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.
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.