I still cannot imagine, how and why are people buying those things. From "smart refrigerators" to "home assistants". As if owning a smartphone isn't enough privacy breach.
I still cannot imagine, how and why are people buying those things. From "smart refrigerators" to "home assistants". As if owning a smartphone isn't enough privacy breach.
It's convenience. Maybe you don't feel the need to have it, but automating mundane tasks can be fun. (I don't know what smart fridges do). I would never put any device from Facebook into my home...
It's convenience. Maybe you don't feel the need to have it, but automating mundane tasks can be fun. (I don't know what smart fridges do).
I would never put any device from Facebook into my home though
I'm all for robustly programmed devices making my life easier, but smart devices are these days synonymous with hosting proprietary, data-collecting, home-phoning software services on hardware you...
I'm all for robustly programmed devices making my life easier, but smart devices are these days synonymous with hosting proprietary, data-collecting, home-phoning software services on hardware you purchased which will stop functioning as soon as you block its access to the internet. That's something I'll never understand people wilfully adopting.
The fact that Facebook could do this is a tedious observation. But the wider point that you raise is interesting. Even back so far as we wrote our most intimate thoughts on paper and sent them to...
The fact that Facebook could do this is a tedious observation.
But the wider point that you raise is interesting. Even back so far as we wrote our most intimate thoughts on paper and sent them to other people between other pieces of paper using a third party service, we've been opening ourselves up to "privacy breaches".
Smart phones, internet, smart appliances, connected home. These are all further steps along that journey.
I used to worry a lot about privacy. I still do to some extent, but my position has changed over time as I've read more. Whilst I still believe that removing privacy (or at the very least the belief that one has privacy) from people will be incredibly destabilising, I've also come to believe that - sadly - we're ultimately living through a (broadly non-kinetic) war, and one that will probably persist forever more.
In that context, we need to pick a side. And from that, I picked the side of my (western) government, and my (western) lifestyle. The consequence of that choice is that I lose some degree or some expectation of privacy. I think it comes down to deciding on which of the two evils is the least threat to you. I believe (possibly naively) that my government broadly has my best meta-interests at heart (NB. not mine personally, but mine insofar as I'm a law-abiding, tax-paying, employed consumer who votes) and therefore they're the lesser of the evils.
This article [1] was an early step for me towards my current position and raises many interesting questions, although it's a bit tangential to your original point.
This is certainly true, but typically you could tell if the envelope had been opened and resealed (though resealing is certainly easier to do today with all the adhesives at our disposal), or if...
Even back so far as we wrote our most intimate thoughts on paper and sent them to other people between other pieces of paper using a third party service, we've been opening ourselves up to "privacy breaches".
This is certainly true, but typically you could tell if the envelope had been opened and resealed (though resealing is certainly easier to do today with all the adhesives at our disposal), or if the snooper put it in a new envelope, the handwriting on the envelope would not match the paper inside unless they were very careful. High risk for the snooper without a warrant (assuming this is the USPS) for a (usually) very low reward.
In that context, we need to pick a side. And from that, I picked the side of my (western) government, and my (western) lifestyle. The consequence of that choice is that I lose some degree or some expectation of privacy.
What country are you from? If you are from the US, are you ok with the NSA's surveillance state? Or do you live in a country where privacy is somewhat respected still?
Personally, I'm against NSA-style surveillance, not only because they have been responsible for stopping just 1 terrorist attack despite spending billions of dollars each year collecting everyone's internet traffic, but also because if the US ever has its democracy subverted and a Stasi-like agency is created, I'll probably be locked up or at least considered a potential threat to an authoritarian regime.
I'm from the UK. Not really renowned for privacy, I know. I'm against the mass-surveillance too. Primarily because of its (perceived or actual) ineffectiveness, but also from the point of view...
I'm from the UK. Not really renowned for privacy, I know.
I'm against the mass-surveillance too. Primarily because of its (perceived or actual) ineffectiveness, but also from the point of view that governments are typically pretty incompetent when it comes to big IT, and this is going to go very wrong at some point.
But my relaxation on privacy concerns is more to the point that government could choose to give me a hard time with or without my comms data. They have their own military, their own police, they have a monopoly on the legal use of force, they have almost infinitely more financial clout than I do, and they employ hundreds of thousands of people in a multitude of roles which can all be leveraged to make things difficult for me, should they choose.
The point is - why would they choose to do so?
We've already, necessarily, ceded a huge amount of power and control to the government on the basis that they will use it to forward our own (again, broadly meta-) interests. This is just the latest realm in which we're asking for their protection^, and this is form that it takes.
And back to my point on this: my government is the lesser of two evils. My government is part-funded by me, I've spent my life living under its regime, and I've broadly moulded my worldview from within these walls. I tend not to support any political party within government but hold the institution itself in high regard.
^there's an interesting debate to be had as to whether we actually ask for protection from our government, whether they are able to provide it, and indeed whether it's even the role of government to do this. I'm assuming for the sake of this conversation that we did ask, they are able, and it is normal for them to do so.
I'm from the UK as well. This is true for most governments today. Well the why could vary enormously. Being on the "wrong" side of an issue from the government's perspective, being part of certain...
I'm from the UK as well.
