apophenia: Facebook's move ain't about changes in privacy norms - 17 views
-
When I learned that Mark Zuckerberg effectively argued that 'the age of privacy is over' (read: ReadWriteWeb), I wanted to scream. Actually, I did. And still am. The logic goes something like this: People I knew didn't used to like to be public. Now "everyone" is being public. Ergo, privacy is dead. This isn't new. This is the exact same logic that made me want to scream a decade ago when folks used David Brin to justify a transparent society. Privacy is dead, get over it. Right? Wrong!
- ...5 more comments...
-
David Brin has it right, if right means that we'll all have to give up a great deal more of our privacy - Internet, planes, personal ID (openID), credit cards, et al., - can you think of an area of life that has become more private in the last 10 years?
-
I think the key here is that we cannot believe that this is acceptable or inevitable. 9/11 allowed the US government to remove freedoms with the consent of the population based on their fear. "Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither" (forget the source of that quote, don't feel like looking it up, shouldn't a bot do that for me as soon as I put quotes in?) While I doubt they are this sophisticated, if the militant theocracies who control their populations wanted to destroy the freedoms americans had and make the US more like themselves, they have been winning this war with our consent. There are powerful forces destroying our privacy and freedom. It is time to wake up before the frog gets boiled. Sorry gotta go, black helicopter landing in backyard
-
you guys may want to take another look at Brin. I believe his observation is that privacy is going away (has actually been gone for a while). the question he poses is who will have access and control of the surveillance systems. he is advocating that we ALL do rather than centrally controlled organizations.
-
his book is on my shelf, my wife started reading it but stopped as she found it too depressing - it will likely be right up my alley - if we accepted the premise that we would be in a surveilled state then it would be enormously helpful that it was a commons- I do not accept that we should allow this surveilled state to happen, nor that we should accept it as good, even if it is a commons. I also don't believe that it will be a commons. It should not exist, and should be fought every step of the way by people whose minds have not opened so far that their brains have fallen out. It is completely possible with technology to give individuals the power to set levels of privacy to particular counter parties. It is politically possible to regulate the use of surveillance. One can make the argument that people can simply surveil with their camera phones, but you do not see that happening as it would be culturally unacceptable (rude if you will). I find the acceptance of big brother as inevitable troubling.
-
David Brin used well thought out logic to make his argument. Zuckerburg is an idiot. He's the face of 1984's Big Brother, except at puberty.