[TheOtherHobbes]

The problem isn't really privacy, it's privacy asymmetry.

Would Facebook agree to make all of their employee web searches public? Would Google? How about all phone traffic? Emails?

Thought experiment: imagine a world where everyone can see what everyone else is doing all of the time.

Assume absolutely no exceptions or restrictions. You can eavesdrop on anyone in the world. Anyone can eavesdrop on you.

How many "I am fine with no privacy" advocates would be happy with this?

It's an extreme thought experiment to highlight how asymmetric the current model is. In the current model privacy is becoming a privilege that is available more and more selectively.

To eliminate the privilege, you either need user controls and permissions for specific profitable use cases, or you need full openness - which I think most people would find terrifying, for all kinds of reasons.

[threeseed]

Exactly.

I would have far more respect for no privacy advocates if they made public a daily ISO of the contents of their computer.

Would they really have the same position once their identity had been stolen, their credit cards maxed out and every thing they have said taken out of context and made available to their friends, family, boss and the TSA.

[newscracker]

> It's an extreme thought experiment to highlight how asymmetric the current model is. In the current model privacy is becoming a privilege that is available more and more selectively.

Slightly tangential to this topic, your comment reminded me of this short talk titled "Your smartphone is a civil rights issue" by Christopher Soghoian. [1] It truly is a great privilege to be able to control one's privacy in today's world (to whatever extent it is possible).

[1]: https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_soghoian_your_smartpho...