>>16991it is indisputable that the majority of people hates surveillance, because privacy is a biological need for humans. There is no consent for it, the capitalists are imposing it by making it really hard to not have your privacy violated. And there is manufacturing of consent going on to create a false appearance that many people find this acceptable. Like your post attempting to normalize privacy violations, it therefor has to be dismissed as glowy
A privacy violation can be defined as beginning with uncertainty about whether or not their was an attempt to store personal data of any kind with some kind of system, that is not just somebodies memories. Personal data is all information where personal identification can't be ruled out. Your personal memory can also include personal objects like pen and paper or a computer for personal use only, as long as you are the only one able to access it's equivalent to your brain. (it's also a privacy violation if other people can access your personal memory-aid objects)
Also un-violated privacy-right means you can't consent to having your privacy violated, just like the end of slavery meant that you can't sell your self into slavery voluntarily. (I'm not opposed to people revealing their identity if they are doing a type of media production that relies on being recognizable.)
Privacy means the state can only identify you by means of an in person interaction of asking for your id-card by interacting with a state servant within certain spaces and limitations. Nobody else can have the ability to identify you by means other than the memories in their brain or personal memory-aid objects. (I'm trying to be very forward thinking here and allow for things like a potential dementia-compensation-prosthesis )
it is a known fact that privacy-violating data has been used for extra-judicial assassinations. I think the technical term is "meta-data-signature-strikes by unmanned areal combat vehicles". At the moment it is still very expensive and technically difficult to weaponize privacy-violations for murder even for state-actors, but it is almost certainly going to become cheaper and easier in the future, given the amount of money that is being funneled into this. Therefor i consider privacy-rights as synonymous with a right to live.
It also should not have escaped your attention that the capitalists are using surveillance for class warfare, like for manipulation of elections and interfering with worker organization. For that reason i consider privacy as a necessary component of democracy. If your data is being captured by surveillance systems it is already being used to politically disenfranchise you. That makes privacy a political right as well.
>I probably should have made it clear that by "avoid technology wherever possible" I wasn't advocating a Kaczynski/Amish way of life, but rather an awareness that there often exists the choice to not consume a product or to not use a service,It is reasonable advice for the present conditions that people use privacy preserving technology, however that can not be turned into an excuse for privacy violating technology. Within the confines of a market economy you should choose to consume the products and services from ethical capitalists, because that is harm reduction. But the existence of harm reduction can't become an excuse for harm-infliction elsewhere. What i also want to object to is the idea that privacy means some form of technology abstinence. You can't create spheres where privacy can be suspended, or use of systems of exclusion that bar access unless you give up rights and submit to being violated.
>Hurr durr, isn't fucking anything political?No, for example gravity is not political.
The need for life to increase the entropy of the universe to continue existing is not political.
Many other things are non-political as well, but i think these to examples should be sufficient to refute your claim that anything can be political.
>>16992>Imo there's no one size fits all privacy solution, it mostly depends on your threat model.You are mostly correct, but threat modeling has a flaw. People should max out their technical abilities and deploy all the privacy-preserving techniques they are capable of, even if it goes beyond what their personal threat model requires. Because it should not be possible to gauge what you think about your threat model by the measures you deploy.