privacy scale

src/notes/2020-01-01-lorem-ipsum.mdx

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 path: "lorem-ipsum"
 date: 2020-01-01
 title: "Lorem Ipsum"
-
+hidden: true
 ---
 
 Hey! You've found the secret page that I use to test out style changes.

src/notes/2021-02-13-the-privacy-scale.mdx

@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+---
+path: "the-privacy-scale"
+date: 2021-02-13
+title: "The Privacy Scale"
+---
+
+It's not difficult to imagine that we've already hit some proto-cyberpunk
+dystopia milestone. Large corporations don't need strictly need your user
+information these days more. Specifically, they can gain enough information from
+your actions as much as they do from having what people generally call your
+personally identifiable data. This is how they skirt around privacy concerns:
+their definition of personally identifiable information isn't the same as yours.
+
+I suppose that I should preface this with, _"These are my personal opinions and
+anything discussed in this article (and like everything on this website) do not
+reflect any opinion that any employer, past or future, holds."_
+
+## The cost of storing data
+
+There are a lot of problems storing traditionally personal user information. Not
+only does one need to invest into ensuring this data stays secure, but there are
+regulations whose auditing and violations of incur some risk that companies may
+not to accept. For larger companies, this is merely a facet of the risk profile
+they consider, and the penalities are inconsequential. For smaller companies and
+startups with dreams and ideals, these can be and are usually prohibitive. As a
+result, the primary cost for companies that _can_ support handling user data is
+the maintenance cost of (hopefully progressive) security of existing user data.
+
+Strong encryption and cybersecurity has effectively changed how the cost of user
+data is evaluated. Not only does it acts as a catch-all for a strong layer of
+protections for the data companies need to protect, but acts as a way to
+convince users to trust said companies with their data. It is a panacea:
+reducing costs while providing immediate benefits their bottom line. Encryption
+has effectively allowed large corporations to marginalize the cost of user data
+with the idea that it convinces more users to join. They will even support and
+promote security standards in a very public manner. In the worst case, they
+simply obtain positive sentiment. In the best case, it shields them from
+negative feedback. And in any case, it further secures their bottom line.
+
+Despite this, the most ironic part of all of this is that this _is_ strictly
+positive for users. There is no valid reason for services to not provide some
+layer of encryption to their data. Even improperly protected data provides some
+benefits (albeit false advertising perhaps outweighs them), if not simply
+requiring minimal effort from attackers to decrypt the information. I would
+perhaps call this an instance of [Egoistic Altruism] at best.
+
+For corporations, this a good solution but a suboptimal one. After all, there
+still exists a linear cost to storing user data.
+
+## What you do, not what you are
+
+A corporation is not interested in you. They don't care about your achievements,
+your failures, or anything that makes you human. In the most strictest terms,
+they simply care about what you do. You are not a human; you are a [black box]
+where if they can predict what you as a black box will do, they won't need your
+personal identifiable information at all. It starts with simple patterns and
+correlations: Buy a pet and you now need pet food. Like food and you will enjoy
+food related products more. They then build superpatterns, patterns based on
+simplistic patterns, where patterns themselves are inputs and are used to make
+further predictions. When these patterns are wrong, then they can be readjusted
+and refined to greater accuracy. This is how machine learning works at a very,
+very broad and layman scale.[^1]
+
+Notice how I haven't mentioned any identifiable information at all. Corporations
+don't care who you are, they care about what you do. They don't care that you
+got pregnant, they care about what you do now that you are. This is the data
+they're collecting, and this is how they can avoid the fundamental problem of
+maintaining anonymity in their data. So long as they treat you as a black box
+rather than as a person, they can avoid storing information that makes you
+fundamentally you.[^2] This is the next step, and often the fundamental
+misunderstanding users have when they hear corporations are collecting their
+data. So long as you're tied to some ID, you can reveal as little as you like
+and they'll still find ways to utilize what you do or don't do—doing nothing is
+doing something after all.
+
+We're at the stage where corporations no longer need to who you are to
+influence what you do.
+
+## Decentralization and federation
+
+Recently, federation has been popularized not only as it directly opposes the
+internet-centralizing corporations, but also as a method as a way to bypass
+censorship. I personally view this is an attempt to return to the ideals
+the internet strived for in its early stages, but unfortunately that's beside
+the point.[^3] For our purposes, federation directly opposes this behavior
+collection by redirecting where your behaviors are to a domain outside the
+corporation's control. This is not without its own set of problems, however.
+
+### Digital Distance
+
+There are unfortunately social costs that may make federation prohibitive to
+potential new users. Not only do the corporations have first-mover advantage,
+often your membership depends on who you frequently contact. It's very common
+to see users support some new technology only to not use it when the time comes,
+simply because they wish to remain "digitally close" and thus stay on the same
+platform they previously were on. The cognitive cost of accepting of a new
+service _and_ convincing others to follow aptly serves as the primary example
+for non-adoption.
+
+Suppose you and your friends are, however, willing to switch. It's reasonable to
+assume that at some point, one of you or your peers will then suggest going all
+the way to create your own instance and join the federation with just a smaller
+community. After all, controlling your own domain is the natural end to
+federation, and the natural extension to joining one is to create one yourself.
+So you do so, but then a thought occurs, _"Why doesn't everyone host their own
+instance to federate? Then, everyone has control of their own domain, removing
+the trust necessary for anyone to control data."_ This seems like an excellent
+idea, as now every person now controls their domain to their behaviors.
+
+### Single-user instances
+
+These single-user instances are the most paradoxical for federation privacy.
+While it does allow you to control a domain, it does so in the way that is most
+counter-productive to protecting your privacy. **You have, in essence, created
+a unique ID for yourself, across the entire federation.** The nature of
+federation means others must necessarily act and react on your behaviors, and
+by being the sole inhabitant of a unique domain, you have provided a very easy
+way to both identify you and your actions. While yes, you have full control of
+where you do you, you have no longer solved your original problem at all.
+
+## Balance
+
+Ultimately, this touches on anonymity and privacy in numbers. Some
+centralization is centralization is necessary, and too much or too little is
+problematic. Users must ultimately give up control of their own domain to
+control their privacy, or disengage from the digital world entirely, or risk
+coupling some identification to their behaviors... so long as identification is
+necessary.
+
+Perhaps image boards did it best. Humans can be social without needing some way
+to tie a person to their behaviors, but I don't think society will move towards
+this. People are inevitably want to be prideful who they are,[^4] so the cost of
+anonymity may be too great for us to handle.
+
+But hope is free, and so I will hope.
+
+[Egoistic Altruism]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvskMHn0sqQ
+[black box]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box
+[^1]: Of course, with broad strokes come broad inaccuracies, but this is
+sufficient for our needs.
+[^2]: With regards to your identifiable information. Behavioralists here will
+argue what you do _is_ who you are. This is a fair point, but it's not difficult
+for corporations to selectively choose behaviors that prevent unique
+identification about you, making your behaviors anonymous as well.
+[^3]: In the most apolitical sense. To quote John Gilmore, _"The Net treats
+censorship as a defect and routes around it."_
+[^4]: You can decide if this is self-reflection or irony.