Hopefully this article helps to put the lie to that kind of thinking, and we see this pervasive intrusion for what it is: corporate oppression; the abuse of the corporate power over individuals.
What I've found is many people like to complain about a lack of privacy, but are willing to make no real sacrifices to get more of it.
I don't see the "lie" involved with saying "If you don't like it, don't use it". It seems more dishonest to advocate that there is a path towards retaining privacy that still allows people to use services that intrinsically involve the person turning over information about themselves to a company.
Also - you seem to be saying that if you want privacy you should be willing to make the sacrifice of behaving like a criminal and stressfully hiding from observers on a daily basis. I fail to see why you would want society to be this way.
This is a false trade-off. Why should people have to make sacrifices to gain privacy? If people believe it's important then they'll advocate for it but that doesn't mean they should become digital hermits to prove a point.
For example (if you're a US citizen), what have you personally had to sacrifice for the rights that the Constitution provides? I doubt it was much but the people who wrote it decided that 'this is how things should be' and set things up that way. Technology is moving so fast that it's the corporations who get to 'decide' things and (understandably) they default to wanting everything. People and the law are still catching up to the consequences of this.
But why would a privacy minded person even be willing to give third parties their information? Once it's out of your hands, it's out of your control. Forget the sale of information by Facebook or Twitter. What if they get hacked, and their entire database gets exposed to the world? You can't control that.
This is why, even before the internet, those who wanted complete privacy turned into literal hermits.
If one is truly concerned about privacy, they shouldn't make that information available at all. So no Facebook, Twitter, or use of Google services.
The best way to remain private is to ensure that you don't tell anyone else the information you wish to be private at all.
We can worry less about the information we reveal if corporations are restrained from using it.
Non-out GBLT people have problems with this stuff constantly, not only with Facebook screwing up and accidentally reveling information that was set to private, but with others publicly getting outed by well-meaning friends or family before they're ready to out themselves.
Again, the damage is done when the information is revealed. You have to remember, for a lot of people the stakes aren't just avoiding a pile of baby-related coupons and spam in their e-mail. It is literally life and death for some people. While yes, we can punish the release of the information, it does not stop the damage from happening when the information is released. We should have stricter privacy protections, but at the same time, we need to have a conversation about what privacy actually means, and what the risks are for revealing information to someone else.
You're not being asked to make sacrifices to gain privacy, you're being asked to give up privacy for the sake of convenience. There's a massive difference. You have no right to use Facebook, and they have the right to ask of you almost anything they want in return for letting you use it. It's like making the claim that you have to pirate digital media because you can't buy it otherwise. You don't have a right to it in the first place, so you're not being forced to do anything. You're making a choice, and then trying to come up with a reason to morally justify your choice.
Is it inconvenient to give up your digital life? Yes. Is that a conscious choice by multiple different actors? Yes. Do you have a right to use Facebook and Amazon without them tracking you? Maybe you should but right now you don't, at least not in the US. The alternative is to not use Facebook, not use Amazon, not use Gmail. It's possible. But don't make the claim that you are being forced to make sacrifices. You're entitled to your privacy, you're not entitled to use Facebook.
Moreover, I find this kind of attitude strange. All those rights that people do have were hard-won. The right to vote, freedom of speech and association and many others. People fought for them because they were living in environments where they didn't have them. Sure, they could have moved and left everything they knew, but instead they chose to try and change things. What would the world be like if they hadn't? How does social progress take place?
It could change. But right now, you don't have that right. Facebook is not the government, and it owes you nothing.
Listen, I don't want to defend big corporations or their sleazy ways. What I'm saying is, no one is entitled to use Facebook. Thomas Jefferson didn't demand states recognize Google's privacy policy. Amazon isn't enshrined in the Magna Carta. So don't talk about sacrifice like you're losing a leg. No one is pointing a gun at you and demanding you post to Twitter.
Having a severely curtailed access to the internet is most definitely a sacrifice in modern life.
The point is that you should not have to make sacrifices for privacy.
I don't see a realistic way for that to happen. Sure we could change things, but there will be a sacrifice by someone in the system as a whole.
For example, we could pass laws banning targeted marketing. That will make advertising less valuable and companies who sell them will get less revenue because surely an advertiser won't pay the same price to show an ad for a diapers to a pregnant woman than to show it to a random sampling of society? So now my ad-supported website will make less showing ads. I'll have to compensate somehow. Maybe I'll start charging for access to make up the difference. Some people will be fine with that -- they'd rather pay more for privacy. Others won't. This kind of a solution would improve privacy. But there is still a cost.
Some people won't mind the cost. Others would rather pay by losing privacy instead. Passing laws takes away that choice from the consumer. Personally, I'd rather decide for myself than have someone make that choice for me no matter how much they think they have my interests at heart.
If your business goes away, some other business that can sustain itself under the law will pop up there (possibly in the same area of business, possibly a completely different one), or the economy will start tanking because no business can sustain themselves due to the new laws.