But my relaxation on privacy concerns is more to the point that government could choose to give me a hard time with or without my comms data. They have their own military, their own police, they have a monopoly on the legal use of force, they have almost infinitely more financial clout than I do, and they employ hundreds of thousands of people in a multitude of roles which can all be leveraged to make things difficult for me, should they choose.
This is true for most governments today.
The point is - why would they choose to do so?
Well the why could vary enormously. Being on the "wrong" side of an issue from the government's perspective, being part of certain group (political/ethnic etc etc), simply attracting attention from people who dislike you for whatever reason.
I tend not to support any political party within government but hold the institution itself in high regard.
Funny, I actually feel similarly. But the key point is that this surveillance infrastructure is already in place, regardless of who is in power. Maybe not this government, or the next, but someday those in power will find a reason to really flip the switch and exploit the full power of the system.
I still cannot imagine, how and why are people buying those things. From "smart refrigerators" to "home assistants". As if owning a smartphone isn't enough privacy breach.
It's convenience. Maybe you don't feel the need to have it, but automating mundane tasks can be fun. (I don't know what smart fridges do).
I would never put any device from Facebook into my home though
I'm all for robustly programmed devices making my life easier, but smart devices are these days synonymous with hosting proprietary, data-collecting, home-phoning software services on hardware you purchased which will stop functioning as soon as you block its access to the internet. That's something I'll never understand people wilfully adopting.
The fact that Facebook could do this is a tedious observation.
But the wider point that you raise is interesting. Even back so far as we wrote our most intimate thoughts on paper and sent them to other people between other pieces of paper using a third party service, we've been opening ourselves up to "privacy breaches".
Smart phones, internet, smart appliances, connected home. These are all further steps along that journey.
I used to worry a lot about privacy. I still do to some extent, but my position has changed over time as I've read more. Whilst I still believe that removing privacy (or at the very least the belief that one has privacy) from people will be incredibly destabilising, I've also come to believe that - sadly - we're ultimately living through a (broadly non-kinetic) war, and one that will probably persist forever more.
In that context, we need to pick a side. And from that, I picked the side of my (western) government, and my (western) lifestyle. The consequence of that choice is that I lose some degree or some expectation of privacy. I think it comes down to deciding on which of the two evils is the least threat to you. I believe (possibly naively) that my government broadly has my best meta-interests at heart (NB. not mine personally, but mine insofar as I'm a law-abiding, tax-paying, employed consumer who votes) and therefore they're the lesser of the evils.
This article [1] was an early step for me towards my current position and raises many interesting questions, although it's a bit tangential to your original point.
[1] https://www.newstatesman.com/2015/11/coming-anarchy-john-gray-isis-security-hobbes
This is certainly true, but typically you could tell if the envelope had been opened and resealed (though resealing is certainly easier to do today with all the adhesives at our disposal), or if the snooper put it in a new envelope, the handwriting on the envelope would not match the paper inside unless they were very careful. High risk for the snooper without a warrant (assuming this is the USPS) for a (usually) very low reward.
What country are you from? If you are from the US, are you ok with the NSA's surveillance state? Or do you live in a country where privacy is somewhat respected still?
Personally, I'm against NSA-style surveillance, not only because they have been responsible for stopping just 1 terrorist attack despite spending billions of dollars each year collecting everyone's internet traffic, but also because if the US ever has its democracy subverted and a Stasi-like agency is created, I'll probably be locked up or at least considered a potential threat to an authoritarian regime.
I'm from the UK. Not really renowned for privacy, I know.
I'm against the mass-surveillance too. Primarily because of its (perceived or actual) ineffectiveness, but also from the point of view that governments are typically pretty incompetent when it comes to big IT, and this is going to go very wrong at some point.
But my relaxation on privacy concerns is more to the point that government could choose to give me a hard time with or without my comms data. They have their own military, their own police, they have a monopoly on the legal use of force, they have almost infinitely more financial clout than I do, and they employ hundreds of thousands of people in a multitude of roles which can all be leveraged to make things difficult for me, should they choose.
The point is - why would they choose to do so?
We've already, necessarily, ceded a huge amount of power and control to the government on the basis that they will use it to forward our own (again, broadly meta-) interests. This is just the latest realm in which we're asking for their protection^, and this is form that it takes.
And back to my point on this: my government is the lesser of two evils. My government is part-funded by me, I've spent my life living under its regime, and I've broadly moulded my worldview from within these walls. I tend not to support any political party within government but hold the institution itself in high regard.
^there's an interesting debate to be had as to whether we actually ask for protection from our government, whether they are able to provide it, and indeed whether it's even the role of government to do this. I'm assuming for the sake of this conversation that we did ask, they are able, and it is normal for them to do so.
I'm from the UK as well.
This is true for most governments today.
Well the why could vary enormously. Being on the "wrong" side of an issue from the government's perspective, being part of certain group (political/ethnic etc etc), simply attracting attention from people who dislike you for whatever reason.
Funny, I actually feel similarly. But the key point is that this surveillance infrastructure is already in place, regardless of who is in power. Maybe not this government, or the next, but someday those in power will find a reason to really flip the switch and exploit the full power of the system.
This is a turnkey system for bad people.