[piokoch]

Same you can say about global warming. Is this immediate threat? This year? Next year? In 10 years?

Violation of privacy might lead to the situation that someone will be unemployed forever because of something that he or she wrote 20 years ago on Facebook or employees managed to fetch data that a person was depressed, has many kids, etc.

Massive abuse of privacy will lead sooner or later to some kind corporate version of Chinese social score system. For now it looks innocent, someone gave you a bad ranking on AirBnB, who cares? But in 10 years some bad ranking on some future social platform might keep person homeless because nobody will want to rent a flat because someone's kids stained the walls in the rented apartment.

Those in poverty, unemployed, in debts will be first victims of such system.

[ivanhoe]

It's not about immediacy of it, privacy will never be high priority to someone whose very day to day existence is uncertain and/or who already lives in a system with much worse human rights abuses, corruption and injustices (and that describes a big part of the developing world). Not saying that it's not the real threat, but it's the 1st world type of priority for many...

[newswasboring]

> Not saying that it's not the real threat, but it's the 1st world type of priority for many...

Yeah but should it be? I am from India and we really had the opportunity to nip this in the bud. This will become a problem within the next decade, and that is the day when people will have the right but not the will to say I told you so. This thinking that you should only solve problems in their immediate time is faulty. If something can be solved now with smaller effort than later, it should be solved now.

Edit: think of how we prioritize stuff in software.

[fartcannon]

It's an immediate threat because it is (via their credit score, health records, criminal record) being used to repress them.

[fastball]

I think the problem is you're thinking in terms of cohorts, when that is obviously not how humans actually experience the world.

A person that is starving right now does not care that the poor will be the first on the proverbial chopping block when global warming comes home to roost... because they are starving right now.

[chrisdirkis]

I don't mean to make light of struggling to find somewhere to live, and I know it can be difficult for many due to reasons beyond their control, and this really sucks. Everyone should have a place to live. I'm interested in exploring the hypothetical, when you say:

> keep person homeless because nobody will want to rent a flat because someone's kids stained the walls in the rented apartment.

If Evan's kids stain the wall, then Evan's kids are more likely to stain the wall. Currently, the expectation of someone being more likely to stain the walls is "priced in" to the rental prices everywhere. People who don't stain walls pay a little more, and people whose kids stain the wall cost their owners a little more, but on average it comes out (hope you can own a lot of domiciles).

If we start to be able to measure this, doesn't this mean we can more accurately price it? People less likely will pay less, and people more likely will pay more. I think you're suggesting that "Owners will just use the likelihood of damages as a threshold, and if you're 0.01 above the Unsafe/Volatile threshold you'll not be rented to at all", but that leaves a pretty big hole in the market. If there's not enough supply, then people are being kicked out instead of Evan _now_, and if there is enough supply, then you'd rather rent to Evan at higher rates to cover your risks than to not rent at all, right?

The current situation kinda feels like an "insurance" thing, with pooled risk.

[clan]

Do you have kids yourself? How much control do you ultimately have over them? How long should this metric haunt you?

When hearing how US credit scoring works I do not think it is a system worth striving for.

This quickly becomes analogue to another HN discussion today about job opportunities for felons. That is hard threshold - it is easier just to skip them.

Should we let the market forces rule freely?

If not totally free then how big a pooled risk is acceptable to you? A pool for those with kids and another for those without?

I have no kids and personally I prefer one pool. Even with those unruly kids upstairs!

When I see a society with gated communities I feel sorry for them. I live a place where we do not have them and I am grateful for that. They might be happier than me - but I do still not envy them.

I often find people who argue fair pricing are the ones who think they are in the sweet spot.

The example seems a little contrived as well. If Evans kid stains the wall he would fix it. If not - then it is when you have the deposit to mitigate that risk.

I do however get the gist of it. And personally I like the pooled risk. I think that we do much better together than as individuals. The pricing might seem unfair but sometimes it in your direct favour. And the "insurance" feels nice too.

Naturally it comes down to your own philosophy.

So while I agree that it could give a variant of more accurately pricing I do not think that kind of "precision" is healthy.

I am afraid that the privacy ship has sailed but I still think it is worth fighting as the current course have a high risk of a truly dystopian future.

[stickfigure]

I honestly think these fears are way overblown. Is a family with kids more likely to damage an apartment or simply go to bed early? I don't think anyone has these stats, and even if they did, they probably aren't material enough to overcome the added cost of complexity and social awkwardness.

[klmadfejno]

> Violation of privacy might lead to the situation that someone will be unemployed forever because of something that he or she wrote 20 years ago on Facebook or employees managed to fetch data that a person was depressed, has many kids, etc.

Ok but being real for a second, this is extremely difficult to imagine happening. What on earth could you write on facebook 20 years ago, short of a confession to a heinous crime, that would make you unemployable?

[idrios]

I would argue that it's hurting those demographics right now. It's never been easier to do a background check, which if you've had a rocky past that you're trying to change, means it's never been harder to escape you're past self. This isn't limited to criminal records, but even just having pictures of yourself underage drinking from 10 years ago, or (publicly) saying stupid things that all of have said at some point in our lives, is enough to lock you out of jobs.

We're left in a situation where -- once again -- the educated and wealthy have an advantage over the poor and unfortunate by just knowing how to hide their mistakes.

Anyone who says privacy is a privileged person's issue is shortsighted

[Kiro]

Both are very privileged issues. Pretty sure neither is the big concern for the majority of people.