Imagine: your relative is a celebrity, currently the focus of a media scandal. You and other relatives are talking together, strategizing. Reporters are asking for interviews, and digging into your world, probably via both legal and illegal means. What should you do?
If we follow your strategy, people in the future will settle around a new normal where of course our biometric data will be public and the new question is how to deal with the companies who want to know everything you eat and drink. Then they'll be more people who argue similarly that we should compromise with the companies and provide them this new trivial information so they'll be placated and not look for more.
The cycle will repeat a few more times (as it's repeated in the past many times before) until all our information is public and the concept of private information doesn't even exist.
We live in a world post-Snowden leaks. There is no reasoning with the data-gatherers, they are ruthless and will steal all your data that isn't tied down.
But then there's the issue of relativity. Wherever you draw the line, the value of the data on the off-limits side of that line is apt to increase. Exclusive data tends to be valuable data. Also, big tech is very, very good at finding a use for just about every piece of info they can pry off of you, especially now that they finally have at their disposal fairly decent quasi-AI that can detect meaningful patterns with superhuman proficiency. We are approaching the point where, to them, there is virtually no such thing as noise.
The scandal example is just to motivate the analogy regarding ordinary privacy. In that context it seems clear that neighbors care a lot about a few key bits, but far less about all the others.
I agree that it may be best to appease the media in the one-off scandal situation you suggest. But in a repeated game - where there are likely to be repeated scandals, where coverage is ongoing, etc - that's not normally seen as the best strategy. Media relations plays tit-for-tat, excluding journalists who go too far or give negative coverage, trying to incentivise and reward journalists for positive coverage, etc. If coverage is uniformly hostile, route around it (Tesla, Coinbase, etc).
How would you adapt your proposal to make it more appropriate in a dynamic environment, where new actors are likely to arise to exploit (and push beyond) the additional data you are making available?
The slippery slope is a standard argument against compromise; "give them an inch and they'll take a mile".
Firm drive for profits takes into account both costs and benefits. If we take away the high benefit reasons to snoop, the low benefit ones may not be worth the bother.
I worry that a compromise in this context sets the tone for a slippery slope, though. And unlike reporters, I don't think that these companies really do have lots of other things to focus on. They have an imperative to maximize profit, and as long as data is perceived to be the source of that profit (whether accurate or not), I think a myopic focus on harvesting personal data will continue.
I think it's a good strategy for the setting that you've described, but I don't think that this is that setting.
I dunno about reporters but I agree with you here. Indeed, that's what both surveys and revealed preferences say most people actually feel.
I think lots of privacy concern is driven by a small but loud privacy concerned elite and for some of the reason's you've recently mentioned I think ordinary people feel some pressure to agree that privacy is a troubling concern (even if when asked about their own info they show a willingness to share) simply so they look serious.
Privacy, is a lot like bioethics (particularly the debate over challenge trials etc) in that non-experts know they sound smart and serious if they talk vaguely about the "serious concerns raised" while if they try and brush it away as not a big deal they know they risk looking dumb if challenged. It's easy to vaguely call something concerning especially given our strong bias to see great threats in new phenomenon (be it internet, TV, video games etc).
--
Having said this the one thing we do need to work out is the role of privacy protecting ammendemnts in the Constitution. It's my view that the real function these serve is to make it difficult for the government to make certain kinds of victimless crimes hard to effectively prosecute not to literally keep our secrets. If this is right we may need to distinguish between what facts the government should be allowed to actually use in trial from which they are allowed access.
With a distributed opponent (the set of all reporters and investigators who've taken an interest), the word "compromise" is a little misleading - the normal first definition does not apply. There's no enforceable agreement where both parties can get parts of what they want in exchange for giving up other parts.
This it more like appeasement - you're advocating that the family unilaterally give some information out that will satisfy enough of the investigators that they don't pester you further. Which fits another definition of compromise (to accept lowered standards), and your point is valid that sometimes it's the right choice to lower your standards in order to benefit in the real world filled with jerks.
