Our latest blog post is aimed at people who ‘get it’ about online privacy, but who struggle to convince friends and family to take it seriously. We hope it helps!
Our latest blog post is aimed at people who ‘get it’ about online privacy, but who struggle to convince friends and family to take it seriously. We hope it helps!
I already “get it” and I don’t find this argument too convincing.
If you’re 25 years old and cut them off, they still have :
(Yes, I get that it’s different if everyone cuts off data harvesting at the same time, but this is about convincing one person.)
The more data they have, the more accurate the picture. You may be underestimating how much we all change over the years. At 24 you know what your parents taught you and maybe have a degree. You probably aren’t married. You probably don’t have kids. You probably don’t have any diseases (that you know of).
At 30, maybe you’re married and they’re collecting information about that. At 35 you’ve changed careers and gained or lost a religion. Maybe you have children (now they’re adding info on your children). Maybe you’ve found out that you are diabetic or bipolar. Maybe you’ve had two car accidents. At 40 you’ve cast off a lot of the demands of your parents. Maybe you get divorced. Maybe you realize you’re gay or trans. Maybe you become invested in a different type of politics. Maybe you change careers again. Maybe the bipolar diagnosis gets removed as a misdiagnosis. Maybe now you’ve had cancer.
Imagine how much less they’d have on you (and your children) at 45 if you had cut them off at 24.
This is concrete, thanks. I can work with this.
The arguments the article gives are way to broad to fly around a Thanksgiving table.
They might as well have titled it:
“Ways to convince people to take online privacy seriously (who are already on the fence and leaning so hard in your direction that a stiff breeze would do the job for you)”
Even if its one person, you would have to start somewhere. Maybe they have your data from the last 24 years, as per your example. If you cut off now, five years later, they still have only 24 years of your data. They won’t have the last five year’s data, which would be crucial for them.
That doesn’t address the other two bullet points.
It’s like tracking an animal moving in tall grass. You don’t need to be able to see the animal directly to tell where it is.
If I can’t disappear completely, there’s enough data points around me that a useful silhouette can be reconstructed from all the surrounding data.
What’s the point?
That is an entirely valid point - and exactly why I wrote that blog post. To help people to explain to those around them that they also need to do something about their privacy. Otherwise they’re giving you away by association.
Come to think of it, I probably should have mentioned that in the post 🤦🏼♂️
The point is that by fighting back they cannot get any more accurate than that, which helps, even if it’s incomplete and imperfect.
There’s also the spite angle, because fuck them, i am not gonna give them shit if i can help it!
The article addresses this. Data must be fresh to be valuable. Yes old data can be useful, but can it be sold? That’s the main vulnerability to surveillance capitalism that hiding exploits.