Privacy Inequality: The Most Brutal Form of Inequality You’ve Ever Imagined(medium.com)
medium.com
Privacy Inequality: The Most Brutal Form of Inequality You’ve Ever Imagined
https://medium.com/privateid-blog/privacy-inequality-the-most-brutal-form-of-inequality-youve-ever-imagined-e674d4f3cd42
40 comments
While I do not necessarily agree with the article, I think it provides a reasonably solid argument explaining why your reaction is not necessarily as obvious as it might seem. The big deal about privacy is that it's not immediately obvious why having your privacy invaded is a particularly awful thing, which means that many people are not especially upset about it. The article gives the example of being able to analyze the mental health of a person through little more than a recording of their voice. Other recent progress includes being able to determine a person's sexuality from their face. As time progresses we're likely going to be able to determine more and more about people from entirely passive means.
This opens up the door to immense exploitation without people ever realizing they're being exploited. Imagine we create a world with 100 people that are identical in every way except for one. 5 of those people will receive tremendous amounts of information, updated in real time, about the other 95 people. It's not hard to see that those 5 will eventually be able to obtain complete power over the 95, if they should seek it. The worst part is that it will seem all, more or less, organic - even though the conclusion is practically predetermined.
In slavery the master-slave relation, and its inequity, was extremely visible and something clearly less than comforting to the senses. Aristotle mentions abolitionists in writings that are at least some 2,300 years old. Slavery persisted not for lack of opposition but because it was seen as a necessary evil by many. As Aristotle prophetically put it, "If the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves."
But the inequity of privacy is mostly invisible. Demands for privacy are still even seen as somewhat bizarrely eccentric. It's improbable that the 'masses' will begin to understand how valuable their own privacy is any time in the foreseeable future. And so they will pay a tremendous price for this, all without ever realizing it or being able to change the trajectory that they're on.
This opens up the door to immense exploitation without people ever realizing they're being exploited. Imagine we create a world with 100 people that are identical in every way except for one. 5 of those people will receive tremendous amounts of information, updated in real time, about the other 95 people. It's not hard to see that those 5 will eventually be able to obtain complete power over the 95, if they should seek it. The worst part is that it will seem all, more or less, organic - even though the conclusion is practically predetermined.
In slavery the master-slave relation, and its inequity, was extremely visible and something clearly less than comforting to the senses. Aristotle mentions abolitionists in writings that are at least some 2,300 years old. Slavery persisted not for lack of opposition but because it was seen as a necessary evil by many. As Aristotle prophetically put it, "If the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves."
But the inequity of privacy is mostly invisible. Demands for privacy are still even seen as somewhat bizarrely eccentric. It's improbable that the 'masses' will begin to understand how valuable their own privacy is any time in the foreseeable future. And so they will pay a tremendous price for this, all without ever realizing it or being able to change the trajectory that they're on.
One can argue deprivarion of privacy for the powerless masses can lead to a society so hopelessly controlled and manipulated by the elite class that return of slavery with an even worse level of brutality suddenly becomes a practical possibility.
Slavery as you portrayed it went away but people who possess the desire to see it back in place are still alive and well.
I don't mean lack of democracy but lack of ability for the masses to have their voice heard or will respected
Slavery as you portrayed it went away but people who possess the desire to see it back in place are still alive and well.
I don't mean lack of democracy but lack of ability for the masses to have their voice heard or will respected
What you're talking about is not slavery. It might be loosely termed "institutional oppression". Basically, an oligarchic dictatorship.
Money and information are used to coerce your conformity and obedience. BUT, a person can legally opt out and just live with nothing.
Slavery is when brute physical force is used to coerce conformity and obedience. A slave can NEVER legally opt out. and the slave ALWAYS lives with nothing, because he IS property.
I'd imagine most humans would choose to live with being forced to behave in society to get money, and then going home, rather than to have to live with cradle to grave slavery. To equate them is just, kind of, being a little sensationalist.
