Yes, because these systems inherently violate the privacy of parties that didn't consent to the spying. This includes private individuals, and competing companies with whom the "consenting" individual interacts.

A thought experiment: imagine a corporate TOS including a clause that specifically prohibits use of devices/software that violates the provider's privacy. E.g. an end user's account can be terminated because they're using Google/FB/other "voluntary" spyware...

So how many individuals and organizations do I need to get permission from to install something on my phone?

All these privacy histrionics are supplanting all other individual rights, personal accountability has to break out of this permission loop, even legally speaking, otherwise no one would be able to do anything.

> So how many individuals and organizations do I need to get permission from to install something on my phone?

The problem isn't about installing something on your phone, it's about handing over every single private communication you have with others without getting their approval. It contradicts your first assumption that people have _opted in_.

> All these privacy histrionics are supplanting all other individual rights, personal accountability has to break out of this permission loop, even legally speaking, otherwise no one would be able to do anything.

Are you're suggesting that no consent is necessary for you to put other people's private information on sale?

Private correspondence is always like that.

If you send me a snailmail, I have all right to publish what you right to me (with a few exception, of course).

That's why we got all those email disclaimer nonsense.

You may have the right to publish some emails when necessary. It is a whole different thing to sell every bit of private correspondence to a third party in secret. Not only is it a betrayal of trust, a quick search on the internet suggests that it may be illegal in some cases[1].

[1] https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/invas...

This is excessively reductionist logic. There's a huge gulf between, for example, the snarky reply below ala "forwarding emails is illegal" and "an app is en masse siphoning all communications between its users and others".

The privacy backlash is precisely about people becoming more aware of the latter class of behavior and rebelling against it. Complaining that "no one would be able to do anything" is a straw-man without relevance to the actual social conversation going on right now.

You seem to be operating on the assumption that you're defending something other than the status quo.

(A quick example of this brand of individualism that offers the individual right, non-declinable, to be analyzed and sanctioned by the government: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18704330)

And that, kids, is why forwarding emails is illegal.

> does a privacy maximalist mentality needs to be imposed on everyone?

I see you follow Google closely; close enough to know that privacy concerns have hardly impeded its growth and dominance. Same with all other major tech companies.

Does a privacy minimalist mentality need to be imposed on everyone? (I'm asking rhetorically. In either form, it's not a substantial argument: it's a strawman. Privacy isn't a measurable quantity, and each person or community cares about protecting or revealing different things.)

Edit: Q.E.D. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19039593

What does any of that mean? my point is against imposing one's POV on others and that people are free to consent to stuff you might not like.

Consent has never been enough. It has always been about informed consent as a minimum, and free choice as the target ideal.

> does a privacy maximalist mentality needs to be imposed on everyone?

I kinda think so, yeah. Everyone flies past the privacy stuff, or gives compromises, or is traded free Farmville points, or given extra coins, or a new shiny feature in exchange for it, their friends are on it, their celebrity is on it, etc.

People will opt-in for all those reasons not realizing or seeing what they gave up or its consequences.

People don't know what they're consenting to. In reddit conversations I've seen people say that they're fine with the app because "everything private is encrypted with SSL". They don't realize the whole point of this is to get around that SSL encryption.

What if they know?

This Google app, unlike Facebook's, do not decrypt traffic.

Now tell me who don't know what they consent to.

Well if they do know, then who cares. You do you. But, at least in FB's case, they don't.

We don't allow poor people to sell one of their kidneys for cash.

I know this is not the same as privacy, but consider it when saying "is consent not enough anymore"

Scams are opt-in.

How is that a scam? are you saying participants didn't receive their gift cards? are the terms agreed to false?

You were asking if "consent was not enough", as if such a thing was inconceivable. I'm just giving you one of many possible counterexamples.

There is consent and then there is informed consent.

Informed consent is enough. That's the problem though.

Man, this is interesting and complicated.

I'll submit this for consideration: you're right, it's 100% fine from an individual standpoint. But there's an aggregate effect of some sort that is a concern. Every move like this changes people's standards and expectations. Call it a "cultural shift", and call us "conservatives" along this particular axis. If we don't want to live in a world where companies pull this sort of shit on _every_ user to the point that the privacy-conscious among us have no choice, we want fewer people around us to be okay with it.

So what does that imply we should do? I'm not sure. Maybe simply push back as we are. Maybe try to impress onto opters-in just what they're selling, and maybe they'll reconsider. Maybe ask Google to simply brand this differently. Call it the "Truman Show Package". So at least everyone is aware that, while the data being collected is valuable, and while everything is 100% a-ok so long as everyone consents, this is NOT NORMAL and nobody should accept it as such.

Who exactly is the "us" and "we" in this scenario?

> If we don't want to live in a world where companies pull this sort of shit on _every_ user to the point that the privacy-conscious among us have no choice, we want fewer people around us to be okay with it.

So, people who fit that "if" clause. I assume it's a significant number of people here.