If we follow your strategy, people in the future will settle around a new normal where of course our biometric data will be public and the new question is how to deal with the companies who want to know everything you eat and drink. Then they'll be more people who argue similarly that we should compromise with the companies and provide them this new trivial information so they'll be placated and not look for more.
The cycle will repeat a few more times (as it's repeated in the past many times before) until all our information is public and the concept of private information doesn't even exist.
We live in a world post-Snowden leaks. There is no reasoning with the data-gatherers, they are ruthless and will steal all your data that isn't tied down.
But then there's the issue of relativity. Wherever you draw the line, the value of the data on the off-limits side of that line is apt to increase. Exclusive data tends to be valuable data. Also, big tech is very, very good at finding a use for just about every piece of info they can pry off of you, especially now that they finally have at their disposal fairly decent quasi-AI that can detect meaningful patterns with superhuman proficiency. We are approaching the point where, to them, there is virtually no such thing as noise.
The scandal example is just to motivate the analogy regarding ordinary privacy. In that context it seems clear that neighbors care a lot about a few key bits, but far less about all the others.
I agree that it may be best to appease the media in the one-off scandal situation you suggest. But in a repeated game - where there are likely to be repeated scandals, where coverage is ongoing, etc - that's not normally seen as the best strategy. Media relations plays tit-for-tat, excluding journalists who go too far or give negative coverage, trying to incentivise and reward journalists for positive coverage, etc. If coverage is uniformly hostile, route around it (Tesla, Coinbase, etc).
How would you adapt your proposal to make it more appropriate in a dynamic environment, where new actors are likely to arise to exploit (and push beyond) the additional data you are making available?
The slippery slope is a standard argument against compromise; "give them an inch and they'll take a mile".
Firm drive for profits takes into account both costs and benefits. If we take away the high benefit reasons to snoop, the low benefit ones may not be worth the bother.
Yes, I'm arguing for an appeasement form of compromise.
I worry that a compromise in this context sets the tone for a slippery slope, though. And unlike reporters, I don't think that these companies really do have lots of other things to focus on. They have an imperative to maximize profit, and as long as data is perceived to be the source of that profit (whether accurate or not), I think a myopic focus on harvesting personal data will continue.
I think it's a good strategy for the setting that you've described, but I don't think that this is that setting.
I dunno about reporters but I agree with you here. Indeed, that's what both surveys and revealed preferences say most people actually feel.
I think lots of privacy concern is driven by a small but loud privacy concerned elite and for some of the reason's you've recently mentioned I think ordinary people feel some pressure to agree that privacy is a troubling concern (even if when asked about their own info they show a willingness to share) simply so they look serious.
Privacy, is a lot like bioethics (particularly the debate over challenge trials etc) in that non-experts know they sound smart and serious if they talk vaguely about the "serious concerns raised" while if they try and brush it away as not a big deal they know they risk looking dumb if challenged. It's easy to vaguely call something concerning especially given our strong bias to see great threats in new phenomenon (be it internet, TV, video games etc).
--
Having said this the one thing we do need to work out is the role of privacy protecting ammendemnts in the Constitution. It's my view that the real function these serve is to make it difficult for the government to make certain kinds of victimless crimes hard to effectively prosecute not to literally keep our secrets. If this is right we may need to distinguish between what facts the government should be allowed to actually use in trial from which they are allowed access.
With a distributed opponent (the set of all reporters and investigators who've taken an interest), the word "compromise" is a little misleading - the normal first definition does not apply. There's no enforceable agreement where both parties can get parts of what they want in exchange for giving up other parts.
This it more like appeasement - you're advocating that the family unilaterally give some information out that will satisfy enough of the investigators that they don't pester you further. Which fits another definition of compromise (to accept lowered standards), and your point is valid that sometimes it's the right choice to lower your standards in order to benefit in the real world filled with jerks.