Money and information are used to coerce your conformity and obedience. BUT, a person can legally opt out and just live with nothing.
Slavery is when brute physical force is used to coerce conformity and obedience. A slave can NEVER legally opt out. and the slave ALWAYS lives with nothing, because he IS property.
I'd imagine most humans would choose to live with being forced to behave in society to get money, and then going home, rather than to have to live with cradle to grave slavery. To equate them is just, kind of, being a little sensationalist.
No,i meant slavery as in 1800s whiplashing and lynching slavery.
Institutional oppression is what you think I meant,what i meant was a dystopian future where privacy erosion has lead to a world where your every move and intention is analyzed for conformity by the elite class. You can optin and opt out,elect leaders or overhtrow dictators because you can organize in groups,think and plan without your adversary knowing your every move.
If someone controls what information you consume and every reaction you have to a given scenario or information then they can control you to the point where even the brutal form of slavery can be thought of as acceptable.
Institutional oppression is what you think I meant,what i meant was a dystopian future where privacy erosion has lead to a world where your every move and intention is analyzed for conformity by the elite class. You can optin and opt out,elect leaders or overhtrow dictators because you can organize in groups,think and plan without your adversary knowing your every move.
If someone controls what information you consume and every reaction you have to a given scenario or information then they can control you to the point where even the brutal form of slavery can be thought of as acceptable.
But in your hypothetical future you can still legally opt out, and live with nothing.
A slave can never legally opt out and choose to live on his own with nothing.
You are saying that there exists a level of information control that would justify slavery in the minds of the masses. I'm saying there is no such level of information control. (In fact, it would never even be justified in the minds of all the elites.)
We just need to agree to disagree. But I really think you're doing a serious reach in order to make a connection from privacy to slavery. And the sensationalism around this issue is what is keeping the masses right now from taking it seriously. We need to be explaining actual consequences to the masses, not shouting alarmist nonsense at them and then calling them stupid for not listening.
A slave can never legally opt out and choose to live on his own with nothing.
You are saying that there exists a level of information control that would justify slavery in the minds of the masses. I'm saying there is no such level of information control. (In fact, it would never even be justified in the minds of all the elites.)
We just need to agree to disagree. But I really think you're doing a serious reach in order to make a connection from privacy to slavery. And the sensationalism around this issue is what is keeping the masses right now from taking it seriously. We need to be explaining actual consequences to the masses, not shouting alarmist nonsense at them and then calling them stupid for not listening.
For me, I think this can be summed to: asymmetric use of $x against $y can lead to $z.
My question, not for you but in general, what tool (or what functions of such tool will be nessisarcy) for lowering chances of $z (if indeed $z is agreed to be undesirable by many in all forms and not just for virtue signaling) as applied to privacy and its exploitation for large gains skewed in favor for the few?
My question, not for you but in general, what tool (or what functions of such tool will be nessisarcy) for lowering chances of $z (if indeed $z is agreed to be undesirable by many in all forms and not just for virtue signaling) as applied to privacy and its exploitation for large gains skewed in favor for the few?
I would also argue torture being something worse. Hell, even online privacy inequality isn't the worst thing that comes to mind. Steal my browser history all you want if the alternative is to steal my identity and my money.
Not to be too morose / Black Mirror about it, but what would sociopaths in the wealthy 'protected class' described in the article do, with all their free time and resources and immunity from scrutiny?
I'd suggest they'd push the 'predictable' to play out games (theater, tragedy, whatever) for their own entertainment - a form of unwitting slavery or perhaps torture in the case of real emotional pain caused to the unwitting participants.
Definitely an 'out there' idea, but figured I'd mention it since it occurred to me. In a way it's an arc of the plot of Mr. Robot so far, so it's not a totally new idea.
I'd suggest they'd push the 'predictable' to play out games (theater, tragedy, whatever) for their own entertainment - a form of unwitting slavery or perhaps torture in the case of real emotional pain caused to the unwitting participants.
