A couple decades back when internet was a bit younger, there was a quite popular metaphor of the Global Village, shrinking the world and connecting people. However, that focused only on the positive aspects, but as time has gone on, I think that this has materialized in quite a literal way.

Currently most of us are used to the pseudo-anonymity of big cities, where people technically can know a lot stuff about us (because it happens in 'public' space, as you describe) but they overwhelmingly don't, because the vast majority of them are strangers who don't care. The new digital environment, on the other hand, is quite a lot like a small village.

The grocer can make effective suggestions for your food because they remember every purchase you ever made, they will know your consumption habits better than Amazon or anyone else in the modern world. They will know if you're expecting guests tonight just because of your purchases (and might gossip about that), and in that case they'll point you towards their cousin who's selling wine across the street. They will know if you're eating something that their other cousin, the local doctor, has said that you should avoid, and might refuse to sell you that.

The local lender (whether a banker or just a wealthy farmer who's a loan shark) does not need to 'profile' you - they know your dealings and your character, they'll know even if you've been stingy in giving back borrowed things as a teenager. If you buy condoms, the pharmacist will likely know with whom you're planning to use them. The contents of your bookshelf, as in your example? The village knows about that, people have been to your house, if there's anything unusual, word will get around - and if people have not been to your house, you've kept your privacy and the village does not know you, then you'll be treated as an untrustworthy weirdo with maximum prejudice; because keeping private is just not How Things Are Done Around Here. If your political opinions or religious views or sexual preferences don't fit what the village expects, good luck mentioning about it - their condemnation will be much more fierce than any Twitter mob.

So in that aspect, it's not something new, the level of privacy is slowly becoming as low as it was historically when we lived in much smaller communities. We have had some centuries of urban pseudo-anonymity, but it's fading now. It has been just a temporary reprieve, when you could move from a literal village to a big city, get lost in the crowd and be free and anonymous. It was difficult to do in ancient times, and it might be difficult to do again in the future.

Very well put. It's the automation of the nosy village neighbor. People can decide whether this is good or bad, but it's less novel than they act like it is.

Yes, I totally get that perspective. As I said, I'm explaining why many people don't see it that way. They perceive it as a difference of scale and not kind. You have painted a very vivid analogy that shows how it is different. Do you really disagree that some people have no qualms about other people seeing what they do online?

Well i can't disagree with people having opinions, only with their opinions, and even that might be a useless endeavor. I disagree with the "the internet is like outside", the "the internet is like a tribal village" and with the "corporations are like people" metaphors.

But to answer your question: I believe that the constitution must limit the data, which government agencies and private corporations can legally aggregate and process. Our european constitution says that personal data belongs to the person, and refers to the concept of consent for limitation of processing. So to answer your question: no, if people are well informed and freely share their data with a corporation, i would not restrict their freedom to do that.

I do however disagree that this is what is happening right now. Corporations behave like its a gold rush and the one whi mines the data owns it. In my honest opinion the relationship between the data aggregating corporations an the data subjects is highly abusive. Many people have little to no understanding who collects their data for what and many of those who understand say they have no real choice but to let it happen.

This is where the "like outside" argumentation happens: well you can't prevent your neighbor seeing you leaving the house. Sure that might be true in some way, but this neighbor installed a surveillance camera and makes photos every time i leave the house, then follows me to the store, takes notes what i buy and tries to hold a microphone into my conversation with the clerc. That is why i split between the spy and the clerc in my analogy, the agents work for a "Lead Intelligence Service" or similar adtech entity.

Lets look at facebookistan with its population larger then the USA. In the anthropomorphic village metaphor, who is this "Facebook person"? For many it is an every day companion that is present in most of their interactions with other people or companies. The person they go shopping with. Facebook is not a clerc or a neighbor, but a clingy spouse that is also trying to sell you stuff and is gossiping about you behind your back. And that is too positive, as it lacks the asymmetry: FB throws your stuff away if it doesn't like it, rats you out to the government and hands you a divorce without ever having any feelings for you at all. Also almost everyone in the village is married to this one person, who can be in all living rooms at the same time. And not being married to FB has serious downsides, like being the only one who does not go to church. FB is not like the village clerc, at all.

