The Criminalization of Privacy
December 21, 2022 3:29 PM Subscribe
The emergence of concepts such as the “dark Web” and the “deep Web” represents a case of a “rhetorical invention” — a sociocultural process in which novelties are constructed by language and connected to a specific discourse and ideology. Such discursive constructions are never neutral, each carrying with them a range of connotations and meanings that contribute to shape wider media imaginaries and representations. Overall, our analysis shows that British newspapers’ uses of these concepts encapsulated specific visions of the relationships between surveillance and privacy on the Web, consistently linking privacy-enabling technologies to criminal activities and behaviors. Much like the sociotechnical imaginaries of electronic payment underpinned the equivalence of data and money, news media’s representation of the “dark” Web brought forward a vision that associated the use of tools to evade surveillance in the Web with malicious endeavors. We argue that such a vision signals what we propose to call a criminalization of privacy that is affecting on how privacy and surveillance on the Web are framed and publicly discussed in the public sphere. from "Inventing the Dark Web: Criminalization of Privacy and the Apocalyptic Turn in the Imaginary of the Web"
The older I get the more I realize just how much the information - or "information" - we're fed on a daily basis is crafted to fit the agenda of people who have their own interests in mind.
I know that's not a new thing or an original insight, but its depth and breadth never cease to amaze (and discourage) me. As a wise woman once said, "No matter how cynical I get, it's hard to keep up."
posted by Greg_Ace at 4:58 PM on December 21, 2022 [25 favorites]
I know that's not a new thing or an original insight, but its depth and breadth never cease to amaze (and discourage) me. As a wise woman once said, "No matter how cynical I get, it's hard to keep up."
posted by Greg_Ace at 4:58 PM on December 21, 2022 [25 favorites]
The FBI is cranky with Apple for making their devices private. Gmail is beginning user-end encryption to aid privacy. I see this is a war that is going to escalate.
posted by hippybear at 5:03 PM on December 21, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 5:03 PM on December 21, 2022 [6 favorites]
I’ve said this before elsewhere, so forgive me for this, but I think it’s important to repeat.
You don't "have something to hide" when you put blinds on your windows or close the door when you're on the toilet or wear clothes.
Privacy isn't about having something to hide. It's not about keeping secrets. It's about you being able to choose what you reveal about yourself, and when, and to who, and the other word we have for that is "dignity". Your inherent dignity, as a human being.
Your privacy is the agency you have over your dignity.
Look at everyone who's ever said "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". Look at who they are, and try to tell me that every single one, every person, company, every organization, anyone who's ever said that doesn't want the power to strip you of your dignity at a moment's notice, whenever it's convenient for them.
That’s what privacy means. That’s what we’re fighting for, and those are the stakes.
posted by mhoye at 5:30 PM on December 21, 2022 [114 favorites]
You don't "have something to hide" when you put blinds on your windows or close the door when you're on the toilet or wear clothes.
Privacy isn't about having something to hide. It's not about keeping secrets. It's about you being able to choose what you reveal about yourself, and when, and to who, and the other word we have for that is "dignity". Your inherent dignity, as a human being.
Your privacy is the agency you have over your dignity.
Look at everyone who's ever said "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". Look at who they are, and try to tell me that every single one, every person, company, every organization, anyone who's ever said that doesn't want the power to strip you of your dignity at a moment's notice, whenever it's convenient for them.
