
Privacy Inequality: The Most Brutal Form of Inequality You’ve Ever Imagined - borjamoya
https://medium.com/privateid-blog/privacy-inequality-the-most-brutal-form-of-inequality-youve-ever-imagined-e674d4f3cd42
======
slfnflctd
I'd say actual human slavery - which I can easily imagine from extensive
historical records - is probably worse.

Yeah, mysterious data centers logging everything you do is scary, but have you
ever been beaten bloody because you lacked the physical ability to pick the
required cotton quota? Whoever wrote this title needs a serious dose of
perspective. And to rewrite the title.

~~~
badrabbit
One can argue deprivarion of privacy for the powerless masses can lead to a
society so hopelessly controlled and manipulated by the elite class that
return of slavery with an even worse level of brutality suddenly becomes a
practical possibility.

Slavery as you portrayed it went away but people who possess the desire to see
it back in place are still alive and well.

I don't mean lack of democracy but lack of ability for the masses to have
their voice heard or will respected

~~~
bilbo0s
What you're talking about is not slavery. It might be loosely termed
"institutional oppression". Basically, an oligarchic dictatorship.

Money and information are used to coerce your conformity and obedience. _BUT_
, a person can _legally_ opt out and just live with nothing.

Slavery is when brute physical _force_ is used to coerce conformity and
obedience. A slave can _NEVER_ legally opt out. and the slave _ALWAYS_ lives
with nothing, because he _IS_ property.

I'd imagine most humans would choose to live with being forced to behave in
society to get money, and then going home, rather than to have to live with
cradle to grave slavery. To equate them is just, kind of, being a little
sensationalist.

~~~
badrabbit
No,i meant slavery as in 1800s whiplashing and lynching slavery.

Institutional oppression is what you think I meant,what i meant was a
dystopian future where privacy erosion has lead to a world where your every
move and intention is analyzed for conformity by the elite class. You can
optin and opt out,elect leaders or overhtrow dictators because you can
organize in groups,think and plan without your adversary knowing your every
move.

If someone controls what information you consume and every reaction you have
to a given scenario or information then they can control you to the point
where even the brutal form of slavery can be thought of as acceptable.

~~~
bilbo0s
But in your hypothetical future you can _still_ legally opt out, and live with
nothing.

A slave can _never_ legally opt out and choose to live on his own with
nothing.

You are saying that there exists a level of information control that would
justify slavery in the minds of the masses. I'm saying there is no such level
of information control. (In fact, it would never even be justified in the
minds of all the elites.)

We just need to agree to disagree. But I really think you're doing a serious
reach in order to make a connection from privacy to slavery. And the
sensationalism around this issue is what is keeping the masses right now from
taking it seriously. We need to be explaining _actual_ consequences to the
masses, not shouting alarmist nonsense at them and then calling them stupid
for not listening.

------
bilbo0s
The article paints a pretty bleak picture, but it's even worse when we
consider that even the author has bought in to privacy destroying narratives
and technologies. I mean, the guy just posted an article on privacy inequality
on a site that requires a third party login to discuss said article??? Don't
even get me started on his belief that Elon Musk and companies like Tesla will
be bulwarks against privacy inequality???

Keep in mind, this is a guy who, at least, knows that privacy inequality
_exists_. And even he is given to almost naturally accepting narratives and
technologies that are a direct threat to equality in this regard. So if even
guys like the author are able to be seamlessly integrated into the future
system of asymmetric privacy we're creating, then there really isn't much hope
for most of the world's population who are liable to be a good deal less
thoughtful.

All that said, HN User slfnflctd is correct, privacy inequality is bad, but
there are much worse causes of suffering for humanity. Slavery does spring
immediately to mind. Rape, Genocides. Etc. Privacy inequality _might_ help to
enable some of those things, but those things certainly exist with no help
from privacy inequality at all.

~~~
borjamoya
I can log in with my email on Medium... You just sign in, they send you an
email confirmation, and you're in.

~~~
shoo
I guess the third party might be "A Medium Corporation"

------
bernardlunn
This took too long to get to the point. Even with aggressive skimming and a
big interest in the subject I gave up

~~~
catacombs
Indeed. Too much non-revant background before getting to the points, and even
those were bloated. The most brutal form of inequality for this piece is
concision. Not to mention the tone-deaf headline.

------
Animats
This is mostly a whiny article followed by an ad for the author's site which
starts by wanting either your email or your money.

There are better advocates for stronger privacy. A good starting position is
that the US needs something as strong as the EU's GDPR. With teeth. Might
happen. See this Register article.[1]

We need a good event involving the privacy of some political official,
preferably one on the right. The US got the Video Rental Privacy Act because
Robert Bork's porno videotape rentals became public knowledge. Although that
was weakened in 2013 due to Netflix lobbying.

[1]
[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/08/gdpr_usa_congressma...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/08/gdpr_usa_congressman/)

~~~
slavik81
> The issue first surfaced during Bork`s confirmation hearings, when a
> Washington newspaper published lists of the judge`s video rentals during the
> last several years. The films were general releases such as ''Ruthless
> People,'' ''The Man Who Knew Too Much'' and ''A Day at the Races''; there
> were no X-rated rentals.

~Chicago Tribune, November 20, 1987 (source:
[https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-
xpm-1987-11-20-870327...](https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-
xpm-1987-11-20-8703270590-story.html))

------
GuB-42
Privacy inequality exists, and it goes the other way, at least in the west. In
practice, the richer and more famous you are, the less privacy you have.

If you are rich, you are a target for everyone who wants a part of your money,
from criminals to opportunists. Stars have their paparazzis. And even in their
inside world, the rich typically have many people working for them. If you
don't drive by yourself, your chauffeur knows where you are going, your
accountant knows how you spend your money, your cook knows when and what you
are eating, etc...

