Bitcoin Forum

The Privacy Culture Manifesto

These are your Nullian privacy mantras:

0.
Need-to-know.  —Or else, I don’t want to know!  That is the sincere attitude of someone whom you can trust to respect your privacy; and it is the most basic indicium of one who may be trustworthy to keep your confidences, necessary but insufficient.

1.
If I don’t have a valid reason to know, then it is none of my business.

2.
“Don’t-Know-Your-Customer” would be the policy of a bank that you can trust—maybe.  Numbered accounts are good.  Cryptographically secure transactional unlinkability is better.

3.
Nosiness, prying, gossip—these are our enemies!  

4.
To pry into somebody’s private business and personal details is suspicious behaviour.  It is ipso facto untrustworthy.

5.
“Know Your Customer” is the policy of your owner.

6.
A society cannot have privacy in its laws and customs, unless it has a privacy culture.  For laws are a human product.  If the people of a society do not respect each others’ privacy in their mundane interactions, then the society’s government will inevitably converge on a mass-surveillance tyranny.  Ultimately, to reject privacy culture is to embrace life in a panopticon.

7.
To spy on the personal information of others or to invade somebody’s private affairs is, in different degree, an act like shooting somebody.  It is sometimes justifiable.  Sometimes.  Doxing is an act of virtual violence—never to be done for mere entertainment, or from idle curiosity.  Furthermore, violations of privacy can lead to real-world violence (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5265498.msg55470757#msg55470757).  —Before you seek somebody’s personal information, ask yourself why that person deserves it, and whether your actions are proportionate.

---

The foregoing list will be amended, revised, and expanded.  Busy now.

Meditate on these mantras to reach privacy enlightenment.

---

Local rules:  Moderated at my sound discretion.

reserved

And again, another unmerited valuable post. Maybe it's too soon. I didn't have 50 to make it a 50 merits bomb. But what's stated here is fundamental basis for privacy. Too few people value privacy nowadays and that's sad. They make Cypherpunks work to seem in vain...

Cypherpunks didn't live and work in vain. Their work should be continued by us... By all of us...

Thank you, Gazeta.  What means much more to me than the forum merit is that somebody cares.  Not many people do.  Vide the results—this world in which we live...

I do intend to edit OP as a living project.  I do not think that I will produce a long-form essay; rather, it should be a list of principles to be learnt by heart, as thereby stated.  Meanwhile, I will take this opportunity to bring here a discussion that really started in an inappropriate topic:  In the big picture, why is privacy culture important?

Subject: Re: DEMAND PRIVACY!

Thanks for the post, interesting reading.
I made a translation of your theme for Russian-speaking users
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5285882
I hope you don't mind the translation.
But we live in a world where there are no principles. Therefore, first of all, each user should pay great attention to their security and privacy, so as not to give their enemies the opportunity to harm him.

Best part about this for people that don't know is that this is an ACTUAL QUOTE from Mark Zuckerberg regarding the people that first used Facebook when it was only being used for students at Harvard. He was talking to another studdent at the time, back in 2004, and he couldn't understand why people were willingly giving up their information to him. Here's what he had to say about the situation:


So yeah, actual quote from Zuckerberg regarding the 4000 students at Harvard who at the time had been using Facebook in its infancy (as it was only for people at Harvard)

Facebook is certainly a major reason for the pervasive lack of privacy in modern society. But people do—to an extent—have control over whether or not they use Facebook. Appreciate there's not much that can be done about "friends" sharing your information, but there is at least some degree of control.

But the general position is that you have to go to often ridiculous lengths to opt out of being tracked and surveilled. Internet tracking is a good example, particularly here in the EU, where we have the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to (ostensibly) protect us from surveillance and data-harvesting. The legal requirement is that we specifically have to opt-in to surveillance; there can be no implied consent:

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/lawful-basis-for-processing/consent/

In practice of course, companies disregard this entirely. I posted an example of this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162662.msg51740606#msg51740606) a year and a half ago.
Often, your choices when visiting a website are:
a) click okay to the pre-ticked consent box, or
b) navigate a labyrinthine sprawl of sub-pages to individually untick every aspect of surveillance and every partner organisation.

... but this is just the internet. It barely scratches the surface. Consider your phone spewing out your physical location all the time, to whoever wants to listen. Consider the fact that there are estimated to be (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/06/one-billion-surveillance-cameras-will-be-watching-globally-in-2021.html) 1 billion surveillance cameras around the world by next year (ignore the somewhat sinophobic nature of the article, it's obviously a global problem).

