The Privacy Culture Manifesto

[Spendulus]

.....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!

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.

[1714641465]

1714641465

[1714641465]

1714641465

[1714641465]

1714641465

[1714641465]

1714641465

[Cnut237]

insane plunge

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

the solution to issues such as this lie completely outside the bounds of politics

The simple answer is positive reinforcement for the desired norms

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.

[nullius]

...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.

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.

The simple answer is positive reinforcement for the desired norms

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).

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

What sort of positive reinforcement? My ideas are just ideas, not a definitive answer. I'd welcome other (and especially conflicting) opinions.

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

[Cnut237]

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

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?

[Spendulus]

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

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.

[Cnut237]

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

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 about it.

[Spendulus]

...
....

Note to self:  Merit this later....

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?

[Cnut237]

...
....

Note to self:  Merit this later....

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....

[Spendulus]

...
....

Note to self:  Merit this later....

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

[Cnut237]

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:

the users will then happily sell all of their privacy to the highest bidder, which resolves nothing.

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.

if not of money then of ideas

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.

[Spendulus]

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. ...

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.

[Cnut237]

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 $$$?

[Spendulus]

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? ....

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?

[Cnut237]

an android app is SNITCH.

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:

I just reckon we’ve got the very best people in this country and we’ve obviously got the best medical regulators. Much better than the French have, much better than the Belgians have, much better than the Americans have. That doesn’t surprise me at all because we’re a much better country than every single one of them

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.

[Spendulus]

an android app is SNITCH.

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. ....


...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...