[kleiba]

Listen, this is nothing new. You can find articles like that going back years and years. The truth is: convenience trumps privacy in practice in a lot of cases. Two examples:

1. Theoretically speaking, my (data) privacy is of a high value to me! -- Then you should stop using a smart phone. -- Well...

2. I don't want anyone to create a profile of my habits because it's none of their business! -- Hi, do you have a Walmart+ card? -- Sure, here you go!

And I actually like the concept of reward cards (although I don't use them) because it is pretty much the only way how you can make money off your data.

[applfanboysbgon]

> Listen, this is nothing new.

"Violations of your constitutional rights have been going on for decades now, so it's time to shut up about them" is certainly a take.

[chii]

Action speaks louder than words. It doesn't matter what people say they prefer, their actions reveal a true preference.

[noosphr]

Funny how we stopped drinking lead when they stopped putting lead in our water.

[mcsniff]

If you want to absolve yourself of personal responsibility, go ahead and blame "them" and "we".

You were free to drink lead-free water the entire time, you just didn't care enough to do so.

[noosphr]

We also stopped breathing fall out when they stopped doing atmospheric nuclear tests.

If only those lazy 1950s layabouts carries oxygen tanks instead of complaining about cancers.

[applfanboysbgon]

This is just idiotic to say. Nobody actually prefers to have their data siphoned off, in the abstract. If you make it a choice between "privacy" and "being able to participate in society in any way at all", obviously they're going to pick the latter. That's not a "revealed preference", that's coercion. It doesn't actually have to be that way. We can have a world where we have smartphones, and the government can't use those smartphones to track your location at all times.

[plagiarist]

Let me know how I can participate in society without a cellphone, credit cards, sharing an ID with businesses, showing my face to ubiquitous cameras, whatever else. I'll do it. Tell me how.

[tmountain]

It's a direct violation of the fourth amendment. The worst thing you can do is just accept it, as that normalizes it. This is an end-around to avoid going through judicial channels to obtain information about private citizens, full stop. I'd love to hear about such brazen examples in the past, as right now, we have Kash Patel openly admitting to this activity either out of ignorance or hubris, either of which is terrible.

[cheschire]

The majority of the population has been ok with this path for a very long time so it’s unlikely to change.

There are basic ways to act, not just talk, to support resistance to this path. And people, even some people reading this very comment, are unwilling to take those basic actions while also whining loudly and/or downvoting in angst.

[applfanboysbgon]

There is nothing "basic" about preserving your privacy in this age. I go to ridiculously great lengths to preserve my privacy. That entails using VMs with separate VPNs for every different thing I do on the internet to avoid cross-pollination between my online identities, that entails never taking my smartphone out of the house, that entails using burner phones, that entails accepting that I simply can't use an increasingly large number of services that are being gated by identity verification, which is now trying to be forced on being able to use a computer at all at the OS-level. It is an absolute pain in the ass to worry about this, and it's completely understandable why people give up, but that doesn't mean they actually want it to be this way. Privacy should be the default, not something you have to fight for.

[kleiba]

Putting words into other people's mouth isn't the best etiquette: where did I say "it's time to shut up about them"??

[applfanboysbgon]

Your tone implies it. "Listen, this is nothing new" is a phrase dripping with "I'm tired of hearing about this". You surely know that the people pointing out continually escalating violations know that the violations are not new.

[cheschire]

You inferred it. They did not imply it.

They might simply be tired of listening to armchair protestors who don’t take even the most basic actions to backup their words.

[the_other]

I read the implication too, as well as the fatigue.

They offered nothing to counteract the idea that we should just shut up and accept it. Then they closed with "And I actually like the concept of reward cards (although I don't use them) because it is pretty much the only way how you can make money off your data." - which sounds like they have given up opposition, and are now considering ways to profit from the situation rather than fight it.

[tmountain]

Then don't be in the thread.

[qsera]

>convenience trumps privacy in practice in a lot of cases. T

I quite recently found that the "CRED" app works by requesting permission to access the user's WHOLE INBOX and reading their mails. The users apparently have no problems giving access to their all mails to some app that they don't have control or ability to scrutinize.

[Esophagus4]

Even some package tracking apps want access to your email to scan for packages.

Forget that!

[tonyedgecombe]

Reward cards aren’t for your benefit.