Before 2013, only lunatics were concerned with mass surveillance. Look how far we've come. Now the media gives lip service to "privacy advocates". And the result of all this "privacy advocacy" is a giant popup window reminding you that you must submit to tracking if you wish to engage. Engineering consent. Maybe we can meet up in the metaverse to organize a revolution.
There is absolutely choice. Both are are supported by continuous choices choices people make every do. The choices are different between government and corporate surveillance.
On the government surveillance side, people can choose to vote for politicians that support their privacy and lobby their representatives. They can also start public propositions, make donations, or run for office.
On the corporate side, people can choose to refuse to use products, websites, or stores that sell their data. People can take actions to anonymize themselves.
People make these choices every day. Often people choose not to support privacy because they value something else more, e.g. convenience, money, time, safety, ect.
What you're doing is like saying citizens of North Korea are "choosing" to live under the Kim regime because they could technically try to overthrow him if they wanted to. You have to consider the costs of doing so and the likelihood it would succeed.
On the contrary, many of these are collective choices made by society, especially when it comes to the law.
>What you're doing is like saying citizens of North Korea are "choosing" to live under the Kim regime because they could technically try to overthrow him if they wanted to. You have to consider the costs of doing so and the likelihood it would succeed.
I actually think this is the most insightful and humane way to think about those who live in NK under the Kim regime. They are born into an awful situation where their choices are very limited. They can collaborate, resist, or try to flee and all have unattractive consequences. I wouldn't disparage someone for choosing any of the above given such poor options. The plight of these people is defined by their lack of attractive choices, for example, they can not choose to emigrate from NK, or vote in free elections.
Similarly, this framing showcases the bravery and optimism when people choose to do make hard choices, like to be a resistor in NK, despite the tremendous cost and low chance of success.
To me, saying people have no choice is dehumanizes those both those who suffer or secede based on their choices.
Individualism is not directly in conflict with privacy, but rather both are in conflict public safety and compliance.
The article posits that increased individualism and breakdown of communities has led to a loss of privacy, but this was not a given, but a choice.
A society can simply choose to reject the loss of privacy and accept the costs that may come with individualism & privacy.
Further, the entire argument that community surveillance was effective and required replacement is suspect. For example, murder rates were higher and case closure was much worse in the past under the community surveillance model. Crime rates were dropping at the same time that communities were disintegrating, all before the advent of mass surveillance.