Everything comes down to a yearning for power. Money has always been a manifestation of power, but now—as we are so often told—we live in the information age, and data is* power. Everyone who wants to increase and entrench their power wants your data, be it companies or governments. We can be aware of it, we can rail against it, but it looks like a losing battle. Take the US election as a disheartening example. Biden has made it clear (https://www.cnet.com/news/joe-biden-slams-facebook-calls-zuckerberg-a-real-problem-in-new-york-times-interview/) that he despises Zuckerberg, and has raised the possibility of revoking Article 230. There was speculation he might try to break up the big tech firms. And what happens when he wins the election? He fills his transition team with tech and surveillance-capitalism insiders...

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/16/the-biden-teams-tug-of-war-over-facebook-436672

https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/bidens-transition-is-stacked-with-tech-players

"Where to elect there is but one,
'Tis Hobson's choice—take that, or none."


_*are

So you really didn't see that coming? And now want to bitch about it? You were posting here anti-Trump propaganda, you wanted Biden, now live with it and its consequences. Meaning, from my point of view, you were and you are totally anti-privacy by your actions. Doesn't matter what you say, does it?

I was wrong. It's more of a Morton's Fork. 'Choose nothing' isn't an option.

Yes, there is no surprise that Biden cozies up to big tech. He's hardly an outsider. I never said Biden was perfect, but still, he's vastly preferable to Trump. Trump isn't a way out, he's not anti-establishment, that's just how he positions himself. Trump pits one side against the other in order to benefit personally. The Trump endgame is not a revolution, it's chaos within the system. If there is a key to unlock the door, then Trump doesn't have it. He's only pro-privacy in the context of his own tax returns. If we have to live in a box, I'd rather the box is not on fire, that's all. If there's a way out of the box, let's look for it... but it's not here.

Thank you.

Trump has warned about the dangers of unrestrained social media and abuse of Section 230. Aside from Rand Paul, I can't think of other American politicians that have these issues on their radar.

How about Biden?

... from the above link. Of course, Biden will do nothing about it, just as Trump did nothing.



BTW - thank you for the merit for my 2001 joke in the other thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5293046.msg55689238#msg55689238). I'm glad someone appreciates my devastating wit.

Propaganda? Ha! I stand by the below comments. This is pure, unvarnished (https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190916134828-03-trump-0912-super-tease.jpg) truth.

I pick that any time over hatching Joe & Hoe, playing Hatcheress of High Octane Boredom. So bored, you'll find yourself reading the US Democratic platform. Giving up on that, just starry eyed watch the Earth turn, then call it a day.

With The Trump, whisper things about Evil Social Media, and they are hamburgers on a grill. Done. You might DIRECT that wrath of untold destruction.

Joe & Hoe'd sleep right through your pitch, then Joe wakes up for a few minutes to start a war.

Libtards are scared of Trumpingness for good reason.

Moderation hat on:  Much though I appreciate this discussion in itself, I respectfully request that the thread remain on topic.

There are already numerous threads (including some of my own (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5282452.0)) for discussing the politics of the American Federal government.  That is a top-down approach, and very specific to the United States.

The question hereby is:  What bottom-up, grassroots social norms are needed so that people demand privacy?

What can we do to make respect for privacy into “the new normal”?  —Starting at home, and in local communities, and otherwise in everyday interactions?

---

A good start may be to question why people continue to expose their social graphs and private communications a service whose founder is reported to have said, “They ‘trust’ me.  Dumb fucks.”

—And thereupon to ask:  What acculturation, leadership, and peer pressure could push the herd-mentality masses to do otherwise?

Why didn't you ask sooner?

The simple answer is positive reinforcement for the desired norms, instead of the opposite that we have now: an environment similar to Thursday night, amateur night at the strip club, where everyone bares all for a few claps.

Privacy has a dimensionality; but it must exist. It does not exist in an individual, but between and among them.

Section 230 is separate and distinct from privacy related to social media.

---

I am generally a private person, and I do value my own personal privacy. I also am willing to acknowledge the benefits related to giving up privacy.

On an interpersonal basis, giving up privacy is what allows people to have intimacy with other people. Intimacy with other humans is one of the most rewarding things. Refusing to give up some amounts of privacy will not allow you to reap these rewards.

Somewhat similarly, giving up some amounts of privacy to companies may allow those companies to provide a more customized experience that is more interesting to you. The benefits are not the same as the above but are still benefits.

Ultimately, individuals should be in control of how much privacy they desire.

Breaking my rule of not participating in lame-ass self moderated threads...

 - Public Servants:       Zero Privacy.  Everything, including who and how they fuck, is public record for anyone who cares to look.

 - Public Contractors:  See above, but maybe relaxed a little.

 - Everyone else:         100% Privacy.

