I know data privacy is important and I know that big corporations like Meta became powerful enough to even manipulate elections using our data.

But, when I talk to people in general, most seem to not worry because they “have nothing to hide”, and most are only worried about their passwords, banking apps and not much else.

So, why should people worry about data privacy even if they have “nothing to hide”?

    • Melllvar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That historic examples such as the Nazis, the Japanese-American internment, and the Rwanda genocide should guide us when deciding what sorts of large-scale demographic data harvesting we as a society want to allow in the first place. That the “right to privacy” in this case is not about personal privacy but of collective privacy.

      Which is why even people who “have nothing to hide” should care about privacy rights.

      • Platomus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s just reiterating the same thing without expanding on it.

        • Melllvar@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This strongly suggests that you already understood me perfectly well, and never needed clarification.

            • Melllvar@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If you understood then your previous characterization of what I’ve been saying was willfully dishonest.

                • Melllvar@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  This is how you characterized what I’ve said:

                  That feels like a scapegoat argument. That reduces down to “bad things happen when bad people do bad things.”

                  You can argue against anything when you say that.

                  "Dentists should be outlawed because some dentists have abused their clients " Isn’t a fair argument either.

                  Please explain how this bears any resemblance whatsoever to what you have already admitted is what I actually said.