Re: Privacy (Re: Urgent News Flash)

From: Jason Paul McCartan <jasonm@mindshiftdesign.com>

Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 22:41:37 +0000

David desJardins wrote:

> Jason Paul McCartan <jasonm@mindshiftdesign.com> writes:
>> A lot of people are simply unaware of their privacy rights online.
>> They blindly accept user agreements at websites that allow the
>> reselling of their information.
>
> That's not proof that they are "unaware" of anything.  They might not
> care.  They might not see the alternatives as preferable.

Granted. But I'm not talking about people that are aware of alternatives,
or even informed about privacy. I'm talking about people that are unaware
of even the most basic details on privacy, such as the rights they have
when they sign up with an ISP.

Actually I've asked a lot of people about privacy when I teach classes and
I cover a lot of the geographic USA when I teach. These students are
typically technically-savvy and there's only about 5-10% of each class that
are aware of their privacy and even less who act on the information. The
scary thing is that a lot of these classes are involved in the development
of internet technologies, including publicly-available resources that
capture information on end-users.

I'm basing my statements on the diverse groups of people that I've come
into contact with, not just making a blanket statement.

> From the fact that some people behave in ways that you don't, and don't
> care strongly about issues that you care strongly about, you draw the
> conclusion that they are uninformed.  And you imply that if they were
> better informed, they would be likely to share your priorities and
> issues.  I don't really believe that; I think that this way of thinking
> (if people are unconcerned about privacy issues, they must be uninformed
> about privacy issues, or unaware of them) is condescending and
> inaccurate.

If they were better informed they would be able to make a choice about
being concerned about privacy or not being concerned. If they're unaware
they of course will not be concerned. And they also get no choice in the
matter. I'm not implying that they will follow suit with me and adopy my
priorities and issues. I'm implying that if they at least became aware of
the issues they could make up their own minds.

> I think it's much like the equally strong belief, from a different (but
> overlapping) community in the US, that anyone who doesn't fiercely
> defend the individual right to own handguns and rifles must be
> unconcerned about personal liberty, or unaware of their "rights".

I don't fiercely defend the individual right to own handguns and rifles. I
recognize the validity of it, in light that I have a number of friends who
are or have been military or police officers and who are actively
campaigning for concealed carry (of firearms) in Ohio. Although I don't
fiercely defend handgun owning, I am concerned about personal liberty and
try to make myself as aware of my own rights (as a resident alien with a
US-born child and wife).

--
Jason Paul McCartan

References

Re: Urgent News Flash
"Militaryhumour" <clivedakers@ntlworld.com>
Fri, 07 Jun 2002 13:59:26 +0000
Re: Urgent News Flash
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Fri, 07 Jun 2002 21:30:50 +0000
Privacy (Re: Urgent News Flash)
Jason Paul McCartan <jasonm@mindshiftdesign.com>
Fri, 07 Jun 2002 22:03:40 +0000
Re: Privacy (Re: Urgent News Flash)
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Fri, 07 Jun 2002 22:13:40 +0000