Plato saw little value in privacy. How do his ideas hold up in the...

2 Likes

“Privacy as Darkness; or, In Defense of Light”

I understand the value of privacy as a shield for mitigating the overreach of ‘the powers that be’; powers growing ever-stronger day-by-day. But fear is a troublesome thing. Give into it completely, and you’ll soon find that you’ve banished more than just your enemies. Beyond their prying eyes, you’ve done away with light itself; you’ve shrouded yourself in darkness. And now the “real fun” can begin:

Now, in the shadowed corners of your private spaces, you can bury what could’ve been cleansed; you can hide your weaknesses, your dangerous tendencies, your ignorance…

  • Worse still, maybe it’s so pitch-black you can’t even see / recognize / understand your own problems.
  • Worse still, now your wounds can fester and mutate, unchecked.
  • Worse still, you likely find the night’s embrace comfortable, safe, “cozy”:

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 ‘the powers that be’.

So: Do your walls protect you? Or do they weaken US?

2 Likes

Funnily enough, we are already living the “hypothetical” situation presented within the video to some extent:

(WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2023) – All 25 major car brands reviewed in Mozilla’s latest edition of *Privacy Not Included (*PNI) received failing marks for consumer privacy, a first in the buyer’s guide’s 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 driver’s intelligence, abilities, characteristics, preferences, and more.

Whatever the rationale behind such data collection, whether it be for purposes of “policing” others, blackmail, or simply because it is “profitable,” it’s all a bit ridiculous now isn’t 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 “smartphone,” 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 way…It hasn’t 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 hasn’t 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 “targeted advertising” and “dynamic pricing,” or placed us on “watchlists” for whatever might arouse the suspicions of petty tyrants…We are not “guinea pigs” in a corporate research project, nor are we “cattle” to be herded along by a state apparatus…

Humanity has built social structures around the idea that only those with “identification” or “qualifications” 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. I’d rather personally get to know others through conversation and shared experiences, to work together on fulfilling each other’s 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.

…Pardon my diatribe. I feel passionate this morning for some reason.

4 Likes

Plato saw little value in privacy.

He also saw little value in democracy lol. That guy’s intellectual relevance has been coasting on inertia for centuries.

Anyway for this video’s 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. It’s like I’ve heard others say before: to the rich, a parking fine isn’t a punishment; it’s just a price.

So while I get that it’s just supposed to be an exercise in asking “but what if privacy violations could be societally beneficial?” I just don’t buy this scenario. I’m too sidetracked by the logistics. (Could go on, but I’ll cut short the transit tangent.)

And that’s 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, it’s only fair to ask how that’s 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: it’s a video about fictional and nonfictional torture, with verbally graphic descriptions] – asking “what if the stars aligned in a perfect scenario where it was already predetermined for sure that the results would be good?” is actually not a very good way of learning about reality.

1 Like

It’s 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 prematurely—you have already agreed that privacy is just one tool among many that can be deployed to make society “better” 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 public’s 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 can’t be taken away just because the state or science says so.

1 Like