The Privacy Culture Manifesto

[nullius]

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.  —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.

He that writeth in blood and proverbs doth not want to be read, but learnt by heart.

Local rules:  Moderated at my sound discretion.

[nullius]

reserved

[GazetaBitcoin]

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...

[nullius]

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!

People have the right to privacy

Oh if that were only true.  Ever get involved in the justice system as part of an investigation (even if you were innocent)?  Tell me how much of a right to privacy you have then.  Tell the NSA or Facebook or Twitter how we're all entitled to privacy online....and on and on. 

I would love it if we really did have some legal protections to guard our privacy, but we don't--or we have the bare minimum at best.

That is one of many reasons why we need privacy culture.  And yes, I am going to grind that axe.  I wouldn’t have much street cred as a self-described “privacy activist” if I didn’t—or if I didn’t have a long history of doing so.

Laws are made by people.  They do not just fall out of the sky.  If people don’t value privacy—if society as a whole does not have privacy as its cultural norm—then you can expect for the laws and the legal system not only to fail to protect privacy, but to actively abuse it!

Start at the grassroots level.  Start in your own life, in your daily interactions.  Demand privacy.  Change people’s values.  Praise people who have a “none of my business” attitude—and who keep confidences, in matters that are their business.  Shame people who gossip, nose around, or violate confidences.

If at least 10% of society consisted of active privacy fanatics like me, then everybody would have privacy.  I am not pulling that number out of the air; it is based on research.  It is the approximate proportion which, if unopposed (or if it’s more fanatical than its opposition), can move the whole direction of a modern society.  Because most people are sheep.  Inert.  Apathetic.  Weak.  Followers only, who fear conflict and cave to peer pressure.

Observe how many agendas slowly, gradually take over society—right or wrong—even if passive disliked by a supermajority of the population—for better or for worse!  It starts with a raging hard core of people who just WILL NOT SHUT UP about an issue, who push and push...  Do you want privacy?  Push it!  And even more importantly:  Live it!

Or on the flipside:  If you are one of the sheep, then even if you feel vaguely, passively concerned about violations of privacy, your opinion is completely meaningless.  If you don’t stand up for privacy—if you are not willing to fight for it—then vested interests who hate privacy will be unopposed.  Now, observe the results:  How much privacy do we actually have?  To be clear, the question is rhetorical.

[zasad@]

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.

[Hueristic]

[squatz1]

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:

As reported by Business Insider, the conversation according to SAI sources, went as follows.

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask.

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don't know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb fucks.

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)

[Cnut237]

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:

Consent requires a positive opt-in. Don’t use pre-ticked boxes or any other method of default consent.
Explicit consent requires a very clear and specific statement of 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 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 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 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...

Former Facebook board member Jeff Zients is co-chairing Biden’s transition team. Another former board member is an adviser. Two others — one who was a Facebook director and another who was a company lobbyist — have taken leadership roles. And Biden himself has a friendly relationship with a top Facebook executive, former U.K. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

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

Tom Sullivan, Amazon's international policy team (State Department)
Mark Schwartz, Amazon Web Services' enterprise strategist (Office of Management and Budget)
Divya Kumaraiah, Airbnb's strategy and program lead for cities (Office of Management and Budget)
Brandon Belford, Lyft's senior director and its public policy team's chief of staff (Office of Management and Budget)
Nicole Isaac, LinkedIn's senior director of North America policy (Treasury Department)
Will Fields, Sidewalk Labs' senior development associate (Treasury Department)
Clare Gallagher, Airbnb's partnerships & events manager (National Security Council)
Matt Olsen, Uber's trust and security officer (Intelligence Community)
Arthur Plews, Stripe's strategy and operations lead (Small Business Administration)
Ted Dean, Dropbox's public policy lead (U.S. Trade Representative)
Ann Dunkin, Dell's chief technology officer (Environmental Protection Agency)
Phillip Carter, Tableau Software's senior corporate counsel (Department of Veterans Affairs)
Nairi Tashjian Hourdajian, VP of comms at Figma (Department of Transportation)
Nicole Wong, former Google and Twitter, former Obama Deputy Chief Technology Officer (Office of Science and Technology Policy)

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

[Spendulus]

....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 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........

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?

[Cnut237]

~

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.

[Spendulus]

~

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.

[Cnut237]

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?

Biden has made it clear that he despises Zuckerberg, and has raised the possibility of revoking Article 230.

Proponents of Section 230 have long argued that it allows for free speech online. 
"It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company," said Biden, who noted how a newspaper like the Times has editors and can't simply publish known lies without fear of libel penalties. "It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy."
In response to a question about whether Facebook should be subject to criminal penalties if it's found that harm was done by content, Biden said Zuckerberg "should be submitted to civil liability and his company to civil liability, just like you would be here at The New York Times."
This isn't the first time Biden has spoken out against Facebook or Section 230. He made a similar comment during a November Democratic debate that occurred roughly one month before his sit-down with The Times.

... 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. I'm glad someone appreciates my devastating wit.

You were posting here anti-Trump propaganda

Propaganda? Ha! I stand by the below comments. This is pure, unvarnished truth.

Trump erupted out of a space egg in the outer reaches of the solar system, and was carried back to Earth by an unwitting Sigourney Weaver, there to wreak untold destruction.

there is something nestled coyly atop the POTUS's head, be it Alien, Disgruntled Monkey^TM or something that is and hopefully shall forever remain beyond human understanding.

[Spendulus]

...

Trump erupted out of a space egg in the outer reaches of the solar system, and was carried back to Earth by an unwitting Sigourney Weaver, there to wreak untold destruction.

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.

[nullius]

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) 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?

[Spendulus]

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) 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.

[PrimeNumber7]

Trump has warned about the dangers of unrestrained social media and abuse of Section 230.

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.

[tvbcof]

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.

[Cnut237]

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.

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.

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?

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 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, 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.

[Spendulus]

.....but the proletariat...

The proletariat???

[Cnut237]

.....but the proletariat...

The proletariat???

... but the proletariat no longer has any power.

... no longer has any power, is:

as dead as the idea of labour as power.

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