Hacker News Reader

Comment by kleiba | Hacker News Reader

Privacy is something that people usually only care about on a theoretical level. Practically speaking, they're often happy to not care so much at all if they get something more tangible in return.

---

Company: Excuse me, would you mind us profiling you through an accurate survey of most of your everyday purchases?

Customer: Heck no!

Company: What if we let you collect "points" that will maybe someday safe you a little bit of money on one of these purchases?

Customer: Sign me up!

---

Company: Excuse me, would you mind us recording everywhere you go all day every day and store that information for at least six months?

Customer: Heck no!

Company: What if you get a pocket computer with fast mobile internet connection in return, the corner stone of modern life?

Customer: Sign me up!

View on HN

That's fine. My privacy has a price and I'm happy to sell it when I think it's convenient for me.

What's happening here is that a state actor is forcing providers to let the state spy on me.

That's an authoritarian policy which I strongly oppose.

How much of a rebate on your taxes would you be happy selling it for?

What about a discount on your purchases, which was funded by the government, who would then buy the data?

That depends on what are we trading.

I would definitely trade my privacy with the government for any tax discount (and I think I'll have the longer stick, I'm no Indiana Jones) but whether I have an alternative or not is important.

A better question would be: would I move to a country where encryption is illegal if it had 0% tax? No, I would shop for another country. For a similar reason, I don't live in Dubai (0% tax but policies I don't approve of).

The important question is: do you have a choice? Is your consent requested or respected?

> Privacy is something that people usually only care about on a theoretical level. Practically speaking, they're often happy to not care so much at all if they get something more tangible in return.

Because not everyone is a Programmer. Most people I know have never even heard about Snowden.

I know lots of people who are tech savvy, care about privacy, but use a gmail address nevertheless.

I have my own contradictions. I think the disappearance of payments in cash is a problem, it is not good to give the state too much control on a society. But I hardly use any cash myself.

Convenience is unfortunately a big factor.

True. Although nothing-to-hiders will chime in quickly, stating that their shopping history isn't really that important to their sense of privacy.

They wouldn't like their neighbors knowing their shopping history, the principle should be the same.

But their neighors do not know it, and if amazon or the government knows it(pr their browser histpry, emails, ...) it has the same effect to them, that god knows it all. Can't do anything about it. Too distant to care. Thats my conclusion of privacy discussions with "normal" people.

There's a difference between me _opt-in_ to give private data in exchange for points, and that being unilaterally imposed.

It's also kind of harder to abuse information on my shopping list, whereas there's plenty of ways to abuse having total and complete access to all communication between private parties.

Think of it this way: what is more important to you, the convenience of exchanging text messages with your friends, or keeping these conversations private?

This wasn't always a choice. Before electronic communication people exchanged letters sometimes very frequently (mail service in London peaked at 12x/day). The privacy of these letters was however protected by law, with a warrant being required for police to open and read them.

I don't quite see why our packets and devices shouldn't have the same protections.

What is your point, given that many will reply "what is more important is dignity, so the choice is for privacy"?

The point is to give an example for my original tenet, that privacy often is valued as a theoretical concept but that people are apparently willing to give it up rather quickly for something else in return. Or, from a different point of view, how much convenience are you willing to give up for your privacy?

For example, I used to be on the extreme "pro privacy" end of the spectrum. But it is clear that philosophically speaking, privacy for everyone is not a completely positive ideal in all contexts. And that naturally raises the question about what other values privacy competes with, and how they should be balanced.

Intuitively, "convenience" should perhaps be considered less important than "privacy", but interestingly that's not what we observe actually happening in the real world.

Are you saying that these things must be mutually exclusive? It is entirely possible to have completely private and convenient conversations between two parties.

No, I'm not. It is a thought experiment to determine for yourself the value of privacy in a more tangible way. Like, if you were made to choose between one or the other, which one would you take?

That's different from arguing that they are mutually exclusive which I am not.

I think it's counterproductive to frame the discussion in terms of privacy. The real term is spying, how much spying do you want your <company|state> to do

Yes, users are price sensitive when it comes to selling their privacy. They also have a different sensitivity upon consideration of who the other party is and their perceived/intended use of the data.

To me, this isn't so surprising and is fully consistent with a greater willingness to give personal info to e.g. Amazon than e.g. the government.

They also have a different sensitivity upon consideration of who the other party is and their perceived/intended use of the data.

Except once their data is out, they have no control over where it will end up. Profiling data is regularly sold to third parties.

Regardless, robbing people of the ability to consent, even if 90% of them would anyways, should be intolerable.

The choice and position of Average Joe and Median Jack should not impact (compromise) the rest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com