I used to have a large online presence pre-Snowden leaks and was signed up to hundreds of services, some even in my legal name. Gradually I attempted to 'go dark' and delete all those accounts, which was tedious, but worth it.<p>There's two extremes to being online: you can wear your heart on your shirt sleeve and post under your legal name, and share details about your private life, or you can be a ghost and leave no traces, or at least minimize your footprint.<p>There is this thing: some people are just so famous online, that reverting back to some private mode is nearly impossible for them. They're so out there and involved with so many services, that 'going dark' for them would be very difficult, but there are steps you can take to minimize your footprint. It's not too late to take those initial steps.<p>I encourage everyone to attempt to 'go dark' gradually and make it very expensive for people to dox you. If you turn it into a game, it's even better. I said it was tedious, but honestly I kind of like becoming a ghost. I'm so opaque to big tech now, that it must really piss them off, including dragnet surveillance.<p>It's not a life for everyone however, and sometimes I have to participate in big tech like using my smartphone to do online banking, or buying something on Amazon, but 99% of my activities online are all more-or-less anonymous and private now, and I'm happy with that.
This is a cool article. I like the narrative of "Change to a life where you are in control of your direction."<p>I am probably the most privacy conscious person of my friends (not that I do a particularly good job of it), so I spent lots of time thinking about how to communicate about privacy in a way that is effective. [We're all mid-twenties, for context.] The main issue, I find, is that people just mostly don't care.<p>That being said, most of my friends do relate (and dislike) the loss of agency that comes with giving your brain to an algorithmic feed that decides what you eat. The narrative of "control your life and decisions" would be an effective piece of rhetoric, I think!<p>The other argument I've found really effective is one that convinced me after reading Edward Snowden's memoir Permanent Record. A sketch of the point:<p>Person 1: privacy matters.
Person 2: I don't care about privacy, because I don't have anything to hide.
Person 1: Historically, the folks who were hurt because of a lack of privacy weren't us (young professionals), but rather the civil rights movement in the 1960s and the Vietnam anti-war movement, etc. Privacy is about protecting those people who the government/institutions/etc already squash down.<p>It's an argument that comes from Permanent Record, pretty much, and I think for me it is the most compelling reason that I care about privacy! Not as much for myself (although that's nice), but mostly for the people that privacy protects who really need it.<p>In my experience, it goes over very well, as people can see that privacy isn't just about doomsday preppers not wanting anyone to know where they bury their gold, but rather about protecting those people who need/deserve/would benefit from protection!<p>P.S. I'd recommend reading Permanent Record. I was only 15 or so when all that stuff went down, and really didn't know anything about it except "Snowden good or bad idk," but the book is a fantastically interesting and well-written story. I think he's kinda awesome.
I don't think everyone changes as fast as the data can get stale. Humans are both creatures of habit and agents of change. For the former, this data is still relevant and ads can do their jobs. For the latter, the data is stale and ads do not convert. Age may be a huge factor here.<p>I do believe in data privacy. Mostly from the lens of not living in a future world where data removes an individual's critical thinking ability and engagement of new experiences. This is already pretty true in corporate america & reliance on technology like map apps instead of getting lost like the article mentions.<p>For ads, I think we have to accept the reality of the world such as Jerry Mander did in 1978:<p>“If you accept the existence of advertising, you accept a system designed to persuade and to dominate minds by interfering in people's thinking patterns. You also accept that the system will be used by the sorts of people who like to influence people and are good at it. No person who did not wish to dominate others would choose to use advertising, or choosing it, succeed in it. So the basic nature of advertising and all technologies created to serve it will be consistent with this purpose, will encourage this behaviour in society, and will tend to push social evolution in this direction.” - Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television by Jerry Mander
Co founder of deleteme here. Ama. Fyi to the thread posters, Deleteme removes customer data <i>by default</i> after 6 months. Happy to hear views on what we could do better and examples of companies operating to high standards as well. Thx!