Definitely an 'out there' idea, but figured I'd mention it since it occurred to me. In a way it's an arc of the plot of Mr. Robot so far, so it's not a totally new idea.
Why would it be an out there idea when analogous sorts of behavior is something that happens at all levels? You only need to look at the middle class to see the same thing quite visible in action. There are endless incidents of individuals treating e.g. homeless individuals as something less than human. Attacking them, having them engage in demeaning behavior for pittances, and so on. It's not like being of any class inherently stops one from acting out sadistic forms of "entertainment."
the big difference is that with slavery and related forms of inequality, the brutality is obvious. with privacy it isn't.
slavery has no future because once discovered, it's easily stopped today, and it will be even more easy in the future.
privacy violations on the other hand are much more difficult to discover and stop, if people are even aware of the problem. the real danger here is that your privacy is violated and you don't even know it.
slavery has no future because once discovered, it's easily stopped today, and it will be even more easy in the future.
privacy violations on the other hand are much more difficult to discover and stop, if people are even aware of the problem. the real danger here is that your privacy is violated and you don't even know it.
[deleted]
The article paints a pretty bleak picture, but it's even worse when we consider that even the author has bought in to privacy destroying narratives and technologies. I mean, the guy just posted an article on privacy inequality on a site that requires a third party login to discuss said article??? Don't even get me started on his belief that Elon Musk and companies like Tesla will be bulwarks against privacy inequality???
Keep in mind, this is a guy who, at least, knows that privacy inequality exists. And even he is given to almost naturally accepting narratives and technologies that are a direct threat to equality in this regard. So if even guys like the author are able to be seamlessly integrated into the future system of asymmetric privacy we're creating, then there really isn't much hope for most of the world's population who are liable to be a good deal less thoughtful.
All that said, HN User slfnflctd is correct, privacy inequality is bad, but there are much worse causes of suffering for humanity. Slavery does spring immediately to mind. Rape, Genocides. Etc. Privacy inequality might help to enable some of those things, but those things certainly exist with no help from privacy inequality at all.
Keep in mind, this is a guy who, at least, knows that privacy inequality exists. And even he is given to almost naturally accepting narratives and technologies that are a direct threat to equality in this regard. So if even guys like the author are able to be seamlessly integrated into the future system of asymmetric privacy we're creating, then there really isn't much hope for most of the world's population who are liable to be a good deal less thoughtful.
All that said, HN User slfnflctd is correct, privacy inequality is bad, but there are much worse causes of suffering for humanity. Slavery does spring immediately to mind. Rape, Genocides. Etc. Privacy inequality might help to enable some of those things, but those things certainly exist with no help from privacy inequality at all.
This took too long to get to the point. Even with aggressive skimming and a big interest in the subject I gave up
This is mostly a whiny article followed by an ad for the author's site which starts by wanting either your email or your money.
There are better advocates for stronger privacy. A good starting position is that the US needs something as strong as the EU's GDPR. With teeth. Might happen. See this Register article.[1]
We need a good event involving the privacy of some political official, preferably one on the right. The US got the Video Rental Privacy Act because Robert Bork's porno videotape rentals became public knowledge. Although that was weakened in 2013 due to Netflix lobbying.
[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/08/gdpr_usa_congressma...
There are better advocates for stronger privacy. A good starting position is that the US needs something as strong as the EU's GDPR. With teeth. Might happen. See this Register article.[1]
We need a good event involving the privacy of some political official, preferably one on the right. The US got the Video Rental Privacy Act because Robert Bork's porno videotape rentals became public knowledge. Although that was weakened in 2013 due to Netflix lobbying.
[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/08/gdpr_usa_congressma...
> The issue first surfaced during Bork`s confirmation hearings, when a Washington newspaper published lists of the judge`s video rentals during the last several years. The films were general releases such as ''Ruthless People,'' ''The Man Who Knew Too Much'' and ''A Day at the Races''; there were no X-rated rentals.
