The value of privacy may not be as clearcut to some as it is to others. However, the value of protecting one's attention has become increasingly clear, and measureable, over time. Enhancing one's privacy is a good means to disrupting the positive feedback loops that are used to hijack attention. Some good sources on this are Jonathan Haidt on the anxiety epidemic, Yuval Harari and Tristan Harris on the the failure of the silicon valley business model and potential impacts of AI, and more recently journalists like Chris Hayes. The message is perhaps more direct in moments of brutal honesty straight from the benefactors of the attention economy themselves, such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J54k7WrbfMg
I'm pretty sure Sean Parker and Chamath Palihapitiya value their privacy, which provides a pretty strong signal that everyone else should value privacy as well.

Why privacy? I'd instead reason by asking "why not privacy?". The burden of proof should always be on the party wanting to infringe on your right to privacy. Companies could've moved to monetization of online services by now but there is an entire data industry that is thriving off casting the widest net possible by putting their trackers on virtually every site.

Practically speaking there is really no telling what these companies do with the data they collect. I mean they'll never say they abuse the data or resell it but enough of us here know firsthand how shoddy some companies security practices can be. Huge data breaches happen somewhat regularly, keeping your data to yourself is a way of mitigating those risks.

DeletedUser127 I don't like this argument because it fails to illustrate the pervasive nature of surveillance. It's one thing for my friend to ask me to hand my phone over. It's another thing for my friend to "keep tabs" on me in the background without my explicit awareness.

fid02 I remember this article written by Bruce Schneier which I had then lost sight of, thank you, it's very topical 19 years on and will remain so for years to come.

lcalamar The discussion around "why should i care about online privacy" in my mind is immediately the wrong frame, the real discussion needs to start with the fundamental precep that we are all born equal, if you accept we are all born equal, then it follows we are all entitled to equal atonomy, responsibility, rights (access to resources) etc applied to privacy that means we either all have the right to know everything about everyone, or nothing about anyone... Im in the nothing about anyone camp, and every person, or entity that uses some form of power/advantage to take that right from me without consent is directly attempting to gain advantage over me though exercising control of my rights. Whether i have anything to hide has zero to do with why it is wrong. It is wrong because it is disrespecting my rights, and because i am not given the eqivalent level of transparency into those exercising the control.

"I have nothing to hide." Nothing becomes something overnight. Who would have thought your private (made public) views about a medication would cost you your job before 2020? Or that certain political candidate you support would result in your bank closing your accounts before 2016? Or your private religious beliefs and traditions would have you targeted by 3 letter agencies before 2023? All of this in the "freest" country on earth (allegedly). Everyone has something to hide even when they shouldn't...

After much review... It seems that one of the basic tenets of privacy is that while I have nothing to hide...

... someone else may determine that you DO.

It isn't up to the person to decide they have nothing to hide because that judgement doesn't belong to them.

    You need to start looking for smarter friends.

    Privacy is also more than just "I have done nothing wrong," because malicious actors can hurt you with information that is perfectly normal or reasonable to have. For example, researchers have revealed that Facebook tracks if you have problems with alcoholism or gambling, for example, and serves you more ads for alcohol products and casinos: https://www.admscentre.org.au/research-reveals-facebook-alcohol-and-gambling-companies-target-ads-at-australians-most-at-risk-of-harm/

    Now maybe YOU don't have problems with alcohol or gambling, but what other innocent aspects of your life will corporations capitalize on, at your expense? If your Facebook app, with always-on location tracking, determines that you tend to drive over the speed limit, they can alert your car insurance company to raise your rates. If TikTok has always-on Bluetooth scanning (to connect to speakers), it will figure out who you live with, because it will detect their phone's Bluetooth MAC at regular times of day. If your roommate/child/spouse/whatever later goes to, say, a protest (or an abortion clinic, or whatever) and other phones with TikTok detect their phone's Bluetooth MAC, TikTok can now easily figure out their identity, where they live, and what their habits are.

    I have seen how innocent statements can be interpreted differently, and unintended meanings attached to them.

    This can be terrifying, if it is then used against you.

    It can happen in any adversarial proceeding, employer vs employee, law enforcement vs citizen, prosecutor vs defendant, and so on.

    It’s much better if only the intended recipient(s) can ever see what we write, or say.

    lcalamar ... adding to this:

    ... and those judgements happen to people with nothing to hide's - associates.
    So while you may have nothing to hide - if I communicate with you online - then all of the sudden you are putting me at risk...

    Watermelon That is really good....

    This part is very strong: "Not all information in your control is yours to share. Information shared privately with you by friends, family, and coworkers is not yours to reveal to a government, company, or another person

    ... for instance I use ProtonMail - but since 90% of my emails go out to non-secured emails - then my content is being scanned anyway? I know other users who refuse to send emails outside a secured environment... I can force that issue in ProtonMail - but then 90% of that 90% just won't bother...

    In my experience, changing people's beliefs is very hard. People will believe what they want to believe, regardless of what you say or how you say it. Making arguments about what another person "should" or "should not" do usually has the opposite effect.

    I don't bring it up anymore and I don't use the word "privacy". If directly asked why I don't use Meta's services, I'll say:

    I think making money by exploiting people is unethical and I want fewer companies with those business models in the world. I prefer to use software and services that respect me.

    That's the entire reason; you can agree with it or not, but that's why.

      Equal2024 In my experience, changing people's beliefs is very hard

      Yes - it IS.

      I've been pushing the privacy issue with a friend mostly to help him understand why privacy is important to me - and perhaps help change his judgement that the xtra work I put in to being private IS worthwhile (for me).

      He couldn't believe I don't use ChatGPT - and that any privacy related concerns are mitigated by the value I get.

      Now though - I informed him about venice.ai and use it as an example where you CAN be more private and not give up much functionality...