That’s what privacy means. That’s what we’re fighting for, and those are the stakes.
posted by mhoye at 5:30 PM on December 21, 2022 [114 favorites]
This is why I now refer to most of the internet as the corporate web. I say we call it what it is.
posted by forbiddencabinet at 5:35 PM on December 21, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by forbiddencabinet at 5:35 PM on December 21, 2022 [8 favorites]
That Duck Duck Go app tracker, made a believer out of me. So I never clicked on the Wapo app, they kept hard selling it, I don't keep gmail, or meta in my phone, I access it off the web. I dumped Wapo, and The Times, I just haven't shut the times off yet, but I don't use it anymore. I dumped my free cribbage app when DDG sbowed it had shut down 2500 attempts to link to my info, everytime I played. The idea that we don't deserve privacy is absurd. But, the web isn't free, it wasn't invented for me, or my entertainment. No wait, the web is like the Compy's narcotic bite, in Jurassic Park, you don't mind being eaten. The web sedates, enthralls, agvravates, inspires, educates; while looking for your wallet, or whatever else any paying entity wants.
posted by Oyéah at 5:37 PM on December 21, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by Oyéah at 5:37 PM on December 21, 2022 [4 favorites]
I think the people doing bad things on the Internet will find new ways to do bad things on the Internet. Meanwhile they are used as the excuse to ruin the lives of decent people.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 7:31 PM on December 21, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 7:31 PM on December 21, 2022 [7 favorites]
Interesting ideas. There's a bit here to unpack.
The wording that corporate media chooses to represents things is of course important, especially when using emotionally-charged language that leads to say policy outcomes or bumps in readership/ad revenue that are desirable and profitable to media shareholders. It is possible to find fault with tabloids with the sensationalist manner in which they present stories.
But I'm not sure it is the responsibility of the media to also find a positive way to portray underground markets for assassination and child pornography (such as the former Silk Road), or to positively spin the technologies used to financially and logistically underwrite those and similar markets, including Bitcoin and Tor.
In the abstract, there might be conceivable uses for those particular technologies that do not harm people, which even help people — but even without British tabloids, we know that the reality is otherwise.
For example, even leaving aside its use to pay for killing and exploiting people in a direct fashion, continued mining and use of cryptoscrip to launder real currency is and has been itself particularly damaging to the environment, which leads to human suffering of similar, if more indirect kinds — and to the extent that generations will suffer the effects of the climate crisis as it unfolds, many more are and will be affected.
That said, there are yet other privacy-enhancing technologies that are used for the public good, say, by whistleblowers and journalists. I'm just unsure that these are necessarily at the heart of this analysis. To follow that example, whistleblowers aren't typically using journalists at tabloids (British or otherwise) to disseminate information, but rather go to respected and trusted news outlets that avoid sensationalism to an almost fetishist degree.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:18 PM on December 21, 2022 [8 favorites]
The wording that corporate media chooses to represents things is of course important, especially when using emotionally-charged language that leads to say policy outcomes or bumps in readership/ad revenue that are desirable and profitable to media shareholders. It is possible to find fault with tabloids with the sensationalist manner in which they present stories.
But I'm not sure it is the responsibility of the media to also find a positive way to portray underground markets for assassination and child pornography (such as the former Silk Road), or to positively spin the technologies used to financially and logistically underwrite those and similar markets, including Bitcoin and Tor.
In the abstract, there might be conceivable uses for those particular technologies that do not harm people, which even help people — but even without British tabloids, we know that the reality is otherwise.
For example, even leaving aside its use to pay for killing and exploiting people in a direct fashion, continued mining and use of cryptoscrip to launder real currency is and has been itself particularly damaging to the environment, which leads to human suffering of similar, if more indirect kinds — and to the extent that generations will suffer the effects of the climate crisis as it unfolds, many more are and will be affected.
That said, there are yet other privacy-enhancing technologies that are used for the public good, say, by whistleblowers and journalists. I'm just unsure that these are necessarily at the heart of this analysis. To follow that example, whistleblowers aren't typically using journalists at tabloids (British or otherwise) to disseminate information, but rather go to respected and trusted news outlets that avoid sensationalism to an almost fetishist degree.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:18 PM on December 21, 2022 [8 favorites]
There are no "underground markets for assassination" on the dark web, these are scams.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 10:28 PM on December 21, 2022 [12 favorites]
posted by Pyrogenesis at 10:28 PM on December 21, 2022 [12 favorites]
Maybe a scam, or maybe not. There is evidence cryptoscrip has changed hands, even if bodies might have not been presented, but I'd suggest that's a difference without much distinction at the point when a convertible equivalent of real money is exchanged.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:57 AM on December 22, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:57 AM on December 22, 2022 [1 favorite]
And a shout out to the source journal "First Monday" that regularly has other articles on internet privacy. Such as this one from the December issue: Dreading big brother or dreading big profit? Privacy concerns toward the state and companies in China.