Severe penalties for breaking the rules.  Basically, if you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen and don't leach off the taxpayers.  Perfect freedom of choice here.

This is of course true, but privacy from other individuals is only the most visible aspect. The insidious side is not identifiable individuals, it's the abstract them. The whole social media business model, the surveillance capitalism, the data harvesting, and the subsequent modelling through behavioural profiling and ever more advanced analytics software... so that they can build a digital you, not just predicting your next move (and purchase), but also surreptitiously guiding you towards it. Location data from your phone tells them that you've spent an hour at the gym, and have just left. Your phone pings: a personally-targeted offer, 20% off drinks at the shop 50m away, but only for the next hour... you have to buy right now! And they know you will; the data tells them that you're thirsty. The fact that Bob can snoop on Alice's profile and see what she's been doing is immaterial. 'They' see all, that's what matters.


The easiest answer is misleading as it doesn't resolve the underlying problem. You make people demand privacy by making them value it. The problem is how people perceive value. Society has a ready-made and neatly quantifiable manifestation of value: money. Data is worth money to big tech companies, but is given away for free by the marks customers. If laws are put in place to force social media companies and the other data vampires to pay users for their data, then the users will value it. Of course, the users will then happily sell all of their privacy to the highest bidder, which resolves nothing.

As for bottom-up, grassroots solutions... I'm not convinced that these can ever work in western 'democracies'. The system is too advanced. The people at the top want power, but the majority of people want comfort and an easy life. In rich countries, the slave-masters provide the overwhelming majority of people with a guaranteed comfortable standard of living. The people who want comfort have comfort. They have no incentive to rebel. And even if they did rebel, they have no power. The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles... but the proletariat no longer has any power. They can struggle all they want; they will not make even the slightest disturbance. Automation has meant that there is no longer much of a need for a workforce. Muscle power has largely been replaced by machine. Brain power is in the process of being replaced. This isn't the fourteenth century (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-05/when-plagues-pass-labor-gets-the-upper-hand) any more.

The populist right works to entrench the current value system. They are not outsiders, they are ultra-insiders. This is why they get elected. The populist left (Sanders, Corbyn, etc.) works to redefine our value system such that money is not the principal driver. They are outsiders. This is why they are demonised (often by their own parties), slandered in the press, and why they fail to get elected. They do build grassroots solutions (https://peoplesmomentum.com/), but these are mercilessly trodden underfoot. I'm against equality of outcome, but in favour of equality of opportunity, as this works to reduce the oppositional, rat-race nature of society, and entrenched inequalities.

There are many potential ways to solve the privacy problem, but each seems wildly improbable. Modification of the general understanding of what constitutes value, away from money and towards people, is perhaps the least unlikely. The election of a Bernie Sanders type figure who can apply a brake on the excesses of capitalism. The alternatives are unpalatable. Continue as we are, and watch the situation deteriorate ever further. Or await a revolution that can never happen, and an anarchist utopia that can live only in the minds of idealists, or a communist utopia that is as dead as the idea of labour as power.

The proletariat???

... no longer has any power, is:


Come on, read to the end of the post. Don't stop at your trigger words!

Actually I did just that, AND THEN went back and picked a convenient 19th century babble phrase. Rather astonishing that the concept of privacy could be subverted into marxist dialectic. But leave it to marxists to figure a way to blame the greedy capitalists.

The problem here is not the particular insane plunge into dialectic but the inability to recognize that the solution to issues such as this lie completely outside the bounds of politics, as it was known from the 15th - 20th centuries.

Apologies. Let's bury my furious Leninist ranting. Or at least embalm it for posterity*. This is, after all, the internet.

*open to the public on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays from 10:00–13:00


Please could you expand? I can't see how privacy can be solved without either laws (politics) or deliberate modification of a value system (politics). What sort of positive reinforcement? My ideas are just ideas, not a definitive answer. I'd welcome other (and especially conflicting) opinions.

An historical view—over not so short a term as the past few decades—coupled with, dare I infer, a search for first principles, and the application thereof to the big picture?

I like it.  But if you wish to reach the root of the problem, beware that “root” = L. radix.  That way lies thoughtcrime, unacceptable in modern democratic society.

Note to self:  Merit this later.

---

OP was aimed directly at a deliberate modification of a value system.  Via both positive reïnforcement and negative deterrence.


My little work-in-progress sketch in OP fit this description.  I did not foresee that it would incite such quality discussion amongst others!

I find it interesting and thought-provoking, but if you printed it out and nailed it to the church door in Wittenberg, it would just be ignored. How might we convince society as a whole?

Why? I thought some famous guy nailed nine or ten theorats to some church door or maybe that made him famous.

