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

Popular posts from this blog

Student of the Year

Animal Senses #7: Touch and Remote Touch

The Retort of the "Luxury Person"