I am generally favourable to limiting the tracking we allow companies to perform at the legislative level because I'm pretty sure they are going to end up doing something nefarious to some group at some point going after a quick buck. I don't think the government should hold more than necessary because I fear what they can find in the aggregate.
But on a personnal level? What do you gain from going to extreme to avoid the surveillance you think you know? It seems to be a hassle with no upside.
I don't really understand your distinction, unless you're saying that you're OK with the government (the same government you point out as a risk in the next sentence?) limiting data collection on your behalf, but you're not prepared to take personal action? How are these different outcomes?
I think supermarkets taking pictures of my face when at a checkout is outrageous and should be outlawed, but I personally gain nothing by forgoing shopping for groceries where it's most convenient for me and my family.
> but I personally gain nothing by forgoing shopping for groceries where it's most convenient for me and my family.
Taking pics of your face at checkout is bad enough, but if you don't push back against the slow creep of data collection somehow, it will not end there. What they've really been pushing for, for a long time now, is Personalized Dynamic Pricing (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338776528_A_special...) which means that once the store knows who you are (either by your photo, or by detecting the phone in your pocket, or by your loyalty card) they will alter the prices at the register to make as much money from you as they think they can get away with. They can drive up the price on items you always buy, or lower the price on certain items to attract you to them now so they can charge you more later. They can use data like what buy as well data like your income level, who the members of your household are, and what your shopping habits elsewhere are.
You gain a lot by pushing back on invasive tracking and violations of your privacy because those things exist only to let other people manipulate you and take more of your money. You'll likely never be told when or how the data someone somewhere managed to collect from you is later being used to screw you over, but it will be used to screw you over. Buy too much unhealthy food and your health insurance premiums go up. Buy a little too much alcohol, and now you've lost that job you wanted because your employer sees that and decides to hire the next candidate who has "better" habits. You never know what will prejudice someone against you, but all that data never goes away. It follows you for the rest of your life.
What you gain by pushing back is that there will be less ammo for others to use against you later. If that means driving an extra 10 minutes to the grocery store that doesn't record your face at the register, it's absolutely worth it for you.
That doesn't mean you can't ever go to disney world or that you have to walk around in Dazzle face paint to fool the cameras, but you should be aware of the risks to you and your children and you should be willing to take even small steps to protect them and yourself.
Laws are made by people. Those legislators sometimes respond to shifting Overton windows. Your actions and motivations can make a small difference. More actions makes more difference.
Consider the Suffragettes. Few people today would think women should be deprived of a vote. In the early twentieth century too, many thought it would be a good idea, but didn't want to make any personal sacrifice for the cause. It took single-minded actions of a few dedicated individuals and their tacit support by the majority to drive the necessary changes.
Buran’s Razor
I’m not exactly sure why Disney wants to track the fuck out of me right now, but if they value my information for some reason maybe I should too. Maybe someday I’ll find out why they wanted my information, better be prepared now.
Just watching a few episodes of Black Mirror and I have all the incentive I need. To use a bad analogy - I don't need to be faster than the cheetah, just faster than my unfortunate neighbor.
But that assumes that the bad consequences of these things will only fall on those who participated in bringing them about. I think of the data/surveillance system as being similar to global warming. Sure, it's good if I try to be more efficient and support places who do, but if 90% of the world still burns coal like there's no problem, I still get screwed in the next 50 years. I don't get to plead with the climate for mercy because I tried, and I don't get to plead with whatever Black Mirror dystopia may come because I didn't help create it.
If anything, it's closer to that thought experiment around AI where if you tried to stop the killer AI from taking over the world, when it does arrive, you're the first to die because it knows you hate it. If we end up all living in Google's country or whatever, your friends with Android phones and Gmail accounts are going to be the ones faster than you and not the other way around.
None of this to say you shouldn't try to effect change, but don't mistake principle with self-preservation.
Not exactly, but the sort of "I don't have to outrun the bear" mantra only works if the bear is going to stop at the first person. I'm certainly not saying to give up, but you need to prepare for things to get worse whether or not you participate in causing things to get worse. It's not reasonable to say you did your part to not be tracked and therefore you're guarded against Google taking over the world or whatever.
I don't go to extremes. That was the point of my comment.
I do avoid having data collected about me to a large degree, though, mostly by avoiding things that involve data collection where reasonably possible. So I won't go to a Disney property, I don't use SaaS services, etc. Once my current smartphone breaks, I won't be getting another smartphone.
Why? Simply because I don't like being spied on and resent the constant attempts at doing so. It's really no more complicated than that.
Well, there are a few other aspects (such as that none of the companies who are involved in the domestic surveillance industry are trustworthy), but "I don't want to be spied on" is the main thing.
some would say that constant 24/7 surveillance is extreme, yet those that resist such behavior are labeled extremists.
we created the world where this extreme behavior is normalized; I don't consider it to be extreme to strive for other paths -- even if it may be out of lock-step with society; if anything I view such calls for a return to basics as a moderating factor against such extreme abuse of non-corporate humans.
Maybe, but most people I interact with wouldn't. Except, perhaps, the smartphone part, but most people are far more dependent on their smartphones than I am. I don't view my efforts as going to extremes because they aren't imposing a huge burden or loss on me.
To me, the "why do you want privacy" question is a very odd one. In my worldview, my desire for it is literally no different than my desire to have curtains on my windows. I find it somewhat amazing that this is something others struggle to understand.
Roughly true, if you also avoid using the vast majority of smartphone apps. But for me, going that route is an even greater inconvenience than just not having a smartphone. It requires greater vigilance and caution.
The path of least resistance for me is to avoid smartphones and use a real pocket computer instead.
Honest question, why?
I am generally favourable to limiting the tracking we allow companies to perform at the legislative level because I'm pretty sure they are going to end up doing something nefarious to some group at some point going after a quick buck. I don't think the government should hold more than necessary because I fear what they can find in the aggregate.
But on a personnal level? What do you gain from going to extreme to avoid the surveillance you think you know? It seems to be a hassle with no upside.