~Chicago Tribune, November 20, 1987 (source: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1987-11-20-870327...)
~Chicago Tribune, November 20, 1987 (source: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1987-11-20-870327...)
> “whiny article”
“I thought repeating a grade was my fault, but later I realized it was the teacher’s fault”. Really? Look, not to step on any toes here but... how many other kids in your “village” had to repeat grades? Didn’t they have the same teachers?
“I thought repeating a grade was my fault, but later I realized it was the teacher’s fault”. Really? Look, not to step on any toes here but... how many other kids in your “village” had to repeat grades? Didn’t they have the same teachers?
Privacy inequality exists, and it goes the other way, at least in the west. In practice, the richer and more famous you are, the less privacy you have.
If you are rich, you are a target for everyone who wants a part of your money, from criminals to opportunists. Stars have their paparazzis. And even in their inside world, the rich typically have many people working for them. If you don't drive by yourself, your chauffeur knows where you are going, your accountant knows how you spend your money, your cook knows when and what you are eating, etc...
It has serious consequences. It very famously killed Diana for instance.
And think about "the fappening", where celebrity nudes leaked out. It is not the king of things that happen to average girls. I know someone who "revenge porned" his ex girlfriend, it didn't go far. She is pretty but average, and no one took interest. That's what protected her privacy.
The author mentioned things like targeted ads, where only the rich can opt out. Sure, but if you aren't rich, where is the big deal. Advertisers aren't after the money you don't have. Maybe some company have a lot of details about your life, but no one will really care. OTOH, the rich and famous have actual people tracking them constantly. The fortunes they spend for their privacy and security only gets them what we naturally have just by being average.
It is interesting to note that in 1984, the ones who enjoy the most privacy are the proles, the lower class.
If you are rich, you are a target for everyone who wants a part of your money, from criminals to opportunists. Stars have their paparazzis. And even in their inside world, the rich typically have many people working for them. If you don't drive by yourself, your chauffeur knows where you are going, your accountant knows how you spend your money, your cook knows when and what you are eating, etc...
It has serious consequences. It very famously killed Diana for instance.
And think about "the fappening", where celebrity nudes leaked out. It is not the king of things that happen to average girls. I know someone who "revenge porned" his ex girlfriend, it didn't go far. She is pretty but average, and no one took interest. That's what protected her privacy.
The author mentioned things like targeted ads, where only the rich can opt out. Sure, but if you aren't rich, where is the big deal. Advertisers aren't after the money you don't have. Maybe some company have a lot of details about your life, but no one will really care. OTOH, the rich and famous have actual people tracking them constantly. The fortunes they spend for their privacy and security only gets them what we naturally have just by being average.
It is interesting to note that in 1984, the ones who enjoy the most privacy are the proles, the lower class.
When you're 40% through the piece and the author still hasn't gotten around to the point mentioned in the title, you've got yourself a badly written article.
Don't waste your time. Author should have incubated this thought more.
Don't waste your time. Author should have incubated this thought more.
The idea that you can pay for privacy is a fantasy.
Just like in every surveillance state in the past, the people with the most privacy will be the people who are in charge of the surveillance. The people who will be the most monitored are the people who individuals in the surveillance apparatus want something from, or are offended and annoyed by. The civilian government reports to the surveillance apparatus in a surveillance state, not the other way around; and you probably won't even know the name of the person who really runs the country.
If you can see everything that people do, you can destroy them at will. If you can't find anything they've done, you can figure out something they could have done, and extortion easily provides eyewitnesses and covert agents in order to set people up. If necessary, you can extort necessary elements of the justice system to make the decisions you want, or just blatantly do what you want in total daylight, and make sure that nobody ever reports on it, no one is arrested, and witnesses are either securely threatened or disposed of in the same way.
It's depressing that we're arguing about whether public or private surveillance is worse, whether convenience or discounts are worth the exchange, or in this sadly gone awry "left" critique, whether there will be differences between the privacy of the rich and the poor.
