And if not, its existence is highly overdue.
Where tracking of privacy-sensitive activities of individuals in public, traditionally required exhaustible resources (as in agents physically shadowing targets); cameras and other sensors can (and will) track said activities of any individual in public, regardless of being targeted (not that targeting individuals is possible to begin with: only after collection, one can pinky swear not to look at, or discard information regarding non-targets).
The main difference being, one traditionally having effective “expectation of privacy” in public (unless specifically targeted by authorities: having sufficient reason to allocate resources to the individual), but in the context of modern technology we lost the benefit of the doubt. And unless never setting a foot outside again, any arguably more incriminating personal data (naked in the shower versus protesting an oppressive government) should be “expected” to be collected.
So because “privacy” is historically tainted with said demoralization, any efforts to defend “privacy” in “public” (where one can truly no longer have expectation thereof) are doomed to fail. Therefore I wish to have a term, without ambiguity introduced by any subjective matter (that is “expectancy”: the individual’s versus a typically biassed judge’s); one that makes no distinction between personal data being collected in private, or in public.
A term describing the quality of being “off-the-record” would be ideal: like “off-the-recordness”, but one that doesn’t sound silly. And unfortunately there either don’t seem to be any “rights” to be off-the-record in any context, they are overruled by “legitimate interests” with trivial ease, or come with “consequences” (the last two in case of the GDPR, for example).
If there’s anything useful that came from the discussion with @whatiswrongwithyou@lemmy.ml (to answer your other reactions too), is that “anonymity” might actually be a reasonable fit, that is if:
Perhaps the only situation it doesn’t account for is the tracking of groups of persons, rather than the individual. And it increasingly being mentioned in the same breath as “pseudonymization” (which does allow for re-identification: by design, or as a result of poor “anonymization” practices). I personally have no confidence in any “anonymization” post-collection; and a camera for example, physically unable to capture my likeness, being the only meaningful reassurance anonymity is being preserved.
I just want to mention, that thread turned out to be genuinely interesting, as you gave response to multiple things I myself couldn’t have put into words.
my problem with his attitude is that I worry it’s effective to deter most people from seeking privacy, or actually from seeking the ways to keep being off the record with your daily habits, when you would prefer that way. but it was good to see he couldn’t put you off with that.
I think to me anonymity is not quite that. my desire is not that I walk on the street and nobody recognizes me.
but, now thinking about this again, maybe pseudonimity as we use it on the threadiverse, is quite close to it. but something tells me that would also sound like silly term to the generic person.
I agree on that. that depends on the operator doing the right thing, for which there is no incentive by not being verifiable.