Please read before down-voting ;)
When I just read the title and description, I got the impression that this article considered using privacy-respecting practices / apps impractical - maybe thats why OP said to read first.
This article actually encourages digital privacy measures and instead critiques more drastic actions, like not living in cities to minimize exposure to cameras.
I think that most people dont have this fantasy or care for it, although they tend not to care much about digital privacy either. I’m not quite sure who the intended audience is for this article, if most people don’t need persuasion on half of its argument. Then again, I skimmed it so I may have missed some key points.
It’s an excerpt from a 2015 book. The main point is that privacy advocates should realize that just opting out is falling short of reaching its goals and at times can be even counter-productive. On the other hand there are the tools of obfuscation which are probably under-explored by privacy advocates.
That was a long read but I found the end (quoted below) quite enjoyable as the subject of privacy seems to devolve into absolutes in various online forums.
There is no simple solution to the problem of privacy, because privacy itself is a solution to societal challenges that are in constant flux. Some are natural and beyond our control; others are technological and should be within our control but are shaped by a panoply of complex social and material forces with indeterminate effects. Privacy does not mean stopping the flow of data; it means channeling it wisely and justly to serve societal ends and values and the individuals who are its subjects, particularly the vulnerable and the disadvantaged.
This last bit,
Privacy does not mean stopping the flow of data; it means channeling it wisely and justly to serve societal ends and values and the individuals who are its subjects, particularly the vulnerable and the disadvantaged.
Sounds like a message for companies / developers to use privacy to help society, especially those who need a high level of privacy. Activists, politicians, investigative journalists, etc. Perhaps “justice” suggests that services can be mostly privacy-respecting, but leak some data if law enforcement requests it for a case. My interpretation again leaves me confused about the intended audience of this article.
Though, this part
Privacy does not mean stopping the flow of data; it means channeling it wisely
resonates with me a little. There are some areas where i need to let my data flow and sacrifice privacy, like SMS. In others, I prefer to stop the flow as much as I can.
I think it is important to note that this was written in 2015 (during the big-data hype). Back then the companies and governments had not yet fully shifted their line of argument to lawful access etc.
Never the less the article still has the point that an individual acting on stopping “the flow as much as I can” is falling way short of actually reaching any sort of meaningful privacy on the societal level and in fact also not for the individual as it leaves a moving dark spot in the surveillance fabric that can be tracked nearly as well.
“As much as I can” in digital ways, like de-Googling my phone, using privacy-respecting apps, and using Tor. As I said, I don’t apply that approach to my whole life.
