How much is too much?
Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff wrote a monumental book about the new economic order that is alarming. "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism," reveals how the biggest tech companies deal with our data. How do we regain control of our data? What is surveillance capitalism? In this documentary, Zuboff takes the lid off Google and Facebook and reveals a merciless form of capitalism in which no natural resources, but the citizen itself, serves as a raw material. How can citizens regain control of their data?===================================================================================https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL4bz3QXWEo
When should enough have been enough? The part (at 7:30) about a woman being pregnant and a supermarket chain knowing before she did is an eye opener. Shoulld be a brain opener too.
Interestingly, one of our valued regulars posted something similar some time back.
@icyfroth wrote:
Film director Oliver Stone has says Pokémon Go is a “new level of invasion” of privacy that could lead to “totalitarianism”.
Oliver Stone has a history of taking on the establishment, and questioning historical and social narratives that society has been conditioned to accept as truth.
While promoting his new movie about NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden at Comic-Con International, the hollywood filmmaker was asked about security concerns associated with Pokémon Go.
Stone noted that companies were actually using the game to carry out“surveillance capitalism” by monitoring people’s behaviour.
Stone said…
“It’s not funny. What’s happening is a new level of invasion.
“The profits are enormous here for places like Google. They’ve invested a huge amount of money in data mining what you are buying, what you like, your behaviour.
“It’s what some people call surveillance capitalism.”
I'm surprised that more folks didn't post on her thread. Don't we care?
Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively.
When something is private to a person, it usually means that something is inherently special or sensitive to them. The domain of privacy partially overlaps with security, which can include the concepts of appropriate use, as well as protection of information. Privacy may also take the form of bodily integrity.
The right not to be subjected to unsanctioned invasions of privacy by the government, corporations or individuals is part of many countries' privacy laws, and in some cases, constitutions.
In the business world, a person may volunteer personal details, including for advertising, in order to receive some sort of benefit. Public figures may be subject to rules on the public interest. Personal information which is voluntarily shared but subsequently stolen or misused can lead to identity theft.
The concept of universal individual privacy is a modern concept primarily associated with Western culture, British and North American in particular, and remained virtually unknown in some cultures until recent times. Most cultures, however, recognize the ability of individuals to withhold certain parts of their personal information from wider society, such as closing the door to one's home.
Right to be let alone
In 1890 the United States jurists Samuel D. Warren and Louis Brandeis wrote "The Right to Privacy", an article in which they argued for the "right to be let alone", using that phrase as a definition of privacy.[1] There is extensive commentary over the meaning of being "let alone", and among other ways, it has been interpreted to mean the right of a person to choose seclusion from the attention of others if they wish to do so, and the right to be immune from scrutiny or being observed in private settings, such as one's own home.[1]
Although this early vague legal concept did not describe privacy in a way that made it easy to design broad legal protections of privacy, it strengthened the notion of privacy rights for individuals and began a legacy of discussion on those rights.[1]
Limited access
Limited access refers to a person's ability to participate in society without having other individuals and organizations collect information about them.[2]
Various theorists have imagined privacy as a system for limiting access to one's personal information.[2] Edwin Lawrence Godkin wrote in the late 19th century that "nothing is better worthy of legal protection than private life, or, in other words, the right of every man to keep his affairs to himself, and to decide for himself to what extent they shall be the subject of public observation and discussion."[2][3] Adopting an approach similar to the one presented by Ruth Gavison[4] Nine years earlier,[5] Sissela Bok said that privacy is "the condition of being protected from unwanted access by others—either physical access, personal information, or attention."[2][6]
Control over information
Control over one's personal information is the concept that "privacy is the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others." Generally, a person who has consensually formed an interpersonal relationship with another person is not considered "protected" by privacy rights with respect to the person they are in the relationship with. [7][8]
Charles Fried said that "Privacy is not simply an absence of information about us in the minds of others; rather it is the control we have over information about ourselves. Nevertheless, in the era of big data, control over information is under pressure.[9]
States of privacy
Alan Westin defined four states—or experiences—of privacy: solitude, intimacy, anonymity, and reserve. Solitude is a physical separation from others.[10] Intimacy is a "close, relaxed, and frank relationship between two or more individuals" that results from the seclusion of a pair or small group of individuals.[10]
Anonymity is the "desire of individuals for times of 'public privacy.'"[10] Lastly, reserve is the "creation of a psychological barrier against unwanted intrusion"; this creation of a psychological barrier requires others to respect an individual's need or desire to restrict communication of information concerning himself or herself.[10]
In addition to the psychological barrier of reserve, Kirsty Hughes identified three more kinds of privacy barriers: physical, behavioral, and normative. Physical barriers, such as walls and doors, prevent others from accessing and experiencing the individual.[11] (In this sense, "accessing" an individual includes accessing personal information about him or her.)[11]
Behavioral barriers communicate to others—verbally, through language, or non-verbally, through personal space, body language, or clothing—that an individual does not want them to access or experience him or her.[11] Lastly, normative barriers, such as laws and social norms, restrain others from attempting to access or experience an individual.[11]
