Slashdot Mirror
Seems Nobody Gives A Damn About Privacy
sulli writes "Remember how everyone got all up in arms about Yahoo's plans to spam and coldcall all of its members? Well, even if slashdot readers were pissed and angrily deleted their accounts, the vast majority of users did nothing. (New York Times, blah blah) So much for the big popular revolt, I guess. Market away, Yahoo!" Sigh.
you have to give up private information to view a story on how people don't care about privacy.
"It's even worse if you're locked into a proprietary operating system." -http://www.wehavethewayout.com/scale.asp?rew=0
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Privacy is one of those things that geeks pay attention to because they're so acutely aware of how easy it is to lose it and how annoying the ramifications can be. The vast majority of people out there don't care about their privacy because:
a) They're mostly ignorant about what they're giving up, and
b) They're too busy trying to feed and house themselves given all the other shit they have to deal with.
Geeks, on the other hand, are intelligent and have enough free time to sit around and discuss about how they're getting royally fucked over...which, of course, they are. This is why it is our job to inform people whenever possible, and most importantly, supply the tools necessary to protect personal privacy (Ad-Aware, anyone?), and make those tools easy to use for the poor schmucks out there who don't have time to worry about it.
And thats all i gots to say about that.
"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
Remember how everyone got all up in arms about Slashdot's plans to implement Big Fucking Ads? Well, even if slashdot readers were pissed and angrily boycotted slashdot for a week, the vast majority of users did nothing. So much for the big popular revolt, I guess. Market away, Slashdot! Sigh.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It sounds like you're pissed because too many see the trade, realize it, recognize its effects, and just don't care.
My whole point is that people do care. However, it becomes a full-time job and requires the skills of a lawyer and a computer scientist to keep up with all the scum out there. Most people can't handle this. They do care, though -- they fume about all the spam, junk mail, and telemarketer phone calls they get.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
You're right, of course. This is exactly how the free market is supposed to work. And it may be the best general solution to this sort of problem. But it probably isn't ideal.
:-) )
It's one of the underlying assumptions of capitalism that we are all rational agents. In particular, we have the quality to make a rational decision about every system that we take part in, and more importantly every dollar that we spend.
I am human. I am not a rational agent. While some of my decisions are irrational, more often I don't even realize I'm making a decision. Because the world is not transparent (and it would be impossible to make it so) I can't make the rational decision to support the shoe company that creates the best working conditions, and the fast food company that has the most efficient packaging (through the entire process, mind you, not just what I get handed.), and the beef company that treats its animals best, or the government that has the least corruption.
Now, it's important to note that on any particular issue (environment, corruption, labour standards, animal treatment, etc.) you can probably do enough digging to make the decision. However, there is not (yet?) a system that "lubricates" the effective decision making capacity of the citizens of a capitalist democracy.
Thus, while this is indeed working exactly as it is "supposed" to, it is still not optimal.
(It's no wonder I have a hard time placing myself on a political spectrum. They're *both* wrong.
-Rob Ewaschuk
Like I said in my post - I did email a real person there. The thing that's wrong with it this:
Humans now have a dual existence: In meatspace and in cyberspace. I own my own meat - I can clothe it the way I want, I can move it around the way I want, and by damn, if I want it hid in a closet, that's where I'll put it. My cyberself should be just as much my property as my meatself: I am that data that yahoo was misusing, my meat is attached to it and I should be allowed full consensual control over both my meatself and my cyberself.
Nobody decided for, or gave me the chance to vote, over whether or not corporate bigmoney should be allowed to enslave my cyberself.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
In fact sometimes some of the spam from Yahoo gets filtered into the Bulk Mail by their own filters! Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot!
Video Game cheats, hints a
While I will agree people jump to the Orwell phase a bit quick, I don't think he was comparing the current reality to 1984, but the potential for it. As the saying goes, Hitler never campainged with "You know what Germany needs? more concentration camps".
It starts with marketing. Then it goes to "national security". Then "protecting your freedoms". Wait, no, we're already there. If there's no public outcry against invasions of privacy, combined with the public's fear of the specter of (spooky voice)terrrorism, we're on the fast lane to a shiny new life, happy drugs, a Department of Homeland Security (which Orwell himself couldn't have named better) and constant monitoring of what we do.
Think about it this way: when they put up cameras to watch the crowds, no one flinched. The government admits to having the ability to read all our email or listen to phone calls, no one cared. Bags are searched, homes are searched, radio stations taken off the air, drug testing, informers cutting deals, marshall law (lockdown for fear of terrorism). If no one even notices or cares when privacy policies you agree to flip over, who's going to complain about "the PATRIOT Act" or "the USA act"? Or, in 2005 the "International Let's Oversee Virtually Everything Near You" Act?
Corporations are compiling information on what we do, buy and sell, watch and hear...and if one more terrorist attack occurs, our government will take it, no matter what kind of "privacy policy" Yahoo sends us an email about. If everyone is apathetic to this, I'm afraid by the time they do care we'll already be living in a brave new world. How farfetched is it, really? We're not there now, but when should we acknowledge the possibility?