Nearly. It was Martin Luther King. He nailed a Proud Boy to the door, kickstarting the BLM movement. This led, by an improbable sequence of accidents, to the formation of federal Germany. He even wrote a song (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ731aR_SBY) about it.

As a simple example of inducement to privacy, consider a 'what if'. Suppose contributors to a discussion on privacy were five times more likely to receive merit than the average thread. You'd have the most popular thread, wouldn't you?

Note to self:  Merit this now....

lol...

I took the short route rather than the theoretical.

Step 2: Make privacy resources truly, really at hand for everybody. As a comparative test, consider Amazon 1 click purchasing. This really, REALLY gave Amazon a lot of business compared to 9 to 15 click alternatives.

Where's my 1 click privacy, dude?

Cnut: See this places privacy right in the middle of a free capitalist market, if not of money then of ideas. There can NEVER BE a "government solution" to this hence political dialectic is not solution oriented.

Next: Positive AND Negative incentives to Privacy

The manifestation of value in a free capitalist market is money, and only money. To make privacy valuable, we have to monetise it. Instead of an apparently valueless commodity that people are happy to give away for free, we make their privacy worth $$$. But there is only one result:

In fact, worse than resolving nothing, it legitimises the surveillance capitalism and the loss of privacy. Privacy is no longer being stolen; it is being purchased at the market rate.

But ideas have no intrinsic value in a capitalist market. Their value lies only in their potential to create money.


I still can't see any route to making people value and want to retain their privacy other than by a deliberate modification of the definition of value, such that it is separated from money, such that privacy itself becomes something that is desirable, rather than being something that is considered primarily in terms of its monetary equivalent.
I don't believe that any grassroots approach can be successful. Anything that is a threat to the system is suppressed efficiently and with utter ruthlessness. So in practice, as I see it, the most likely (rather, least unlikely of all the unlikely options) is that someone different gets elected. Coming back to the US (sorry, but it is a perfect example)... Biden is the system, Trump is the system on steroids (so, in my view, worse), and then Sanders is the alternative with a different definition of value.

No, that has never been true. For example, my family, and friends, and even dog, have much higher value to me (and just about everybody) than items which directly or indirectly transmute to money.

You are of course correct. I was wrong, my focus too narrow.

How might we use family and friendship bonds to encourage people to value and retain their privacy? Is there a way to associate privacy with reward in this context? Or is the approach to reinforce the negative consequences to family and friends of surrendering our privacy? If so, how? Many people currently give away through social media not only their own privacy, but also that of loved ones. Is this an angle of attack? So instead of saying "don't share your personal data" to which people think "it's my data, I don't mind"... we say "don't share the personal data of your loved ones" and emphasise that to do so might cause emotional or financial damage to these people that you care about. The result then being that you value their right to privacy, and so are more likely in turn to value your own.

Or is there something else, other than family/friends, that everyone (or almost everyone) values more than they value $$$?

There is a time honored tradition valued for millennia, of despising SNITCHES.

I suggest a new grammar subset of English, as follows.

Those Yahoo snitches,

Which of your iPhone apps are snitches?

Indeed, I can foresee the time when the descriptive phrase used for say, an android app is SNITCH. After all, its primary characteristic is SNITCH, not APP. Therefore it is better described by SNITCH. And why should the GOOGLE PLAY store have a subgroup of APPs? Wouldn't you like it better if you could click on SNITCHES?

Would you use a privacy oriented browser such as Brave, or that peeping-Tom Chrome?

Man, that app is so snitch!

I think the word would just get redefined as slang for cool. This might be direct manipulation through some subtle marketing, or it might happen organically once everyone started calling these evil things 'snitch'.

Bad, wicked, sick.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that language can be and is used to modify perspectives and opinions. Even such ludicrous neologisms as 'alternative facts' and 'fake news' have power. I'm not making yet another anti-Trump comment here, but it's fascinating/disturbing how effective he has been at manipulating the lexicon. His success has spawned countless imitators. As a recent example, the UK government is one of the first in the world to approve the new Covid-19 vaccine. Whilst other countries conduct thorough studies on safety and efficacy, the UK simply says 'we'll take it right now!'. But this irresponsibility is immediately cast as a success story. Here's MP Gavin Williamson yesterday, worshipping at the altar of Trumpism as he explains why the UK is first:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/03/gavin-williamson-britains-a-much-better-country-than-all-of-them

The establishment is already so snitch at using language to their advantage, that I don't think it can be weaponised against them in the defence of privacy.

Another example of a positive move would be development of user review ratings with a specific category for privacy abuse. Example, the Android phone flashlight app that requires access to your contacts...