The unfortunate explanation for the phenomena that you're observing is that most people simply don't care about their privacy -- at least not nearly as much as you do.
What Open Source Can Learn From Slack https://www.nemil.com/musings/oss-and-slack.html
> Third, we generally overweight the importance of our personal values when developing a product — without considering how users will make their decision.
> For example, users do value privacy, but many won’t switch to a product that protects their privacy if it means losing what they have — unlike so many of those commenting in Hacker News threads.
I don't think that is a fair assessment. Even if that is true technically, it is missing the spirit of the question at hand. I think many people are misinformed about what is happening in data collection and processing, and if they were well-informed, would care more about their privacy. Given that people are intentionally being misled about the implications of giving up their privacy - via various propaganda about how it's not-that-bad, etc - I think it is unfair to state that people "simply don't care about their privacy ... as much as you do".
I think if people knew what was at stake, they would care more. Stating that they "simply don't care" is basically ending the conversation preemptively, such that the only possible future is that there is no privacy.
But I think people are misinformed, greatly. Very few people have any idea how intense FB's data collection efforts are, or how insecure the data is when it goes there, etc. Even NYT pieces do not reach that many Americans. And NYT or other publications are careful and methodical about their writing, barely able to reach into the future and question out loud the future FB is building.
Democracy is at stake. This is more than a question of individual privacy: people need to understand that our society is crumbling due to lack of privacy, because wealthy and powerful institutions are using that intense violation into private American lives to brainwash targeted people with conspiracy theories and other dangerous society-damaging things.
Privacy matters to everyone, I'd wager even to those who think they don't value their individual privacy.
Yea, people are uninformed. But, I think you're overestimating people's capacity to care about issues that will have no real consequence on their life. The average person just wants to spend time with their family/friends, gossip, and enjoy their hobbies. Facebook helps them do just that.
>> But I think people are misinformed, greatly. Very few people have any idea how intense FB's data collection efforts are, or how insecure the data is when it goes there, etc.
This is exactly the type of information that people don't care about. "So, you're telling me FB knows I'm browsing Groupon for wedding gift deals and looking at cat pictures on Reddit? O, and other people could have access to that data?" Shoulder shrug...
>> Democracy is at stake. This is more than a question of individual privacy: people need to understand that our society is crumbling due to lack of privacy.
I guess this is the type of argument people actually care about. The problem is that their uninstalling Facebook isn't going to change anything, other than making their lives less fun. If there's a real threat to democracy, the solutions need to come via regulation.
Why do you think that this has no real consequence on their lives? I would state unequivocally that privacy violations have a direct consequence on people's lives. And they see that consequence, too, it's not some hidden thing. I would blame a lack of privacy culture on the election of a lying, cheating government that has directly caused pain to individual Americans. This is happening presently and I believe that if we had valued privacy significantly more over the last two decades, there would be far less physical pain intentionally caused on targeted people.
> This is exactly the type of information that people don't care about. "So, you're telling me FB knows I'm browsing Groupon for house cleaning deals and looking at cat pictures on Reddit? O, and other people could have access to that data?" Shoulder shrug...
What do you mean? I'm not talking about that at all. I'm talking about how when you go to the grocery store and someone snaps a selfie with you in the background, FB knows. They know when you take the subway and where you go, they [will] know pretty much every single detail of your life even if you don't have an account.
I'm not talking about browsing the web. By the way, that privacy violation is real and serious, not something to shrug off.
> The problem is that their uninstalling Facebook isn't going to change anything, other than making their lives less fun
What do you mean by this? Uninstalling Facebook isn't going to change anything because FB spies out the wazoo anyway! And anecdotally, I think that people are generally happier when they spend less time on Facebook, not less happy.
> If there's a real threat to democracy, the solutions need to come via regulation.
Sure - but with the way laws are written, FB's lawyers will write those laws and nothing meaningful will change. More than legislation has to happen, a cultural shift into caring about privacy is needed.
"I don't care if FB knows I was at the grocery store, or at the mall, or on the subway. I care about not missing the invite to my niece's birthday party."
>> They [will] know pretty much every single detail of your life even if you don't have an account.
Imo, this is fearmongering...
Privacy is not a "tech crowd" concern, it's a fundamental aspect of our societies and a human right.
Most people don't have to think too much about their freedoms because others fought for them and continue to do so.
