Yep; societally, they've got a very different attitude towards privacy.
Everyone's salary is publicly available online. (So's the fact that you looked!) https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40669239
Everyone's salary is publicly available online. (So's the fact that you looked!) https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40669239
In that situation, I'm happy that government has access to the same data because it gives it a way to balance the private sector power.
Now what is needed is the ability to opt out.
Corporations are no stranger to violence. They're no stranger to organized crime dealings and tight relationships with governments. Coca-Cola for example has straight up assassinated union leaders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency)#H...
The leaders of governments can and do act like that.
Another thing that sets the government and private sector apart is that the government is under (mostly, even if indirect) democratic control, or otherwise accountable to the public, whereas the private sector can get by with bad press, so long as they can continue to operate. As an individual of average wealth, it is far less difficult to influence government policy and politicians as opposed to doing the same to a private organization.
Really, this is not about choosing between "good" and "evil", it is about choosing which evil you are most likely to be able to contain.
I'm not a hard disagree, but I think it's easier (though not easy!) to democratically will your government to regulate private companies than it is regulate itself.
Imagine living in a state where abortion laws now allow individuals to sue other individuals who have had abortions. A corporation could use grocery data to find and sue individuals who are likely to have had an abortion. The analysis would be a bit more complex than this, but just looking at grocery data, scan for people who bought pregnancy tests, bought fewer tampons than usual, and aren't buying baby food a year later. No violence, totally legal, and absolutely devastating to the individuals involved.
It is a core concept of law and statehood; if you consider it nonsense, you consider statehood of your country to be the same.
Things look different in a small high-trust country with multiple political parties. Because the country is too weak and insignificant to change the world, the government tends to focus on administering the country. Because there is a lot of trust in the society, the people who want to serve in the government are usually ideologically motivated to serve the best interests of the public. It's not a particularly lucrative or high-status career, so people with other motivations tend to go elsewhere. And while people may disagree on what exactly are the best interests of the public, there are many viable political parties to choose from.
Private firms are allowed to be evil in the sense that they can put their private interests ahead of public interests. Most of them are. And because they are private, the public has only limited means to regulate them when they misbehave blatantly. They can't, for example, vote the directors and shareholders out and replace them with people who promise to serve public interests.
Given that it's already out there, there's not much more to fear in terms of a slippery slope. All that's left is to at least force the public sector to disclose more of what's going on and regulate how private interests are allowed to use it.
Otherwise, we already have the dystopia you're imagining, we just don't see it as well.
The government has the monopoly on violence. It always has access to the data held by private parties. The government and the people serving it may choose to respect laws and other promises. They may choose to avoid accessing private data without a valid reason. But if the government chooses otherwise and requires private businesses to hand over their data, the businesses will most likely comply. If you don't want to give a government-turned-bad access to some data, that data must not be allowed to exist in the first place.
Which country are you talking about? Surely not Norway, which is a monarchy.
Yes, it is a constitutional monarchy which was introduced by vote, and given its support in the population, removing the monarchy would be quite undemocratic. One of the more radical parties in parliament has raised the issue many times; in 2019 their suggestion to abolish the monarchy got a record of 36 votes in parliament (against 130)
The article says that a number of people uses «loyalty programs». It mentions tracking though «debit card», and last time I checked Norwegians still have circulating cash. It does not mention Google, but surely there will be Norwegians that do not share data with it. Let us highlight that surely, some do not share at all.
I do not understand, contextually, the idea of «balanc[ing] the private sector power».
Debit, or mobile payments are the norm, to the point that even kids having a cookie stand will expect mobile payment.
Within a Paretian framework, anything good is an outlier. What you need is a system that allows the minoritarian good to be preserved.
So, within your sentences: "using it is an outlier for most people below 60 and for privacy conscious individuals".
Blending in is generally what a privacy minded individual wants for their data.
"Blending in" is very different from "giving away one's data" - which defies the purpose. You are confusing the two situations, of a dissident trying to conceal his position to survive, and of a normal individual that lives by the natural stance, "a citizen and a free man, never a subject".
The one intending to survive will act "in the shadow"; the one intending to defend his own Dignity will be very open in the stance "do not even try".
> With a tad more paranoia, why couldn’t ... surveillance cameras
Of course they could, and they would have to bear the consequences of facing determined lucid bersekers if they did.
May I interest you in a past submission, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31360319 , "Study finds the SARS-CoV-2 virus is not viable on cash banknotes".
About the special numbers of Sweden and Norway: this is what happens when living in Sweden and Norway, you get the false idea that reality is like Sweden and Norway look.
So don't buy booze and cigarettes on credit if you don't want your health insurance company to buy that data from your credit processor.
I’ve hunted down estranged family members before and I was kind of concerned because I was able to find a ton of information about them I wouldn’t want out on the internet