Hacker News Reader

Comment by amirmc | Hacker News Reader

> "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."

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.

View on HN

>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.

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.

It's only out of your control because we don't have any cultural standards or laws on what is considered to be acceptable.

Privacy is like cryptography. You're private/secure until you're not, and there's nothing you can do once it's been broken. So cultural or legal agreements or frameworks might provide some recompense, they will not stop the initial problem, which is the revealing of the information.

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.

That is an absolutist view. It's strictly true, but doesn't mean we can't change the incentives using laws.

We can worry less about the information we reveal if corporations are restrained from using it.

But corporations aren't the only problem with privacy. There are social problems, governmental problems. The author's uncle sent a public message saying that she's pregnant on Facebook. That's not Facebook's fault at all, and it can still be a problem.

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.

Some damage is done when the information is revealed. A great deal of damage can be done later.

>Why should people have to make sacrifices to gain privacy?

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.

People are not really being asked to give up their privacy. Or rather, they don't fully comprehend what they're giving up, so I'd argue that it's not at all a conscious choice for many.

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?

So change it. Maybe this is the first step. But what attitude I find strange is that anyone would say they have the right to privacy and the right to use Facebook. That's just not true. It could be in the future (Facebook is already regulated by the government in terms of privacy settings), but people tend to think the restrictions we put on the government apply to corporations as well. They don't. You can downvote it, but it doesn't make it less true.

Facebook is only entitled to use data on us however it sees fit because we allow it to. There is no reason that a culture should not restrict such activities by law if they are detrimental.

Which is why I said "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."

It could change. But right now, you don't have that right. Facebook is not the government, and it owes you nothing.

It owes us precisely what we demand of it.

Define "we". How many people are demanding Facebook change? What percentage of their userbase, and what percentage of their income? How much will Facebook stock decrease if they say "no"? The answer is none, as evidenced by the fact that this is the status quo.

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.

This is a total straw man. The issue here is about tracking by advertisers seeking to discover personal details about you. Avoiding this is not simply a matter of just not using one product. It's pervasive across all major services on the internet.

Having a severely curtailed access to the internet is most definitely a sacrifice in modern life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com