the other way when old uncle john was scratching his ass.

        Not that I'm happy about all this, but I think we'll just have to learn to be less obsessed with controlling our own images and accept being perceived as we actually are.  Younger friends of mine (millennials) seem very comfortable with people knowing things about them that would have embarrassed my grandparents to death.  

        It may be that all this surveillance is bringing us closer to a real global village.

        •  Perspective changes after naps ;) (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Onomastic, just another vet

          I noted this comment earlier this afternoon, but didn't pay it sufficient attention.

          I would not have thought to conflate control of self image with negative reactions to loss of privacy, but I think you are absolutely correct to point this out as a factor, and possibly a major one.

          Thank you.

          At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

          by serendipityisabitch on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 07:57:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There is a form of "none of our business" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          just another vet

          which is part of privacy.  As in, we all know you scratched your butt, but that was none of our business, and we'll act like we didn't know.

          This form is perhaps the most socially valuable in fighting against rampant surveillance-state authoritarians.  One of the real dangers of the surveillance state is that the surveillance will be used for blackmail.

          If whatever is revealed is considered by most people to be "none of our business", the blackmail fails.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site