Restoring your privacy costs money, which makes it a marker of class

Opting out of data monetisation is neither easy nor cheap

Column A colleague was recently required to spend 10 days in a public-health-mandated quarantine after authorities used credit card receipts to determine he'd visited a location that had also hosted a known coronavirus case.

Had he paid in cash they would never have found him at all because he'd also been slack and not signed into the establishment where he was potentially exposed using the requisite QR code.

Fortunately, they found him. Even more fortunately, he hadn't been infected. As he waited out his quarantine, he meditated on how he'd been poked by the pointy end of the continuing argy-bargy between public health and personal privacy – realising that his data trail gave anyone who bothered to look a complete snapshot of his private life.

Is there anywhere left to hide, he wondered?

In the years since Eric Schmidt declared "Privacy is dead!", we've endured a continuous digital erosion of our private space. Smartphones tracking our location, apps profiling our interactions, smart speakers feeding our conversations into recommendation algorithms, CCTV cameras running facial recognition – and much, much more. Sometimes it can feel as though the battle for even a little bit of privacy has already been lost.

In a Canute-like effort to roll back this tide, I've begun to take more and more of myself out of public view. Or rather, to be far more selective about what goes into public view, and what stays carefully hidden.

My messaging has moved to Signal. My browser defaults to Firefox, and my search engine to DuckDuckGo. I have PiHole installed on my home network, and Disconnect running as a browser plugin. Websites often squeal when loaded because they can't track the life out of my every mouse click. That means I can't always follow links – because they dip into one of the tracking services as they refer me to a web page – but it also means my online activities are far less visible than they were a year ago.

It's not actual privacy, but at least it's frosted glass.

This is not something that I could have done without a fair bit of technical expertise. Throughout all of this, I've learned that clawing back private space takes real work – and costs real money.

That's Apple's argument in favour of its walled garden ecosystem of apps and services. "We'll keep your data private," Apple insists. Unless, well, it runs through China. So you have privacy until commercial imperatives deem that unhelpful? That's not actual privacy – that's privacy theatre. Yet people still seem willing to pay for the appearance of privacy.

I've decided it's worthwhile shelling out real money for a ProtonMail account that secures my communications with proper encryption. Although too late to undo the decade and a half that I've spent glued to Gmail, I can at least stop feeding the beast. After that, I will need reasonable alternatives to Google Calendar and Google Docs. (All in with Microsoft? That's a scary thought.)

As I find substitutes and subscribe to these services – businesses making their money from fees rather than by monetising my privacy – those costs will add up. How much should I be prepared to pay for my privacy? What percentage of my income can I devote to maintaining some sort of "digital shielding" from the prying eyes of surveillance capitalism?

Because privacy costs money, privacy has become a defining marker of class. Below a certain threshold of income, you're prey to the devices and ecosystems that offer themselves up freely – at the cost of any privacy. (Hello Android! Howdy Facebook!) The poor used to be invisible – now they're among the most easily seen segment of society.

For the very rich – Gates and Musk and Bezos and their ilk – all the money in the world can't buy privacy. Instead, they'll use security to keep themselves safe, and – as Bezos did when confronted with blackmail – turn the tables on those prying eyes. Money can't buy everything, but it can fund revenge.

Between these two extremes, the middle classes will be offered a growing array of "solutions" that promise privacy for a price – and sometimes deliver. Much as modesty was for the Victorians, privacy is becoming a middle-class value. For the poor, it will be seen as aspirational. The degree to which you are private is becoming a metric of success. Are we willing to pay the price? ®

Similar topics

Other stories you might like

  • Prisons transcribe private phone calls with inmates using speech-to-text AI

    Plus: A drug designed by machine learning algorithms to treat liver disease reaches human clinical trials and more

    In brief Prisons around the US are installing AI speech-to-text models to automatically transcribe conversations with inmates during their phone calls.

    A series of contracts and emails from eight different states revealed how Verus, an AI application developed by LEO Technologies and based on a speech-to-text system offered by Amazon, was used to eavesdrop on prisoners’ phone calls.

    In a sales pitch, LEO’s CEO James Sexton told officials working for a jail in Cook County, Illinois, that one of its customers in Calhoun County, Alabama, uses the software to protect prisons from getting sued, according to an investigation by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

    Continue reading
  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading
  • American diplomats' iPhones reportedly compromised by NSO Group intrusion software

    Reuters claims nine State Department employees outside the US had their devices hacked

    The Apple iPhones of at least nine US State Department officials were compromised by an unidentified entity using NSO Group's Pegasus spyware, according to a report published Friday by Reuters.

    NSO Group in an email to The Register said it has blocked an unnamed customers' access to its system upon receiving an inquiry about the incident but has yet to confirm whether its software was involved.

    "Once the inquiry was received, and before any investigation under our compliance policy, we have decided to immediately terminate relevant customers’ access to the system, due to the severity of the allegations," an NSO spokesperson told The Register in an email. "To this point, we haven’t received any information nor the phone numbers, nor any indication that NSO’s tools were used in this case."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021