The Anthropomorphism is an illusion.

I think you'll have more constructive conversations on this topic if, instead of disagreeing with an analogy wholesale, you seem to understand _the ways in which it is accurate_ and then respond to those. Yes, of course, the internet is not outside. It's an analogy that illustrates a broader point, that what you consider a reasonable expectation of privacy looks to others like tin foil hat wearing.

The truth is, despite all of the analogies you've presented about neighbors with security cameras and clingy spouses, most people do understand that and they simply don't care. What realistic future so you see where that comes back to bite them, beyond feeling like it's creepy?

I think the analogies are faulty. The anthropomorphism is used to argue that companies should be allowed to harvest data on a massive scale, because you can not reasonably expect your neighbor not to look out of the window. I find that ridiculous and reject the argument. It also paints a romanticized picture that makes people emphasize with an abstract inhumane entity as if its brand was a person within ones social circle, and that is biased by design. That can be seen when i try to explain the data harvest by some such corporations within the limits of the analogy: my counter example requires metaphors you find absurd and which you describe as "tin foil hatty", because they don't normally happen outside in villages - yet you probably have an extension in your browser that blocks trackers, know how those work and know perfectly well what i reference with the trenchcoat wearing agents of adtech.

> most people do understand that and they simply don't care

That's the thing: if they are well informed, of the appropriate age, and give consent, that is fine by me. But in my opinion the relationship between the mega-corporations and the people is one sided and abusive, so such careless consent isn't worth much. Imagine a village and i say to you "hey that farmer is beating his wife", would you say "well that is how they do things here, most farmers are beating their spouses, and they don't seem to care"? There is something wrong with that village. But i think the corporations as people analogy is overused. For most data farmers the users are more like cattle, not spouses or neighbors. This asymmetry can be seen with other freedoms as well: many people don't read contracts anymore, leave alone know about the freedom of contract. They simply have accepted that the corporations give them one and they sign that unread. After all, what alternatives exist to <monopolised proprietary technology everyone uses>?

> What realistic future do you see where that [unregulated data farming] comes back to bite them

A change of society away from "Liberal Democratic Capitalism" to "Totalitarian Surveillance Capitalism" enabled by mega-corporations abusing their position as gatekeepers for social communication, capitalist markets and even government services.

... wow we strayed far away from nsa backdoors. Let me just say this: as someone who had "east german ministry of state security" as part of the school curriculum, i can only warn those who did not about the immense dangers of a database with a profile of every citizen created by invasive surveillance into their private lives. In less realistic scenario: they might be building a baslilisk in that utah data center that ranks citizens for termination by drone strike and that can go very wrong in case of a singularity. Arnie even traveled back to 1984 to warn us ...

You are 100% correct. It’s legal fetishism, which allows legislators to abrogate their responsibilities and keeps the moneyed stakeholders happy.

The notion that my papers inside of my rented apartment have dramatically more protection than my data inside of a rented server is absurd.

I should read up on that cloud act some time. Is it true your government can search any data you store in a rented netspace without telling you?

Edit: or more precise the "Stored Communications Act" - Cloud Act seems to deal with offshore servers in particular.

We have something called the third party doctrine, which stems from Supreme Court cases in the 1960s and 70s.

Basically you have “no reasonable expectation of privacy” with respect to any information that you provide to a third party who is not an attorney providing counsel or a doctor. Your bank records for example, do not require a warrant to access under this principle.

All of this put in place by the courts. Stranger still, this sort of thing has become something that “conservative” judges are champions of.

Wonder if there is a business model for attorney privileged data storage.

There was an article on HN recently about how Google does something like that, internally. It claimed employees CC in house lawyers to tag attorney client priviledge on emails they wouldn't want, e.g. antitrust investigators, to obtain too easily. Even if it just delays discovery or adds friction, mission accomplished.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24769847

Isn't it more similar to your privacy in a rented PO box or storage unit?

Huh, your imaginary city reminisces one in The Murderer by Ray Bradbury.