this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
511 points (94.3% liked)
Asklemmy
42520 readers
916 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thanks for writing all this. I really like that you named actual tangible negative effects of loss of privacy. Most of the usual reasons I hear are too abstract/paranoid to me and this wasn't. Suffice it to say, this is not a direction I have given much thought to so far, so feel free to tear me apart here.
The insurance and apartment scenarios are both discrimination. Why is people's first instinct here to hide instead of work to fight discrimination? We already have openly visible "attack vectors" for discrimination, like being a foreigner, disabled, or simply a woman. And while I wouldn't say the systems work perfectly, I believe we've come a long way, and only because people's weaknesses were laid out in the open and they fought to be able to live the way they are. For the insurance thing, couldn't it simply be forbidden that rates are adjusted to people's medical records? As for financial stuff, isn't it already as you said? For renting and for loans, you need to prove your credibility. And unlike with the insurance, people on both sides realize that it makes sense in this case because it is in both parties' interest that nobody commits to a financial commitment they cannot afford. And for those who cannot afford essentials, and who would be getting nothing under the harsh conditions of capitalism, there is social help. And I do believe in more/better social help systems.
As for the AfD scenario: what good does having privacy now have, if their first move can be to just forbid privacy?
In short, I think a lack of privacy is only bad in combination with the evil intent of people wanting to abuse others' weaknesses. We should try to fight the evil instead of clinging to privacy in the digital era (which I believe will be impossible within the next decade or so anyway) so we can have the advantages of more data-driven tech advancements while minimizing the negative consequences of a loss of privacy. I think we can have our cake and eat it too.
Glad it was at least somewhat helpful. This is such a vast topic that it simply can't all fit into a discussion like this and there'll always be inaccuracies or mistakes. So there are certainly plenty of those in my reasoning. You are also making a good point about discrimination being a root issue in some of my examples.
I see advocating for privacy not as "hiding", but in fact as one way to fight. And in many ways as one of the most effective. How can you discriminate against something you have no information about? To me it seems unrealistic to eliminate biases as a whole. Especially because many (arguably most) decisions are so complex that filtering out individual aspects is more or less impossible, and we can't know a persons thoughts (some they might not even be conscious about themself).
And i would argue that to do so privacy was needed. A whistleblower or journalist needs privacy as a form of protection. And those movements fighting for a good cause most of the time will not have started in the open. Instead there will likely have been a phase where people met in private to organize, discuss and share. A lack of privacy here would have probably benefited the stronger oppresive side.
The benefit is that they can (at least partially) only have access moving forward, privacy now is a shield against change in circumstances. And as mentioned once privacy on certain things is lost it can not be restored. Right now it might not be an issue to be associated with a certain person or ideology, but things can change (and we might not know how in advance).
I think this is a very idealisitc view and i disagree with your view that keeping at least some form of privacy is impossible. I do think there is an inherent value to privacy, but at least it is a valid tool to fight those malicious actors. And while it certainly cuts both ways and can also be abused, i wouldn't want to give it up because of that.
That i agree with, but in the exact opposite way. I believe that we can have digitalisation AND keep privacy as a default.
Yes in some areas we might weigh up the pros and cons, and decide that something else takes priority. But the important part for me here is the direction and the hieracy of those arguments. Because there are many benefits privacy provides (some of which i've tried to explain), i want that there to be good arguments if we decide to remove it. So convenience for example should not trump privacy.
As a side note and another example:
Anonymity (such as we have here in on this forum) can help with freedom of thought and growth. If everything i do can be directly tied to me, i might be much more conservative and careful about what i write. This ofc is something that cuts both ways and leads to harrassment, but it can also lead to safely exploring new things and growth. I don't know about you, but for me there is value in having such a space as this to discuss things. If we were e.g. on Facebook it would definitely influence me.