posted by mfoight at 6:24 AM on December 22, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by mfoight at 6:24 AM on December 22, 2022 [2 favorites]
From Wikipedia: "A dark net or darknet is an overlay network within the Internet that can only be accessed with specific software, configurations, or authorization"
Oh, so like most of Facebook and Instagram, for example.
posted by jedicus at 9:39 AM on December 22, 2022 [9 favorites]
Oh, so like most of Facebook and Instagram, for example.
posted by jedicus at 9:39 AM on December 22, 2022 [9 favorites]
(Yeah, yeah, FB and Insta aren't actually overlay networks. The point is that what gets called a darknet and what gets called a walled garden and what gets called a platform is very relative.)
posted by jedicus at 9:41 AM on December 22, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by jedicus at 9:41 AM on December 22, 2022 [8 favorites]
You don't "have something to hide" when you put blinds on your windows or close the door when you're on the toilet or wear clothes.
I beg to differ. You have plenty to hide, and no reason to be ashamed of it.
Hide your credit card numbers. Hide the route your children walk to school every day.
Hide the dates of your next vacation when your house will be ripe for a burglary.
When you negotiate a lease on an apartment, or haggle the price of a car, or the terms of a job, you have to hide a lot of information about just how badly you want the transaction to close. If you fail to hide it, it will cost you substantial amounts of money.
If you work at any job where your professional or creative inputs put your employer at an advantage of any kind, you wind up with an NDA for exactly that reason. You then have something to hide and a lot of money to lose if you don't.
And that's just off the top of my head.
posted by ocschwar at 10:20 AM on December 22, 2022 [6 favorites]
I beg to differ. You have plenty to hide, and no reason to be ashamed of it.
Hide your credit card numbers. Hide the route your children walk to school every day.
Hide the dates of your next vacation when your house will be ripe for a burglary.
When you negotiate a lease on an apartment, or haggle the price of a car, or the terms of a job, you have to hide a lot of information about just how badly you want the transaction to close. If you fail to hide it, it will cost you substantial amounts of money.
If you work at any job where your professional or creative inputs put your employer at an advantage of any kind, you wind up with an NDA for exactly that reason. You then have something to hide and a lot of money to lose if you don't.
And that's just off the top of my head.
posted by ocschwar at 10:20 AM on December 22, 2022 [6 favorites]
In the abstract, there might be conceivable uses for those particular technologies that do not harm people, which even help people — but even without British tabloids, we know that the reality is otherwise.
As I've said prior, one of the greatest threats to anonymity/pseudonymity is the abuse of such to harm others. The victims of abusers using such as a shield from facing consequences for their abuse do have a valid point when they argue that their abusers shouldn't be protected. Furthermore (and this is where essays like this fall flat on their face) the use of the "greater good" argument not only do not dismiss these claims, but are in a way a form of continued abuse as they argue that such abuse should be accepted as a "price", often times by people who would not be expected to pay said price. (This is why I personally am done with "greater good" arguments and feel they are in bad faith.)
The reality is that a lot of online culture has tried to pretend that they aren't responsible for the abuse of their creations, even when that abuse is based on the design, and there has been a decided discomfort with dealing with the point of being responsible. But the answer isn't to argue that this is bad, but to come to terms with the responsibility.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:39 AM on December 22, 2022 [2 favorites]
As I've said prior, one of the greatest threats to anonymity/pseudonymity is the abuse of such to harm others. The victims of abusers using such as a shield from facing consequences for their abuse do have a valid point when they argue that their abusers shouldn't be protected. Furthermore (and this is where essays like this fall flat on their face) the use of the "greater good" argument not only do not dismiss these claims, but are in a way a form of continued abuse as they argue that such abuse should be accepted as a "price", often times by people who would not be expected to pay said price. (This is why I personally am done with "greater good" arguments and feel they are in bad faith.)
