âPrivacy as Darkness; or, In Defense of Lightâ
I understand the value of privacy as a shield for mitigating the overreach of âthe powers that beâ; powers growing ever-stronger day-by-day. But fear is a troublesome thing. Give into it completely, and youâll soon find that youâve banished more than just your enemies. Beyond their prying eyes, youâve done away with light itself; youâve shrouded yourself in darkness. And now the âreal funâ can begin:
Now, in the shadowed corners of your private spaces, you can bury what couldâve been cleansed; you can hide your weaknesses, your dangerous tendencies, your ignoranceâŚ
- Worse still, maybe itâs so pitch-black you canât even see / recognize / understand your own problems.
- Worse still, now your wounds can fester and mutate, unchecked.
- Worse still, you likely find the nightâs embrace comfortable, safe, âcozyâ:
Congratulations, your shield is now a cage; a chamber optimized for your isolation and spiral. Your fortress impenetrable, to friend and foe alike.
Which is why I believe that it is through championing connection, not privacy, that we will find the strength needed to deal with âthe powers that beâ.
So: Do your walls protect you? Or do they weaken US?
Funnily enough, we are already living the âhypotheticalâ situation presented within the video to some extent:
(WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2023) â All 25 major car brands reviewed in Mozillaâs latest edition of *Privacy Not Included (*PNI) received failing marks for consumer privacy, a first in the buyerâs guideâs seven-year history.
According to Mozilla research, popular global brands - including BMW, Ford, Toyota, Tesla, Kia, and Subaru - can collect deeply personal data such as sexual activity, immigration status, race, facial expressions, weight, health and genetic information, and where you drive. Researchers found data is being gathered by sensors, microphones, cameras, and the phones and devices drivers connect to their cars, as well as by car apps, company websites, dealerships, and vehicle telematics. Brands can then share or sell this data to third parties. Car brands can also take much of this data and use it to develop inferences about a driverâs intelligence, abilities, characteristics, preferences, and more.
Whatever the rationale behind such data collection, whether it be for purposes of âpolicingâ others, blackmail, or simply because it is âprofitable,â itâs all a bit ridiculous now isnât it? The surveillance has become so pervasive and all-encompassing that it is almost like a parody. It is not enough that every street corner be blanketed in face-tracking CCTV and various Wi-Fi/Bluetooth/GPS beacons that continually ping your âsmartphone,â the sensors must be embedded all throughout your car, home, and within your very body whenever possible.
And to think, none of the (meta)data collected on me has ever helped me in any wayâŚIt hasnât watched over my days to help me uncover personal habits that I am unaware of so that I can live more conscientiously. My diet and activity have not been tracked so as to help predict future medical complications so that I might prevent them or increase my health. It hasnât gauged my mood or tone in reference to my relationships so that I can be reminded to treat others with more consideration and kindness. At best, it has undermined our well-being through âtargeted advertisingâ and âdynamic pricing,â or placed us on âwatchlistsâ for whatever might arouse the suspicions of petty tyrantsâŚWe are not âguinea pigsâ in a corporate research project, nor are we âcattleâ to be herded along by a state apparatusâŚ
Humanity has built social structures around the idea that only those with âidentificationâ or âqualificationsâ can participate in decisions that affect their own lives, as if those are somehow synonymous with being trustworthy. I choose to cast it all off. Iâd rather personally get to know others through conversation and shared experiences, to work together on fulfilling each otherâs needs in constructive ways. I tire of the empire of words and ideas that inhibit that. Likewise, technology can only be a boon when it is no longer used as a tool to try to control others.
âŚPardon my diatribe. I feel passionate this morning for some reason.
Plato saw little value in privacy.
He also saw little value in democracy lol. That guyâs intellectual relevance has been coasting on inertia for centuries.
Anyway for this videoâs hypothetical scenario I find myself distracted by how a financial incentive system would necessarily mean less impact to rich drivers and more for poor ones, even if the detection system were absolutely equal, because a rise in prices means proportionally less to people with more money. Itâs like Iâve heard others say before: to the rich, a parking fine isnât a punishment; itâs just a price.
So while I get that itâs just supposed to be an exercise in asking âbut what if privacy violations could be societally beneficial?â I just donât buy this scenario. Iâm too sidetracked by the logistics. (Could go on, but Iâll cut short the transit tangent.)
And thatâs not something to sweep aside for the sake of abstract reasoning, either, because if someone did want to argue against privacy this way, as something that it can benefit society to dispense with, itâs only fair to ask how thatâs actually supposed to happen in practice. As it is, I find this approach too reminiscent of the abstract hypotheticals people use to justify torture [cw: itâs a video about fictional and nonfictional torture, with verbally graphic descriptions] â asking âwhat if the stars aligned in a perfect scenario where it was already predetermined for sure that the results would be good?â is actually not a very good way of learning about reality.
Itâs a trap! The video points out the danger of arguing for privacy rights on an instrumental basis, i.e. engaging in a debate about how privacy can prevent tyranny or the prevalence of situations in which safety trumps privacy.
The problem with this line of thinking that it cedes the point prematurelyâyou have already agreed that privacy is just one tool among many that can be deployed to make society âbetterâ in some way, which means that as long as someone can come up with the right math, they can dismiss your right to privacy as inferior to the publicâs right to safe roads or what have you.
If privacy is worth anything, it has to be a fundamental right, like free speech or freedom from discrimination, that canât be taken away just because the state or science says so.