Dear reader,
When I was scrolling the internet some weeks ago, I encountered this article by MakeUseOf, where the author boldly claims that people don't really want privacy even though they might think they do. As a privacy-advocate, I got intrigued and read the whole thing. In the end, I was left with a strong urge to write my response, so here we go.
The main argument the author presents goes as follows: The way people are currently using technology suggests that instead of privacy, what people actually care about is convenience. And in the battle between privacy and convenience, privacy loses every time.
I can agree with the argument to an extent since convenience is definitely something most people, including me, care about. That is why different privacy-respecting tools need to be as easy and convenient to use as their big tech alternatives. Otherwise, these tools will remain in the shadows, not known by the public. However, I wouldn't go as far as saying that "convenience is the enemy of privacy," precisely because these don't have to exclude each other in the way the author suggests. Many great privacy services already showcase this. However, the examples the author gives of this inconvenience had many false or exaggerated claims that don't stand up to scrutiny.
No, switching conversations to Signal doesn’t mean that your old messages in the other app would mystically get deleted, and switching to a private search engine in Chrome doesn’t mean that you need to be constantly changing it. You do that once. I also don’t know what the author means when they state that “ProtonMail or Tutanota [are] not synchronized across three devices.” There may be a typo here, but synchronization in Tuta and Proton works similarly to any other email service.
The following part continues the path of exaggerations, and someone who cares about their privacy doesn't need to fit the description the author gives:
The privacy-conscious person is the one who carries two phones, uses different web browsers for different purposes, syncs nothing to the cloud, and manually manages backups. They can't call their non-tech friend because they switched to something their friend has never heard of. That person exists, but they're the exception, not the norm. As one of those people, I'm exhausted.
For example, I don't use two phones, and recently have used Zen Browser for the large majority of my daily browsing. Syncing data to the cloud is something that most people in the privacy community don't have an issue with if the data is end-to-end encrypted, since you're the only person with access to it. Losing your communication method to your friend in the following way doesn't seem realistic, and I don't know why it would be a problem if your friend hasn't heard of Signal. You can just explain it to them. When I left WhatsApp last year, I did it only after I got most of my important contacts to switch our conversations there. And even staying with WhatsApp while attempting to use better alternatives like Signal when possible, could still be the way forward for many.
A big problem with the article is the way the author portrays privacy as a hard choice that is full of compromises, making it seem as unattractive as possible. I think the article doesn't really represent the reality. These days, there are so many great resources and tools available for anyone interested in privacy that starting is simple and small changes can already achieve a lot.
One of the easiest and most effective changes is switching to a more privacy-focused browser, such as Firefox or Brave. After opening the app, you just need to follow the prompts that guide you to choose settings and import your bookmarks. It doesn't get much easier than that.
While the switch from big tech to more privacy-friendly alternatives can be challenging and perhaps inconvenient, it's also just one way people can advocate or achieve better privacy. Just because people are hesitant about privacy tools doesn't mean that they don't care about privacy. The author himself states how people get angry when they discuss the different ways their privacy rights get regularly violated. So, doesn't that prove that people actually care about privacy? We truly need more privacy regulation that would outlaw surveillance capitalism and require companies and governments to actually respect people's privacy, so it becomes the default state of things instead of being something people need to opt in to.
My other issue with the article relates to the aspects it leaves out. For example, it completely overlooks people whose lives could actually depend on having that privacy. Journalists, human rights activists, and sexual minorities are examples of groups that in many countries don't have the luxury of deciding that privacy doesn't actually matter that much.
Even if you are a regular person with a low threat model, seeing privacy as not important is still short-sighted since governments and laws change. Something that used to be your right could be criminalized, or perhaps you may lose your right to live freely in your country.
Since privacy is also a fundamental human right, downplaying its importance is as questionable as if the author had written a piece arguing how people don’t actually want freedom of speech. You could of course argue that the article’s focus is more about privacy tools than privacy more broadly. The following part would support this argument:
Does this mean privacy doesn't matter? No.
Yet, right after, the author continues with:
It means we need to stop pretending we want it more than we actually do.
At best, the author is using the word privacy when he really should make it clear he is only talking about different privacy tools. But if that's the case, then he is reducing the concept of privacy, since privacy doesn't just mean picking the right privacy tool. At worst, the author is arguing that privacy is actually not that important, when in reality people's lives could depend on it. In any case, we should strive towards making the public more aware of privacy-related issues instead of framing privacy as merely an individual choice that even then is something you probably shouldn't bother with. 🌔