The reality is that a lot of online culture has tried to pretend that they aren't responsible for the abuse of their creations, even when that abuse is based on the design, and there has been a decided discomfort with dealing with the point of being responsible. But the answer isn't to argue that this is bad, but to come to terms with the responsibility.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:39 AM on December 22, 2022 [2 favorites]
I think you can have privacy without resorting to promoting technology used explicitly to murder and exploit people, and I think that's the root of the problem I have with the argument behind this piece. Privacy isn't being criminalized. You can use Bitcoin and Tor all you like and there are no laws against it: even the Winkelvii use Bitcoin and they are and continue to be "respectable" rich, white people. It's just that criminal behavior is criminalized, as it always has been, even if the related tech looks shiny and cool, and some people get blinded by that.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:15 PM on December 22, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:15 PM on December 22, 2022 [1 favorite]
the abuse of their creations, even when that abuse is based on the design
Well, um... like the entire reason January 6 happened was because the wording in the law that talked about Congress certifying elector votes cast wasn't specific enough, and they thought they found a loophole in that. Does that mean the drafters of that law are somehow responsible?
There is no design of anything that humans with motivation (of whatever sort) won't find a way to find exploits to abuse. Even if that exploit is simply "you don't get to read my texts because encryption" or whatever.
posted by hippybear at 2:36 PM on December 22, 2022 [1 favorite]
Well, um... like the entire reason January 6 happened was because the wording in the law that talked about Congress certifying elector votes cast wasn't specific enough, and they thought they found a loophole in that. Does that mean the drafters of that law are somehow responsible?
There is no design of anything that humans with motivation (of whatever sort) won't find a way to find exploits to abuse. Even if that exploit is simply "you don't get to read my texts because encryption" or whatever.
posted by hippybear at 2:36 PM on December 22, 2022 [1 favorite]
Does that mean the drafters of that law are somehow responsible?
Well, yeah - a large part of why we're here is because the Founding Fathers lacked imagination, and it's something to think about.
There is no design of anything that humans with motivation (of whatever sort) won't find a way to find exploits to abuse.
Of course. The point is that you don't get to pretend that won't happen, or that somehow you're not in part responsible. To give a real world example - Telegram allows the dispossessed to communicate safely - and it also allows the hateful to do so to plan and coordinate attacks. And I don't think that Telegram should get to wash their hands of this, especially given that they can control who is on their service. There's been an overall attitude I've seen that there's an obligation we as society have to treat the hateful and abusive as a fact of life, and I think that needs to be pushed back on.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:56 PM on December 22, 2022 [1 favorite]
Well, yeah - a large part of why we're here is because the Founding Fathers lacked imagination, and it's something to think about.
There is no design of anything that humans with motivation (of whatever sort) won't find a way to find exploits to abuse.
Of course. The point is that you don't get to pretend that won't happen, or that somehow you're not in part responsible. To give a real world example - Telegram allows the dispossessed to communicate safely - and it also allows the hateful to do so to plan and coordinate attacks. And I don't think that Telegram should get to wash their hands of this, especially given that they can control who is on their service. There's been an overall attitude I've seen that there's an obligation we as society have to treat the hateful and abusive as a fact of life, and I think that needs to be pushed back on.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:56 PM on December 22, 2022 [1 favorite]
They sucked his brains out: I think you can have privacy without resorting to promoting technology used explicitly to murder and exploit people, and I think that's the root of the problem I have with the argument behind this piece.
Hey, can you help a fellow "innocent until proven guilty" citizen with some resources in that line? (I'm not sure you can square the circle, but I'm interested in the tools you have and the negative you can't prove that there are no law-breaking uses of those privacy tools.)
