Privacy

In today’s world, privacy is a buzzword. Most curse Facebook for its impossibly difficult privacy settings (as if that wasn’t bad enough, they change the rules frequently). Then there are the government agencies world over that like to snoop on their enemies and more and more now, even their own citizens. (In case of dictatorships, citizens are the enemies!)

So if privacy is such a good thing worth protecting, why is it, asks Scott Adams:
“We tend to fear losing our privacy until it's gone. Then we wonder what all the fuss was about.”
Adams cites instances where we benefit by giving up our privacy: online dating services (matrimonial sites in India), (even) more relevant search results on Google, deals from shops or sites you frequent, or even (shudder) the joy of having your friends “like” your posts on Facebook!

Of course, what many protest is corporate surveillance: Google, Facebook and Twitter lead the pack. Adams anticipates the protest against government surveillance:
“You might even toss in a Hitler reference or two because that helps any argument.”
(Btw, the Hitler/Nazi reference in online arguments has been so common for so long that there’s even a term for it, Godwin’s Law: “If you mention Adolf Hitler or Nazis within a discussion thread, you’ve automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in.”)

But the real problem, says Adams, is the asymmetry of privacy: while they know about you; you either don’t know that they are collecting information about you or, more often, what they do with that information. Even if that problem cannot be fixed entirely (national security and somebody-has-got-to-pay-for-the-free-email/search/social network are the most common reasons why), Adams feels that:
“Historical patterns suggest it would be more good than bad. I say that because every case I can think of in which adult citizens intelligently gave up privacy in this country turned out well.”

What do you feel?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why we Deceive Ourselves

In their book, The Elephant in the Brain , the authors describe this weird aspect of deception that we practice: deceiving ourselves! That is so weird: “If our minds contain maps of our worlds, what good comes from having an inaccurate version of these maps?” The Sigmund Freud school of thought treats self-deception as a defense mechanism, “a way for the ego to protect itself”. The mind seeks to protect itself from anxiety and other negative emotions. Many object to this reasoning: since accurate information is so critical to our survival, surely distorting information would be dangerous. Wouldn’t the goal of protecting our self-esteem have been better achieved by making the brain’s self-esteem mechanism stronger instead? The new school of thought explains self-deception as “primarily outward-facing, manipulative, and ultimately self-serving”. This is based on Thomas Schelling’s work on game theory: “In a variety of scenarios, limiting or sabotaging yourself is the winn...
Read more

Europe #3 - Innsbruck

The last city we visited in Europe was Innsbruck in the Austrian Alps. After the cold and windy experience (at times) of Paris and Netherlands, Innsbruck was a wonderful change – it didn’t feel that cold, it was not windy all of which made it easy to walk around. Something absolutely necessary given how scenic the place is.   Since the hotel check-in time was much later in the day, we left the baggage and went to the Swarovski HQ-cum-museum about an hour by bus from Innsbruck. The crystal exhibits were brilliant – colorful, bright, shiny. Jewellery aside, it was a display of what one can do with crystals. While my wife and daughter loved the jewellery, I liked the superhero themed exhibits of Batman, Spiderman, the Hulk, and Star Wars. We didn’t buy anything there, though we did buy stuff in the Swarovski store in Innsbruck – jewellery, not the superhero stuff.   Innsbruck is a major tourist attraction during the skiing season but now in summer, we saw many groups of ...
Read more

The Thrill of the Chase

So many people complain about the difficulty in making decisions while shopping. Do you buy Brand X that gives 20% extra free? Or Brand Y that has 10% off? Or Brand Z that gives something else free with it? Do you buy that flat screen TV today or wait for the sale at Diwali? Now since the customer is king, shouldn’t companies be simplifying pricing choices? Like maybe offering consistently low prices all the time? Not so fast, as the US store, JC Penney discovered to its cost. Turns out that while people do complain about pricing choices, they are irrational. Also, they enjoy the thrill of the chase. Huh? The word “sale” acts like a siren call for many people: it lures them in to make that purchase. Consistently low prices don’t do the same. Besides, if a competitor lowers their prices just one time of the year, and Poof! Suddenly that low price claim becomes suspect in shoppers’ eyes. Then there are those sites that offer coupons: have lunch at Restaurant A on Wedne...
Read more