Instead, maybe argue about why we've installed microphones every 10 feet that report to central servers in a way that cannot be audited. The technology is the enemy, it's just waiting for the right user.
Just like in every surveillance state in the past, the people with the most privacy will be the people who are in charge of the surveillance. The people who will be the most monitored are the people who individuals in the surveillance apparatus want something from, or are offended and annoyed by. The civilian government reports to the surveillance apparatus in a surveillance state, not the other way around; and you probably won't even know the name of the person who really runs the country.
If you can see everything that people do, you can destroy them at will. If you can't find anything they've done, you can figure out something they could have done, and extortion easily provides eyewitnesses and covert agents in order to set people up. If necessary, you can extort necessary elements of the justice system to make the decisions you want, or just blatantly do what you want in total daylight, and make sure that nobody ever reports on it, no one is arrested, and witnesses are either securely threatened or disposed of in the same way.
It's depressing that we're arguing about whether public or private surveillance is worse, whether convenience or discounts are worth the exchange, or in this sadly gone awry "left" critique, whether there will be differences between the privacy of the rich and the poor.
Instead, maybe argue about why we've installed microphones every 10 feet that report to central servers in a way that cannot be audited. The technology is the enemy, it's just waiting for the right user.
Is it just me, or is this terribly written?
hyperbole: our deadliest foible
I can imagine much more brutal things.
the irony of writing it in medium.com
TL;DR - author watched too much sci-fi and decided to write his (bad) own dystopia with castes etc.
Some highlights for people having a hard time reading the article:
"Simply put, your raw data is everything about you: your age, location, preferences, how tall you are, go down the list. But the tricky one is the predictability of your data. And what people when say that Facebook knows people better than they significant other (and themselves), is that they can predict what you’re going to do before you, or your significant other, are aware of it. That’s so powerful. When you get tons of data from a person and put the right algorithms to work, you can start getting interesting (or scary) results."
"Privacy becomes a human right in the moment someone or something invades your personal space (either physically or digitally) in order to extract monetary value from you. That’s our value as human beings, and companies and governments steal that value from us. What do we do? We just give away because we’ve got no idea of our own value as human beings." (great point: it's extraction)
"There are so many things you can do with data. Today. But, what could be done tomorrow with that same data? If today we can predict the mental health of an individual through a voice recording, what will we be able to do with that same data five years from now?"
Employers and governments are either considering or already doing stuff like that in ways that will surely impact workers.
"Here’s my prediction: At some point this situation will create two castes of people: The Protected and The Predictables... The Protected are the ones who can afford to pay for privacy. These group understand that their privacy is their very human value and want to protect it. However, The Predictables are the ones who can’t pay for privacy. These are ones who live in a Matrix style algorithm. Maybe they know privacy should be a human right, but probably will fail to understand its value and the impact it has on them. The ones who have lots of opportunities and resources will be given more. And the ones with few opportunities and resources will be taken away, even more"
"...it’s easy to see how this inequality is going to hit us: overpriced insurance, bank loans denial (or high interest), unaffordable healthcare, highly targeted advertising, political manipulation, and simple opportunity cost of opportunity."
"Because companies are too busy making money and we’re too busy using their “free” stuff. So it’s not surprising that they end up getting away with it. Consider Facebook. Since 2005 Facebook has been involved in all sorts of scandals, and every single time they get away with it. They masquerade their way out, telling one story to the investor and another to the public."
"Privacy inequality will take everything to the edges. Some kids will be lucky and might be able to afford privacy protection. Maybe that will be paying for products that watch their privacy or a kind of antivirus, who knows. But other kids won’t be able to pay for it and will choose the “free” option — others just won’t understand their value as human beings and will pick the free version, because it’s a bargain, right? Alas, they will grow up with inequalities worse that the one I had at school, or any other you have had in your entire life."
"We seem to forget that for decades we’ve been fighting for freedom and equality. Now we’re throwing it all away, and for what, free dumbass apps?"