The only answers I have about noticing when someone hurts themselves and/or other people are things that root themselves in community, of knowing and caring for the people around you (and protecting them, too, from unwarranted [sic.] invasion of their privacy) because civilisation is what we have in common. It's a social problem, not a technology problem.
posted by k3ninho at 4:27 PM on December 22, 2022 [1 favorite]
Hey, can you help a fellow "innocent until proven guilty" citizen with some resources in that line? (I'm not sure you can square the circle, but I'm interested in the tools you have and the negative you can't prove that there are no law-breaking uses of those privacy tools.)
The only answers I have about noticing when someone hurts themselves and/or other people are things that root themselves in community, of knowing and caring for the people around you (and protecting them, too, from unwarranted [sic.] invasion of their privacy) because civilisation is what we have in common. It's a social problem, not a technology problem.
posted by k3ninho at 4:27 PM on December 22, 2022 [1 favorite]
the negative you can't prove
I don't have to prove a negative to recognize when an idea seems based upon questionable or uncertain premises, at best.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 7:28 PM on December 22, 2022 [1 favorite]
I don't have to prove a negative to recognize when an idea seems based upon questionable or uncertain premises, at best.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 7:28 PM on December 22, 2022 [1 favorite]
Tor is used by millions of people, including a wide range of activists, and police hiding the fact that they're police. Absolutely the good guys here. In fact, you should never use major advertisers like Twitter, FB, or Google without going through Tor or a VPN. It'll cost you in modified prices, ads you do not tune out, etc. if you tell these guys where you live.
Assassins for hire online should mostly be FBI agents or similar. It's just easy convictions: If the target is not famous, then the seller role lets them and the victim together identify the buyer. If the target is famous, then they'll need more social engineering, but likely the buyer is crazy here, so likely still straightforward.
Afaik real assassins are typically "cult" members, broadly interpreted to include military-like groups, but they just obey their leaders, nothing to intercept, so irrelevant here.
Bitcoin is in no way a privacy tool. You'll unmask BTC accounts with enough effort.
We do need to shut down Bitcoin for being so wasteful of course, but we should do so by wealth-externalities taxes: Any resident owning "particularly" ecologically destructive assets should pay some small % per year of their holdings. All proof-of-work crypto-currency should pay maybe 2% per year, which vaguely approximates how much of their market cap they spend mining. Also stock holders of companies involved directly in oil, gas, coal, cars, or meat production should pay maybe 1% per year.
We do not require messy international agreements here, just a couple rich nations like say Germany or France could really tank the BTC price by imposing taxes like this, which then breaks USDT, bankrupting most Bitcoin miners and their backers, including exchanges.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:48 AM on December 23, 2022 [2 favorites]
Assassins for hire online should mostly be FBI agents or similar. It's just easy convictions: If the target is not famous, then the seller role lets them and the victim together identify the buyer. If the target is famous, then they'll need more social engineering, but likely the buyer is crazy here, so likely still straightforward.
Afaik real assassins are typically "cult" members, broadly interpreted to include military-like groups, but they just obey their leaders, nothing to intercept, so irrelevant here.
Bitcoin is in no way a privacy tool. You'll unmask BTC accounts with enough effort.
We do need to shut down Bitcoin for being so wasteful of course, but we should do so by wealth-externalities taxes: Any resident owning "particularly" ecologically destructive assets should pay some small % per year of their holdings. All proof-of-work crypto-currency should pay maybe 2% per year, which vaguely approximates how much of their market cap they spend mining. Also stock holders of companies involved directly in oil, gas, coal, cars, or meat production should pay maybe 1% per year.
We do not require messy international agreements here, just a couple rich nations like say Germany or France could really tank the BTC price by imposing taxes like this, which then breaks USDT, bankrupting most Bitcoin miners and their backers, including exchanges.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:48 AM on December 23, 2022 [2 favorites]
How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did
posted by jeffburdges at 3:53 AM on December 23, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by jeffburdges at 3:53 AM on December 23, 2022 [1 favorite]
Tor is used by millions of people, including a wide range of activists, and police hiding the fact that they're police. Absolutely the good guys here.
