"This is an ecological problem, because our individual choices worsen the condition of the group as a whole. The service companies' interest, but not ours, is to hide this view of the problem, and concentrate on getting individual consent. From a legal perspective, the essence of transacting is consent. If privacy is transactional, your consent to surveillance is all the commercial spy needs. But if privacy is correctly understood, consent is usually irrelevant, and focusing on it is fundamentally inappropriate.

We do not, with respect to clean air and clean water, set the limits of tolerable pollution by consent. We have socially established standard of cleanliness, which everybody has to meet.

Environmental law is not law about consent. But with respect to privacy we have been allowed to fool ourselves.

What is actually a subject of environmental regulation has been sold to us as a mere matter of bilateral bargaining. The facts show this is completely untrue" -- Eben Moglen

Perhaps a good rule of thumb: if, fashion sense aside, you'd wear the t-shirt, it's probably not a privacy threat.

There's a huge difference between wearing a t-shirt, which makes the information available only to people who see you wearing that t-shirt, and becoming a fan of a brand on Facebook, which makes the information available to who knows what Facebook affiliate.

In one scenario, you have full control over when you signal that information and when you stop. In the other, once you send out the signal... congratulations, you're now in several databases and have opened yourself to all sorts of soliciting.

You can easily stop wearing a shirt when you change your mind about the topic.

Once it has been on the internet, it is forever.

Not saying you're wrong, but I don't think it is exactly the same.

Maybe tattoos?

> Once it has been on the internet, it is forever.

If that were truly the case, we wouldn't be so worried about NSA retention of data.

My phone conversations aren't supposed to be "on the internet."

This is probably something worth saying louder.

If you commonly display $information in all sorts of settings, then $information is not ipso facto private and leaking that information further is not a privacy threat.

(Of course, it can be used as an input to deanonymize you in some data-mining system, so there's that...).

>How might the fact that I like some certain artists affect me in the future?

Constellations of consumer interests might be enough to create a high likelihood that you're gay, a drug user, sympathize with anti-tax protesters, or with anti-globalization protests. The next algorithm to be run over your profile might benefit greatly from this initial filtering, and depending on the distinctness of the constellation, may not result in very many false negatives.

The second algorithm auto-authorizes full text email and full audio telephone collection and review. </dystopia>

Agreed. Both ability to read materials anonymously and to discuss things privately are very important for both freedom and democracy.

That does not mean we must treat every single personal preference as top secret material.

> How might the fact that I like some certain artists affect me in the future?

What if the FBI decides to categorize your band fandom as a form of gang affiliation?

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/08/showbiz/juggalo-gang-lawsu...

Some people may not like it when companies deny them services or charge a higher rate because people who share the same interest are riskier or are willing to pay more.