Sometimes it's not a good idea to leave the choice up to the consumer. (for example: If you stop allowing us to keep slaves, we'll have to pay workers and prices will rise!) Sometimes there are bigger considerations. I feel that privacy is one of those, personally, but it's valid to disagree with me.
At some point in the lifetime of a technology, choosing not to use that technology is tantamount to choosing to not participate in society.
Humans are social animals. Depriving humans of human contact is one of the worst, most barbaric punishments, and will cause insanity in a short amount of time.
The choice isn't Google or privacy. It's panopticon or solitary confinement.
In the case of Google the platform, perhaps. The main attraction is YouTube, assuming you're not working for a company that uses Docs, Hangouts or the like. While they can build a profile from you by your search queries, if you take necessary precautions to make sure that they're going to a bogus profile (and don't do any vlogging, plus limit your commenting, obviously), you'll be fine.
Avoiding smartphones is easy, because they're not a necessity. Prepaid dumbphones are cheap and disposable. Smartphones are walled gardens, anyway, so unless you want to develop apps, they're of not much use. It goes without saying that you will not be using Snapchat, Vine, Instagram or any services like that. That's hardly being deprived of contact.
It's certainly possible and manageable to opt out, you just need perseverance and a certain technical inclination.
Even if one doesn't have Gmail account but a self-hosted email server and what not, there's big chance most of their friends will only use Gmail, so Google can gather lots of data anyway.
So what? Apart from an ideological view on "privacy is good mmkay", how exactly does it hinder your life if Google knows that you are pregnant, or that if Facebook knows that you are planning up a party for a friend? Or that if company X knows you are anticipating movie Y?
What concrete things do I gain from opting out? What do I lose? How does it actually affect my life?
Edit: It's weird to receive downvotes for this as I'd assume a comment like this exactly contributes to the discussion about the topic at hand.
But why is privacy not enough? Why should I have to convince anyone else that privacy is important? If they don't care, then they don't have to be private themselves, but don't force it on other people.
If you want an actual reason, then just look through the history books about how governments were using private information against their citizens (WW2 being the best example).
"Oh, you look forward to watching V for Vendetta? New stats show that 90% of violent anarchists have watched that movie. Please come with us, citizen."
Are you claiming all the effort spent on all this by corporations is simply misguided and doesn't affect people?
/s
I could just watch regular TV instead of Hulu. Those ads are just targeted broadly by the viewership of a particular show or time-slot.
And there's no ads, ever.
And I can watch when I want, how I want.
Better yet, call it Rights-maintained Media.
It does nothing of the sort; it only makes it less likely you'll get a targeted ad, and more likely you'll get a nasty letter from your ISP instead.
These are for profit businesses and both are ultimately controlled by investors. What's to stop Google or Facebook from giving that data to your insurance company so they can increase your premiums? Or what about the case a few years ago where a girl was pregnant and her father found out when Target started sending them targeted ads and spam?
And keep in mind not only do they collect and use this data but they NEVER delete it. It's their data an it's their data for as long as they decide to keep it. What you gain is the ability to say or do something without being forced to think "in 25 years will this be used against me?"
The article cites an example of how Target outed a pregnant teenager to her family by starting to send her ads for diapers and baby supplies. Her father was angry at Target (because he thought they were promoting teen pregnancy, and not just reacting to it) until he found the truth.
What if she lived in a household where her family would kick her out for having gotten pregnant?
Another example of data leakage: when Google Reader decided to go 'social' and let you share your feeds, they turned on public sharing by default; I read one blog post afterwards about a man who followed several liberal blogs even though his family was extremely conservative. As a result, his family saw that he was reading 'that trash' (paraphrasing) and they ended up having a huge argument (and, AFAIR, making their next holiday awkward and uncomfortable).
It's also not hard to imagine targeted advertising popping up on your computer, making other people (family members? coworkers?) jump to conclusions (correct or not) about you or your lifestyle, or violent spouses noticing ads for abuse counselling based on your google searches.
Even aside from the 'it's not their business' angle, these automated data harvesting and management systems are completely impersonal; they have no idea how much you share with others already or what you don't want other people to know. When even following a liberal blog can get you in an argument with your family, there's an argument for not trusting companies implicitly to handle your data in a responsible manner.
So to answer your question, what you gain from opting out is control over your life, information about yourself, and how other people perceive you.
Because it's clearly not about control of all information about yourself, but control of very specific pieces of information about yourself that are culturally deemed private, which can be identified and accounted for.
Not just people. Insurance companies can be surprisingly intolerant of people with preexisting conditions. Companies in general can also be intolerant of their own employees searching for employment elsewhere.
>Would privacy be such an issue if being gay/straight was no more interesting than your shoe size?
Yes. Until we are a collective utopian hivemind, there will always be a need to keep secrets. You cannot account for all the possible reasons.