Tor is also used by a lot of people who are looking to hide some very vile things, which is why it has the reputation that it does. This comes back to my point - we cannot turn a blind eye to these systems being used the harm and abuse, which includes "greater good" arguments that demand that we accept harm and abuse as a "price".
Afaik real assassins are typically "cult" members, broadly interpreted to include military-like groups, but they just obey their leaders, nothing to intercept, so irrelevant here.
You have heard of Murder, Incorporated, the famous wetwork outfit of American organized crime under Lucky Luciano which gave us the modern idea of the hitman we have today, right? Because those guys were not cultists, but professionals (though tightly controlled by mob leadership.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:50 AM on December 23, 2022 [1 favorite]
Tor is also used by a lot of people who are looking to hide some very vile things, which is why it has the reputation that it does. This comes back to my point - we cannot turn a blind eye to these systems being used the harm and abuse, which includes "greater good" arguments that demand that we accept harm and abuse as a "price".
Afaik real assassins are typically "cult" members, broadly interpreted to include military-like groups, but they just obey their leaders, nothing to intercept, so irrelevant here.
You have heard of Murder, Incorporated, the famous wetwork outfit of American organized crime under Lucky Luciano which gave us the modern idea of the hitman we have today, right? Because those guys were not cultists, but professionals (though tightly controlled by mob leadership.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:50 AM on December 23, 2022 [1 favorite]
I'd expect Murder Inc was a cult in my same broad sense as militaries are cults, meaning they kill under some order obeying socialization, but regardless western law enforcement learned their assassination suppression tactics somewhere.
Assassinations are typically local mafia, local gangs, law enforcement, etc. aka cults broadly interpreted.
We do not get to choose how physics, chemistry, biology, or human psychology and sociology works. At every turn, we make compromises with reality and pay prices, so your statement precludes even internal consistency.
We need a fairly high degree of privacy just to maintain a meaningful public discourse, so frankly we should not care what the price is, as the alternative is always much much worse, really for everyone, except maybe a couple billionaires.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:30 AM on December 23, 2022 [2 favorites]
Assassinations are typically local mafia, local gangs, law enforcement, etc. aka cults broadly interpreted.
We do not get to choose how physics, chemistry, biology, or human psychology and sociology works. At every turn, we make compromises with reality and pay prices, so your statement precludes even internal consistency.
We need a fairly high degree of privacy just to maintain a meaningful public discourse, so frankly we should not care what the price is, as the alternative is always much much worse, really for everyone, except maybe a couple billionaires.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:30 AM on December 23, 2022 [2 favorites]
I'd expect Murder Inc was a cult in my same broad sense as militaries are cults
So, in short you're redefining "cult" into meaninglessness, and in doing so losing key context as to how these organizations work in service to tarring with a common brush.
We need a fairly high degree of privacy just to maintain a meaningful public discourse, so frankly we should not care what the price is, as the alternative is always much much worse, really for everyone, except maybe a couple billionaires.
Not only is this a "greater good" argument, this is cheerleading for Omelas. We don't win by sacrificing people.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:39 AM on December 23, 2022 [2 favorites]
So, in short you're redefining "cult" into meaninglessness, and in doing so losing key context as to how these organizations work in service to tarring with a common brush.
We need a fairly high degree of privacy just to maintain a meaningful public discourse, so frankly we should not care what the price is, as the alternative is always much much worse, really for everyone, except maybe a couple billionaires.
Not only is this a "greater good" argument, this is cheerleading for Omelas. We don't win by sacrificing people.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:39 AM on December 23, 2022 [2 favorites]
When I re-did university in the early 2000s (after dropping out for the dot-com boom in the 90s), the consensus within my little circles of academia was that "The Dark Web" referred simply to any site that wasn't indexed by Google. So if you needed a login to get into some research site to download PDFs, that was The Dark Web. If you needed to log in to browse the family photos, that's The Dark Web.
