Folks don't realize all the things they are hiding — and can be extraordinarily important to hide — even when they're actively hiding them! My personal favorite anecdote here is comes from a debate with a friend who was staunchly asserting that she had nothing to hide. I just blindly suggested — hypothetically — that one example would be if she were in early stages of pregnancy. Seven months later, guess what she was hiding during the argument.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits....
Anytime someone says that, I ask them to unlock their phone and give it to me.
Except for one person who actually did it, they quickly seem to change their position.
A quick google search leads to multiple articles suggesting that the vast majority of people do not lock their phones.
As to whether they would give you their phones or not is a different question, but I would wager that many (most?) of those who don't lock their phones would also not necessarily care if someone looks at their device, or at the very least do not take measures to prevent others from doing so.
Example: Car company collects location data for legitimate uses such as safety, product development or legal requirements. Then a leak happens. Some blogger looks at the data and notices that the local mayor's car parks at a gay bar ever Friday night, often remaining there until saturday afternoon. The implications are clear. Mayor then sues car company for collecting his "sexual history". The car company can then point to the user agreement. They are covered for not just the location data, but all the things that can be inferred from that location data. These seemingly outrageous agreements are more lawyers covering their asses than companies actually attempting to collect.
A better answer may be to adjust laws not to ban or unban such tracking, but simply to mandate off switches. A mechanical switch that disables the GPS antenna would cost maybe 10$ per car, comparable to any number of rarely-used mandatory features in cars these days.
The "why should we care" is the same as many other things -- the car company is going to use technology and tracking to monetize valuable features and experiences. There's few if any scenarios where this is good for you.
Yes, people generally don't care if others know they shop at Target and the mundane details of their kid's softball practice, but they don't know what else is available: - When nobody is home and their house is empty. Not only can they do this in real-time especially if they can track car data, but they use see time data to determine when you're least likely to be home in the future. - Your medical history. You car was parked outside of a cardiologist and a pharmacy. You probably have high blood pressure. Did you go to an obstetrician's office for the 3rd time? Maybe you're pregnant. - How about existing and future interstate crimes? You go to a shooting range every week and since the recent passage of a law banning ammunition purchases without a background check in your state, you've started making regular runs to a neighboring state. Is this probable cause to show you're breaking the law? What about a woman going to the doctor in a state that bans abortions who makes similar trips out of state? Have you been posting about your recent bourbon tastings and making trips to the nearby state known for having better alcohol availability? - People don't care about strangers having access to boring personal details, but what about people you know? There's nothing stopping your mother-in-law from snooping on your life and asking personal questions they have no business looking at. Maybe this is cumbersome and expensive today, but considering how tech makes things easier and cheaper over time, will it always be this way? Once data is out there, it's out there forever.
Maybe people aren't concerned because these laws aren't being enforced, but how much of that is a chicken and the egg? Are they not enforced because they don't want to enforce them or because or because it's difficult to ID the people breaking the law. Data like this makes it easier.
>Once that reasoning starts getting into hypotheticals about a future totalitarian government... you have already lost people.
You can't start talking about states arresting people for going to a bourbon tasting and have people actual care about your argument. People have way too many more tangible and more pressing concerns than this type of weird hypothetical.
I'm not saying your argument is wrong. It just isn't going to actually motivate anyone to action.
This is an oft repeated sentiment that really needs to be questioned. And I don't mean by posting some survey where the questioning is as nebulous as the privacy policies and EULAs that the average person is manipulated into accepting without a clear understanding of the implications.
My one piece of counter data today is that I was at the gym and saw a TV commercial for DuckDuckGo that was painting Google for the privacy thieves that they are.
Daytime TV is a demographic of boomer average users. DDG is actually paying for airtime to target them with a value prop of "we don't invade your privacy like this big thug over here does."
Maybe there is a sea change coming and we might soon see what average people think about how much value they put on their privacy.
On a philosophical level that the "if you have nothing to hide" argument is flawed, but from a practical perspective it is kinda true (edit: in the context of corporate data collection). People who actually want change need to be able to communicate this to the average person in a clear and concrete manner how this negatively impacts their life. Once that reasoning starts getting into hypotheticals about a future totalitarian government or philosophical points about the nature of privacy, you have already lost people.
You need to be able to tell normal people why they should care about their privacy before they are motivated to protect it.