This is an interesting viewpoint on not being able to abstract privacy. What does that mean? The author starts with some background on a very old technique practiced by a Detroit police force before the advent of modern computing: STRESS (Stop The Robberies, Enjoy Safe Strees). The idea was to embed disguised police officers as ordinary laypeople throughout the area, so that potential criminals would always be on the lookout and self-police. However, as the author points out, living through such a regime, the effect of this was far from this ideal. Rather, it caused criminals to be more evasive and look further into more private life, and for those who were not criminal, but could be suspected as such due to demographics, they felt they were always being watched and treated as suspects. Zero privacy in the world for them, unlike their counterparts of different demographics.
Now, enter the modern era. We live in a world where the idea of surveiling someone in the public does not require asking for their permission. We have slumped this far down in privacy over the decades, irrespective of the technological means to the end. And in today’s world, we have an even more curious construct. There are those who are paying to be surveiled by their “Apple Watches, IoT toilets, quantified baby products, [Smart] Ring Doorbells, [and] Teslas,” whereas others are “paying the price for being watched,” “in the form of ankle bracelets, license plate readers, drones, facial recognition, and cell-site simulators.”
20190404/https://www.fastcompany.com/90323529/privacy-is-not-an-abstraction