It was "Dark" merely in the sense that we didn't have general access to the written record of whatever it was. Not that it was some kind of sinister underground. Heck, everyone with gmail has a repository "in the dark web" by this definition, and it seems far more useful to me despite this.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 10:08 AM on December 23, 2022 [1 favorite]
It was "Dark" merely in the sense that we didn't have general access to the written record of whatever it was. Not that it was some kind of sinister underground. Heck, everyone with gmail has a repository "in the dark web" by this definition, and it seems far more useful to me despite this.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 10:08 AM on December 23, 2022 [1 favorite]
your argument is a "greater good" argument as well? privacy helps vulnerable and marginalized people. it's a tradeoff, like pretty much every policy, law, etc. that has any complexity.
Except that I'm not saying "let's get rid of privacy." I think privacy is incredibly important, and have talked about that in a number of threads, which is why I'm arguing that the argument that the piece in the OP makes is counterproductive, because as I've also said in other threads, the fastest way to get people to reject your beliefs is to allow them to be a shield for abuse and harm. One of the biggest reasons free speech "absolutism" is on the back foot as of late is that the ideology has always had "hate speech is the price of free speech" as a tenet either espoused openly or (more often) obliquely with weasel wording like "speech you don't like", and people are rightfully rejecting the argument now, which has left followers without a response.
As such, we should not ask people to dismiss the use of privacy to enable harms as the "price" of privacy (which, let's be blunt, is the argument of this piece.) We need to be more open and forthright about this, and work to lessen and refuse to support such harms (hence why I brought up Telegram earlier.) We need to keep tradeoffs in mind, yes - but we should not be turning people into tradeoffs, lest they respond by rejecting privacy in its entirety.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:48 AM on December 24, 2022 [1 favorite]
Except that I'm not saying "let's get rid of privacy." I think privacy is incredibly important, and have talked about that in a number of threads, which is why I'm arguing that the argument that the piece in the OP makes is counterproductive, because as I've also said in other threads, the fastest way to get people to reject your beliefs is to allow them to be a shield for abuse and harm. One of the biggest reasons free speech "absolutism" is on the back foot as of late is that the ideology has always had "hate speech is the price of free speech" as a tenet either espoused openly or (more often) obliquely with weasel wording like "speech you don't like", and people are rightfully rejecting the argument now, which has left followers without a response.
As such, we should not ask people to dismiss the use of privacy to enable harms as the "price" of privacy (which, let's be blunt, is the argument of this piece.) We need to be more open and forthright about this, and work to lessen and refuse to support such harms (hence why I brought up Telegram earlier.) We need to keep tradeoffs in mind, yes - but we should not be turning people into tradeoffs, lest they respond by rejecting privacy in its entirety.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:48 AM on December 24, 2022 [1 favorite]
Except that I'm not saying "let's get rid of privacy."
Ok ... but how could this conceivably work? So you don't want to get rid of privacy, but you want some kind of privacy that no one can hide behind to harm another person. So who is invading everyone's privacy to check for this? How is this remotely a consistent position to hold? How is this not magical thinking?
This is the "thoughts and prayers" of the debate of privacy policies.
posted by Infracanophile at 4:54 PM on December 24, 2022 [9 favorites]
Ok ... but how could this conceivably work? So you don't want to get rid of privacy, but you want some kind of privacy that no one can hide behind to harm another person. So who is invading everyone's privacy to check for this? How is this remotely a consistent position to hold? How is this not magical thinking?
This is the "thoughts and prayers" of the debate of privacy policies.
posted by Infracanophile at 4:54 PM on December 24, 2022 [9 favorites]
« Older ‘Tis. The. Season. ‘TIS INDEED. | "resentment is an essential survival skill" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Of course.
posted by mhoye at 4:37 PM on December 21, 2022 [6 favorites]