I requested a copy of my data from McDonald’s loyalty program and received an extensive, personalized report that algorithmically predicts my next purchase.
Eesh, you don’t have to keep quoting me at myself. I’m not saying I dont see a red flag, I’m not saying I assume the habits aren’t being sold… I came up with that example, after all!
First off, I can be privacy-minded while not being an absolute binary thinker on it. If I go to a local coffee shop and the owner there starts to recognize me, and recommends my usual drink - in some sense, yes that is surveillance and a compromise of my privacy. I accept it and even welcome it in return for what I get out of it. Doing that at scale, electronically, is IN ITSELF not a problem so long as the data is handled ethically. That’s why this article is weak. Because it doesn’t do any real investigative journalism to prove how this data is used badly. It merely alludes to it. The people who already understand the problems with that are already in agreement with the point the article is trying to make and the people who don’t understand the problems with that aren’t going to be swayed by this profoundly unspooky dossier of what McDonald specials you like to eat. I can’t send this to my dad to make him care more about privacy. The article inadvertently makes it look like McDonald’s isn’t doing anything bad with this data because it can’t muster up even a single concrete sentence about those harms, because that would require too much budget (I guess?). And hence why Wired is lame compared to 404media for example. The 404 version of this piece AT LEAST would cite clear harms from similar cases (not just link to a lengthy document about it).
I believe a better world is one where being super hardcore about privacy isn’t necessary because we have strong enough governance to prevent abuse of our information. I don’t want to wear a mask when I go outside - I want cameras taken down. But I can be realistic and practical and see both sides. I understand why a restaurant with outdoor seating might want to put up cameras, especially if people keep stealing their nice decorations. I understand my face might get on those videos. Me personally, I think that’s just fine as long as there are good protections around how those videos are used, retained, etc. There are actual benefits to surveillance, it’s childish to deny it. If there were no benefits it wouldn’t be so easy to get people to sign up for it. We should find a compromise that gives us benefits of both things, and that compromise is orchestrated through governance. Good governance is how we would enshrine an absolute lack of surveillance in the first place. So if we’re going to presume solutions that rely on good governance, then I see no reason not to use that good governance to have reasonable data usage. For example, primitive red light cameras that only capture speeding, to me are fair game, whereas Flock is obviously insane and evil and despicable. I fucking hate Flock, but a well-programmed red light camera is to an acceptable tradeoff. I hope you won’t think this means I’m not “truly” privacy-minded. I am absolutely mindful of the privacy consequences of the red light cameras. Part of being privacy-minded is about realistically weighing the costs and benefits of what data you give up. (Surely you have areas where you welcome less privacy in exchange for some convenience, even if its simply not wearing a face mask on a hot day)
I know to a lot of people it seems like a slippery slope and its better not to even take the first step. Again to that I would say: Only very good and truly representative government could ever prevent that first step from being taken. And if you have that kind of government, then you would also trust that government to just enact laws that allow reasonable gathering and use of that data to begin with.
Eesh, you don’t have to keep quoting me at myself. I’m not saying I dont see a red flag, I’m not saying I assume the habits aren’t being sold… I came up with that example, after all!
First off, I can be privacy-minded while not being an absolute binary thinker on it. If I go to a local coffee shop and the owner there starts to recognize me, and recommends my usual drink - in some sense, yes that is surveillance and a compromise of my privacy. I accept it and even welcome it in return for what I get out of it. Doing that at scale, electronically, is IN ITSELF not a problem so long as the data is handled ethically. That’s why this article is weak. Because it doesn’t do any real investigative journalism to prove how this data is used badly. It merely alludes to it. The people who already understand the problems with that are already in agreement with the point the article is trying to make and the people who don’t understand the problems with that aren’t going to be swayed by this profoundly unspooky dossier of what McDonald specials you like to eat. I can’t send this to my dad to make him care more about privacy. The article inadvertently makes it look like McDonald’s isn’t doing anything bad with this data because it can’t muster up even a single concrete sentence about those harms, because that would require too much budget (I guess?). And hence why Wired is lame compared to 404media for example. The 404 version of this piece AT LEAST would cite clear harms from similar cases (not just link to a lengthy document about it).
I believe a better world is one where being super hardcore about privacy isn’t necessary because we have strong enough governance to prevent abuse of our information. I don’t want to wear a mask when I go outside - I want cameras taken down. But I can be realistic and practical and see both sides. I understand why a restaurant with outdoor seating might want to put up cameras, especially if people keep stealing their nice decorations. I understand my face might get on those videos. Me personally, I think that’s just fine as long as there are good protections around how those videos are used, retained, etc. There are actual benefits to surveillance, it’s childish to deny it. If there were no benefits it wouldn’t be so easy to get people to sign up for it. We should find a compromise that gives us benefits of both things, and that compromise is orchestrated through governance. Good governance is how we would enshrine an absolute lack of surveillance in the first place. So if we’re going to presume solutions that rely on good governance, then I see no reason not to use that good governance to have reasonable data usage. For example, primitive red light cameras that only capture speeding, to me are fair game, whereas Flock is obviously insane and evil and despicable. I fucking hate Flock, but a well-programmed red light camera is to an acceptable tradeoff. I hope you won’t think this means I’m not “truly” privacy-minded. I am absolutely mindful of the privacy consequences of the red light cameras. Part of being privacy-minded is about realistically weighing the costs and benefits of what data you give up. (Surely you have areas where you welcome less privacy in exchange for some convenience, even if its simply not wearing a face mask on a hot day)
I know to a lot of people it seems like a slippery slope and its better not to even take the first step. Again to that I would say: Only very good and truly representative government could ever prevent that first step from being taken. And if you have that kind of government, then you would also trust that government to just enact laws that allow reasonable gathering and use of that data to begin with.