I doubt it's even the major concern of most people in Western countries due to unemployment, poverty, debt etc. let alone developing nations which have the real risk of actual famine and so on.
Violation of privacy might lead to the situation that someone will be unemployed forever because of something that he or she wrote 20 years ago on Facebook or employees managed to fetch data that a person was depressed, has many kids, etc.
Massive abuse of privacy will lead sooner or later to some kind corporate version of Chinese social score system. For now it looks innocent, someone gave you a bad ranking on AirBnB, who cares? But in 10 years some bad ranking on some future social platform might keep person homeless because nobody will want to rent a flat because someone's kids stained the walls in the rented apartment.
Those in poverty, unemployed, in debts will be first victims of such system.
Yeah but should it be? I am from India and we really had the opportunity to nip this in the bud. This will become a problem within the next decade, and that is the day when people will have the right but not the will to say I told you so. This thinking that you should only solve problems in their immediate time is faulty. If something can be solved now with smaller effort than later, it should be solved now.
Edit: think of how we prioritize stuff in software.
A person that is starving right now does not care that the poor will be the first on the proverbial chopping block when global warming comes home to roost... because they are starving right now.
> keep person homeless because nobody will want to rent a flat because someone's kids stained the walls in the rented apartment.
If Evan's kids stain the wall, then Evan's kids are more likely to stain the wall. Currently, the expectation of someone being more likely to stain the walls is "priced in" to the rental prices everywhere. People who don't stain walls pay a little more, and people whose kids stain the wall cost their owners a little more, but on average it comes out (hope you can own a lot of domiciles).
If we start to be able to measure this, doesn't this mean we can more accurately price it? People less likely will pay less, and people more likely will pay more. I think you're suggesting that "Owners will just use the likelihood of damages as a threshold, and if you're 0.01 above the Unsafe/Volatile threshold you'll not be rented to at all", but that leaves a pretty big hole in the market. If there's not enough supply, then people are being kicked out instead of Evan _now_, and if there is enough supply, then you'd rather rent to Evan at higher rates to cover your risks than to not rent at all, right?
The current situation kinda feels like an "insurance" thing, with pooled risk.
When hearing how US credit scoring works I do not think it is a system worth striving for.
This quickly becomes analogue to another HN discussion today about job opportunities for felons. That is hard threshold - it is easier just to skip them.
Should we let the market forces rule freely?
If not totally free then how big a pooled risk is acceptable to you? A pool for those with kids and another for those without?
I have no kids and personally I prefer one pool. Even with those unruly kids upstairs!
When I see a society with gated communities I feel sorry for them. I live a place where we do not have them and I am grateful for that. They might be happier than me - but I do still not envy them.
I often find people who argue fair pricing are the ones who think they are in the sweet spot.
The example seems a little contrived as well. If Evans kid stains the wall he would fix it. If not - then it is when you have the deposit to mitigate that risk.
I do however get the gist of it. And personally I like the pooled risk. I think that we do much better together than as individuals. The pricing might seem unfair but sometimes it in your direct favour. And the "insurance" feels nice too.
Naturally it comes down to your own philosophy.
So while I agree that it could give a variant of more accurately pricing I do not think that kind of "precision" is healthy.
I am afraid that the privacy ship has sailed but I still think it is worth fighting as the current course have a high risk of a truly dystopian future.
Ok but being real for a second, this is extremely difficult to imagine happening. What on earth could you write on facebook 20 years ago, short of a confession to a heinous crime, that would make you unemployable?
We're left in a situation where -- once again -- the educated and wealthy have an advantage over the poor and unfortunate by just knowing how to hide their mistakes.
Anyone who says privacy is a privileged person's issue is shortsighted
The biggest issue I've faced is stubbing my toe. Being obligated to think and care about such things I've determined that stubbed toes are the most important concept of our time.
Those of us with privileged lives should feel obligated to think beyond our bubbles and look at the real issues affecting people who are less privileged.
Health care -- it's too expensive
Wages -- Working a 40 and being able to make it in a reasonable, modest way.
Environment -- Things are changing rapidly, risk goes up, cost goes up
People are concerned about privacy, and it's important, but basic life is well above it on the radar.
Your comment seconded, the point being "most important" is very highly debatable, depending on what one may be experiencing.
And I would add, improvements on all those fronts would free people to get more involved, and that may well impact how well we can address privacy.
The whole most important is a straw man kinda argument anyway, because it's possibly to have more than one "very important thing", and for the difficult stuff in life you often can't optimize for just one thing.
Exploiting private information has also made some companies very rich. There is an element of fairness of distribution here... If you take from me what I have not willingly given and you make huge profits, you should share your wealth and/or invest in my community.
I agree that people who live in a democracy are privileged. Whether they will be wise enough to contribute depends on their education.
But education is a hard problem. Instead of citizens, we often find foolish purchase-zombies. "Why vote? It's all so corrupt, what can we do? Let's go to the sale instead!"
At this point I do my best to avoid social media , theirs a ton of potential downside for very little benefit.
In case of cars though wrong design choices in older cars could be phased out eventually but in case of online platforms the choices will remain there for more number of people in terms of market penetration given the explosion social networks are having in the last decade. Even if vast majority of people prioritize other things over privacy, vocal and knowledgeable minority need to raise the concerns of the choices unknowingly being made by less knowledgeable people.
Lot of people do not have the luxury to focus on privacy concerns, the same way lot of people do not have the luxury to care or focus on climate issues. Does that make privacy and climate concerns something reserved for "people with privileged life"? It seems quite clear to me that's not the case. They are both a concern for everyone but some have more freedom to spend time caring about them. Lot of people are struggling with other more immediate issues, but that doesn't reduce in any case the importance of privacy.
When those nations are solved from their immediate problems, they will also need to deal with privacy and these ethical questions. We just have a head start and we can already ask the the questions and find solutions for it.
I would hardly call life in the GDR 'privileged'.
It's easy to forget today and from a Western point of view that privacy is a basic human right, not a feature of your smartphone to protect from tracking ads.
I don't think many East Germans would take the GDR back in return for guarantees that views would stay private so long as they were expressed in private...
Privacy isn't an optional feature you can "chose" to have or even have much control over, it is a basic right that is either violated or honored by those in power.
Better a Germany where people feel safe to share far more on social media than the Stasi could ever have collected, because they don't expect to suffer consequences from doing so.
Famine, debt, etc are well known issues but we know about them from bygone eras.
Privacy is changing in ways that are only apparent recently. Who'd have thought 20 years ago about your personal data being mined for profit? Apart from a few forward thinkers, probably not too many.
The hardness to maintain privacy will be used as a means of significant control over access to money in all ways.
Also: I hate your use of "priviledge" to argue anything anytime in any context without a proper thought. You haven't even made a point.