Life is an iterated game. I can see an appeal in living in a video-game kind of world where your counterparty to each interaction treats it as fresh, doesn't even really have an interior experience while it's happening, and forgets it immediately after. I can also see downsides. But that's besides the point. We don't live in that world. In our universe, interaction is a two way street. Both parties to an interaction have an interior experience of it, and that experience contributes to memory (both literal records and subtle formation of impressions/intuitions), and those memories shape the next experience.<p>The framings "your privacy," "your data," "stealing" are interesting and provocative in some cases but I see the more extreme forms of this as pining for a world in which you are the only stateful or intelligent agent. We have never lived in that world, and I don't share your conviction that we <i>obviously</i> or <i>morally</i> ought to.
The thing is, "big tech" aren't really the really scary data collectors, the data brokers are.<p>They buy details from your supermarket, health insurer etc. And yet people here don't often bring them up.
HN itself is one such black-hole of data permanentness.<p>They do not support deletion of your data, modifying of your data after 1h, and are what I would describe as a data-tarpit. Nor do they support any of the European privacy directives.<p>Sure, they're in the US, but they should definitely be forward-thinking about this stuff - The writing's on the wall.<p>It's why I create junk accounts and abandon them after a bit. Then again, this too is the endemic problem with how silicon valley is run.
The value of data declines over time, often rapidly. Think about what a business would pay for current user data, data one year old, data five years old, etc.; who buys five year old data? I suppose it depends on the application. Imagine how your life changes over time, an accumulation of small and large changes. Data on your health, finances, social network, interests, politics, activities, etc. was different 1 year ago, 5 years ago, etc.<p>The question seems like a justification for what many want to do, which is just close their eyes to the problems and not put the energy into resisting the tide toward compliance and giving power to government/corporations; it's easier, right now, to give up, and despair and powerlessness are normalized - instead of quitting being at least a bit shameful, it's cynically embraced, flauted as rebellious.
I think there is a bit of a problem with the initial analogy in the proceeding in the wrong direction won’t get me where I want to go.<p>For most people, privacy isn’t a goal in itself.
I find the only way I can get a little traction with people on this subject is through the consequences on insurance markets:<p>“Imagine you your car insurance is triple because waze said you speed”<p>“Imagine you and your entire extended family can’t get health insurance because of genetic conditions discovered via 23andme” (assumes law change)<p>“Imagine your health insurance goes up because you buy too much junk food”<p>Etc
I like the blog post and the thought experiment. However, I wish the author wouldn't have stopped with the reasoning and would have stressed his arguments further.<p>Example where his reasoning in the article is coming short, one might answer: Yes, I wanted to go to store a, and yes, after my 'highway hypnosis' I went or was brought to store b instead. So what? It doesn't really matter if I go shopping in store a or b. The important thing is - I am at a store now and can start my shopping.<p>If we evaluate that from an ethical point of view then we would have to ask about emancipation and sovereignty in regard to the choices we make, and where that fine line is, where it really starts to matter, if we go for store a or b.
Identity theft, scams, robocalls, spam, etc. all get started by harvesting people’s personal information. It’s a commodity hackers trade for big bucks. The question is how to protect yourself? I use end-to-end encryption wherever possible, so WhatsApp for chats and Neucards for contact sharing. It makes collecting my data much tougher.
Simply because it sometimes takes governments years to act on industry abuses (giving time for market correction, etc) doesn’t mean the government should not act.<p>Information based industries are absolutely abusing their access to our personal information, and they’re refusing to self correct. The governments of the world are now stepping in to correct that.<p>To be blunt, the corporations have only themselves to blame.
1. Some amount of yesterday's data is "yesterday's news"<p>2. Any reduction of data theft is progress<p>3. As a greybeard, I care more about the next and future generation's loss of privacy and impending totalitarian enslavement.<p>In a capitalistic system, people should be able to charge what they want for their commodities. My data is worth more than the thieves could pay.
One useful regulation might be to prevent neutering the functionality of a product if the user does not elect to share their data. Unless those data are part and parcel of the core functionality, choosing not to share should not prevent receiving software updates, etc.
Well, in the beginning I wasn't aware of the entire privacy topic. But now I am and I don't want any big corpo to censor me just because they already have all my life in a database.
It's definitely worth the hassle to reduce data - even though I believe it's impossible to go dark completely.<p>Whenever possible I try to not use Big Tech. My choice: Firefox, Tutanota, DuckDuckGo.
Thought experiment:<p>What if we just continue like we did in the last two decades?<p>Would there be any real harm if we simply returned to the pre "cookie banner world" of the internet?