"Simply put, your raw data is everything about you: your age, location, preferences, how tall you are, go down the list. But the tricky one is the predictability of your data. And what people when say that Facebook knows people better than they significant other (and themselves), is that they can predict what you’re going to do before you, or your significant other, are aware of it. That’s so powerful. When you get tons of data from a person and put the right algorithms to work, you can start getting interesting (or scary) results."
"Privacy becomes a human right in the moment someone or something invades your personal space (either physically or digitally) in order to extract monetary value from you. That’s our value as human beings, and companies and governments steal that value from us. What do we do? We just give away because we’ve got no idea of our own value as human beings." (great point: it's extraction)
"There are so many things you can do with data. Today. But, what could be done tomorrow with that same data? If today we can predict the mental health of an individual through a voice recording, what will we be able to do with that same data five years from now?"
Employers and governments are either considering or already doing stuff like that in ways that will surely impact workers.
"Here’s my prediction: At some point this situation will create two castes of people: The Protected and The Predictables... The Protected are the ones who can afford to pay for privacy. These group understand that their privacy is their very human value and want to protect it. However, The Predictables are the ones who can’t pay for privacy. These are ones who live in a Matrix style algorithm. Maybe they know privacy should be a human right, but probably will fail to understand its value and the impact it has on them. The ones who have lots of opportunities and resources will be given more. And the ones with few opportunities and resources will be taken away, even more"
"...it’s easy to see how this inequality is going to hit us: overpriced insurance, bank loans denial (or high interest), unaffordable healthcare, highly targeted advertising, political manipulation, and simple opportunity cost of opportunity."
"Because companies are too busy making money and we’re too busy using their “free” stuff. So it’s not surprising that they end up getting away with it. Consider Facebook. Since 2005 Facebook has been involved in all sorts of scandals, and every single time they get away with it. They masquerade their way out, telling one story to the investor and another to the public."
"Privacy inequality will take everything to the edges. Some kids will be lucky and might be able to afford privacy protection. Maybe that will be paying for products that watch their privacy or a kind of antivirus, who knows. But other kids won’t be able to pay for it and will choose the “free” option — others just won’t understand their value as human beings and will pick the free version, because it’s a bargain, right? Alas, they will grow up with inequalities worse that the one I had at school, or any other you have had in your entire life."
"We seem to forget that for decades we’ve been fighting for freedom and equality. Now we’re throwing it all away, and for what, free dumbass apps?"
tl;dr, anybody? What makes privacy inequality so bad? And is the inequality the problem, or the lack of privacy? (A parallel question can often be asked of wealth inequality.)
Found a collection of such, albeit not necessarily specifically in response to this article:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18829422
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18829422
I think the author does a rather mediocre job on explaining a point that's IMHO critically important.
Here's Yuval Noah Harari explaining it much better: https://youtu.be/Bw9P_ZXWDJU?t=269
His basic argument is that: 1) free will has always been an illusion, 2) it was an acceptable one because generally no one knew you better than you know yourself, 3) with the advent of mass data processing (call it AI if you want) the premise 2 breaks down, and we should be skeptical of trusting people's judgement. For example, the fundamental ideas underpinning liberal democracies and capitalism ("the customer is always right", "this is what voters want", ...) become unreliable.
Here's Yuval Noah Harari explaining it much better: https://youtu.be/Bw9P_ZXWDJU?t=269
His basic argument is that: 1) free will has always been an illusion, 2) it was an acceptable one because generally no one knew you better than you know yourself, 3) with the advent of mass data processing (call it AI if you want) the premise 2 breaks down, and we should be skeptical of trusting people's judgement. For example, the fundamental ideas underpinning liberal democracies and capitalism ("the customer is always right", "this is what voters want", ...) become unreliable.
Yeah, mysterious data centers logging everything you do is scary, but have you ever been beaten bloody because you lacked the physical ability to pick the required cotton quota? Whoever wrote this title needs a serious dose of perspective. And to rewrite the title.