It has serious consequences. It very famously killed Diana for instance.

And think about "the fappening", where celebrity nudes leaked out. It is not
the king of things that happen to average girls. I know someone who "revenge
porned" his ex girlfriend, it didn't go far. She is pretty but average, and no
one took interest. That's what protected her privacy.

The author mentioned things like targeted ads, where only the rich can opt
out. Sure, but if you aren't rich, where is the big deal. Advertisers aren't
after the money you don't have. Maybe some company have a lot of details about
your life, but no one will really care. OTOH, the rich and famous have actual
people tracking them constantly. The fortunes they spend for their privacy and
security only gets them what we naturally have just by being average.

It is interesting to note that in 1984, the ones who enjoy the most privacy
are the proles, the lower class.

------
patient_zero
When you're 40% through the piece and the author still hasn't gotten around to
the point mentioned in the title, you've got yourself a badly written article.

Don't waste your time. Author should have incubated this thought more.

------
pessimizer
The idea that you can pay for privacy is a fantasy.

Just like in every surveillance state in the past, the people with the most
privacy will be the people who are in charge of the surveillance. The people
who will be the most monitored are the people who individuals in the
surveillance apparatus want something from, or are offended and annoyed by.
The civilian government reports to the surveillance apparatus in a
surveillance state, not the other way around; and you probably won't even know
the name of the person who really runs the country.

If you can see everything that people do, you can destroy them at will. If you
can't find anything they've done, you can figure out something they _could
have done_ , and extortion easily provides eyewitnesses and covert agents in
order to set people up. If necessary, you can extort necessary elements of the
justice system to make the decisions you want, or just blatantly do what you
want in total daylight, and make sure that nobody ever reports on it, no one
is arrested, and witnesses are either securely threatened or disposed of in
the same way.

It's depressing that we're arguing about whether public or private
surveillance is worse, whether convenience or discounts are worth the
exchange, or in this sadly gone awry "left" critique, whether there will be
differences between the privacy of the rich and the poor.

Instead, maybe argue about why we've installed microphones every 10 feet that
report to central servers in a way that cannot be audited. The technology is
the enemy, it's just waiting for the right user.

------
analognoise
Is it just me, or is this terribly written?

~~~
dwighttk
Reads like an un-edited rambling blog post

Catchy title though.

~~~
solipsism
Yes, absolutely horrible.

Are people upvoting this on title alone?

------
llmdykilu
hyperbole: our deadliest foible

------
monochromatic
I can imagine much more brutal things.

------
HugoDaniel
the irony of writing it in medium.com

------
galkk
TL;DR - author watched too much sci-fi and decided to write his (bad) own
dystopia with castes etc.

------
nickpsecurity
Some highlights for people having a hard time reading the article:

"Simply put, your raw data is everything about you: your age, location,
preferences, how tall you are, go down the list. But the tricky one is the
predictability of your data. And what people when say that Facebook knows
people better than they significant other (and themselves), is that they can
predict what you’re going to do before you, or your significant other, are
aware of it. That’s so powerful. When you get tons of data from a person and
put the right algorithms to work, you can start getting interesting (or scary)
results."

"Privacy becomes a human right in the moment someone or something invades your
personal space (either physically or digitally) in order to extract monetary
value from you. That’s our value as human beings, and companies and
governments steal that value from us. What do we do? We just give away because
we’ve got no idea of our own value as human beings." (great point: it's
extraction)

"There are so many things you can do with data. Today. But, what could be done
tomorrow with that same data? If today we can predict the mental health of an
individual through a voice recording, what will we be able to do with that
same data five years from now?"

Employers and governments are either considering or already doing stuff like
that in ways that will surely impact workers.

"Here’s my prediction: At some point this situation will create two castes of
people: The Protected and The Predictables... The Protected are the ones who
can afford to pay for privacy. These group understand that their privacy is
their very human value and want to protect it. However, The Predictables are
the ones who can’t pay for privacy. These are ones who live in a Matrix style
algorithm. Maybe they know privacy should be a human right, but probably will
fail to understand its value and the impact it has on them. The ones who have
lots of opportunities and resources will be given more. And the ones with few
opportunities and resources will be taken away, even more"

"...it’s easy to see how this inequality is going to hit us: overpriced
insurance, bank loans denial (or high interest), unaffordable healthcare,
highly targeted advertising, political manipulation, and simple opportunity
cost of opportunity."

"Because companies are too busy making money and we’re too busy using their
“free” stuff. So it’s not surprising that they end up getting away with it.
Consider Facebook. Since 2005 Facebook has been involved in all sorts of
scandals, and every single time they get away with it. They masquerade their
way out, telling one story to the investor and another to the public."

"Privacy inequality will take everything to the edges. Some kids will be lucky
and might be able to afford privacy protection. Maybe that will be paying for
products that watch their privacy or a kind of antivirus, who knows. But other
kids won’t be able to pay for it and will choose the “free” option — others
just won’t understand their value as human beings and will pick the free
version, because it’s a bargain, right? Alas, they will grow up with
inequalities worse that the one I had at school, or any other you have had in
your entire life."

"We seem to forget that for decades we’ve been fighting for freedom and
equality. Now we’re throwing it all away, and for what, free dumbass apps?"

------
Jeff_Brown
tl;dr, anybody? What makes privacy inequality so bad? And is the inequality
the problem, or the lack of privacy? (A parallel question can often be asked
of wealth inequality.)

~~~
Jeff_Brown
Found a collection of such, albeit not necessarily specifically in response to
this article:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18829422](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18829422)