"Privacy" isn't an absolute term, so saying privacy is a human right is pretty vacuous.
It goes along the lines of: Privacy is valuable because without privacy A, B, and C will be possible. And, we can all agree A, B, and C would be very very bad.
There are two ways to attack this argument: 1) A, B, and C aren't that bad when compared to the benefits of operating in an environment with less privacy. 2) A, B, and C are possible but unlikely. I.e. this is fearmongering.
I tend to go with 2.
I was talking to my uncle, a very smart man and a lawyer, about privacy concerns. He said something that will stick with me for years:
"You're like a prophet about this stuff, but like every prophet, you're 30 years too early for us to believe you."
The insight that they need to protect their friends is usually very convincing. - My hope is to spread this narrative.
I really like this definition of privacy on the Wikipedia page about the subject:
> The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are part of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose
If my boss has a speaker on his desk and I can't reasonably expect to be listened to, but he records me anyway, how do I prevent this?
Privacy needs to be understood as a social good, not as an individual right. Privacy is being destroyed in the same way pollution diminishes air quality, if you have privacy only locked into your home with the blinds shut you might as well not have privacy at all.
Privacy needs to be drastically expanded to have meaning for connected people in a social environment. It should mean I can use the train without being tracked, state a political opinion without forever having it pinned to my name, and without having to feel supervised every time I eat something unhealthy or say something that resembles dissent.
Yes. Privacy is everyone's responsibility. And I say this working in the digital marketing space.
> If my boss has a speaker on his desk and I can't reasonably expect to be listened to, but he records me anyway, how do I prevent this?
You have many options, the most extreme is by not working for people who put you in situations like that. But maybe having a talk would suffice. "Hey sorry I feel like my personal liberty is being violated here, I would prefer not to be recorded without my consent" If your boss insists, then you have the choice of not revealing anything you are not comfortable with being recorded all the way again to the extreme case of replying to everything your boss says with some same crafted response, as an example, "I would love to reply/answer, but not while being recorded".
> Privacy needs to be understood as a social good, not as an individual right.
100% emphatically absolutely not if not for the simple reason that this is contrary to American liberty and where our rights come from, and once you go down that hole, there is no going back.
> Privacy needs to be drastically expanded to have meaning for connected people in a social environment.
One of my favorite writers on this exact topic is Daniel J Solove. (He's the author of one of my favorite papers of all time "I've got nothing to hide and other misunderstandings of privacy" which is now subsequently a book called "Nothing to Hide")
The government doesn't need Facebook to get your data (they go straight to the ISPs, anyway). There's 10,000 companies that buy and sell your personal data already (and has been for 30 years - you can buy lists for direct mail of people's name, full addresses, numbers, marriage status, estimated income, etc.)
You're only thinking of the federal level. There are many levels of government, and local governments from states and counties all the way down to companies contracted by the local dog catcher buy the data mined by advertising companies.
and has been for 30 years - you can buy lists for direct mail of people's name, full addresses, numbers, marriage status, estimated income, etc
But for 30 years you haven't been able to track someone's location on a minute-by-minute basis. Or in real-time in the case of buying data from a cell phone carrier. Plus a lot of other invasive information that hasn't been available until FB, G, and others weaponized the avertising industry.
We're not talking about public data. We're talking about companies selling private data.
You are looking at it the wrong way. It's not about Facebook's evil end game today. It's about what their current collection of data enables a future Facebook (or a company that may buy Facebook one day) to do. It's also about what malicious actors, government or otherwise, may do with the data if they get their hands on it, as they have, multiple times, in the recent past.
Today the data is used to show you ads. There is no guarantee that it will be used for just that purpose in the future.
Apart from the evil of "making people buy shit they wouldn't have otherwise" that applies to all advertising the end game is to do price discrimination based on profiles of the individual. If they know you're friends are raving about a holiday somewhere then you'll see a higher price than a casual browser. This way you can extract the maximum amount possible from your customers.
I imagine with privacy it will be even harder because the danger is much less clear.
Google, Facebook and others have a whole collection of intentionally misleading dialogues and practices that deceptively conceal what they are doing under the catchall of 'improving user experience' or some such thing. Surely if they actually thought people 'don't care' all these firms and technical folks involved won't feel the need to be deceptive.
This comes across more as tech folks trying to offload their own responsibility in designing, building and profiting from surveillance systems by wishing that people didn't care.