In my last post about Privacy and the Internet, I just began to scratch the surface of the problems with our privacy and the Internet services we use. But part of the goal of this blog is to focus on positive things– in this case, to spend more time on solutions than on complaining about the problem.
Even before my concerns about privacy, I have long been philosophically opposed to “big tech” (that is, tech companies, or any companies becoming overly dominant in their field). To this day, even when I do use the services or products of the “big tech” companies, I always try to mix and match them so as not to be locked completely into one company’s solutions. (This is why, although I like Apple’s commitment to quality and good design, I am not an Apple fan: they try really hard to lock you into their whole ecosystem.) When I can find alternatives to the dominant companies, I prefer to use those. Let’s explore why this is important.
Distribution/Decentralization is Part of the Solution
The topic at hand is internet privacy, but it is inextricably intertwined with another topic: the centralization of services and information. This results in a centralization also of power, and the potential for greater abuses of privacy.
Information is power, and information about us (“big data”) has increasingly become concentrated in the hands of a few large companies. Concentrated power corrupts, so we must fight this concentration and centralization. In government, we have instituted “separation of powers” to prevent tyranny. Similarly, distributing our information is also part of the solution in technology. We should not let any single company know too much about us, dominate their market too much or become a monopoly. We should favor competition, and not always go with the easiest solution if it leads to market consolidation in the hands of a few.
Practically, this means choosing to use services from different companies, and when possible, favoring smaller companies over larger ones. Practically, it might involve some short-term inconvenience for the sake of long-term balance in the market.
Technology enthusiasts are also introducing decentralized or distributed solutions for many problems. Centralized solutions often appear more efficient, but if there is a decentralized version of a service, try to use it instead of centralized solutions. A really basic example is this blog. Although I could post on Twitter (ugh!) or Facebook, and probably get a following with less effort, I would rather post on my own site even though it may require more promotion on my part, and effort on the part of the reader to find me and subscribe via RSS or a browser bookmark. Another example is Bitcoin. It is a decentralized solution for moving money, and its goal is to be a free alternative to the centralized banking system.
Remember: power that is distributed into the hands of more people, especially those it affects most, is generally safer than power concentrated in a few hands. That reduces the potential for privacy abuses.
Diversity is Part of the Solution
Of course, this leads to a situation where there are a diverse group of sometimes incompatible services and technologies. Diversity has its downsides: it makes many things harder because you have to navigate differences and incompatibilities; this is true in cultures and in technologies. However, it also makes it more complex for any one group or company to dominate and abuse their power.
In agriculture, farmers often settle on just one particular breed of a plant, and they all begin to cultivate it together. This is called a “mono-culture” and is like the plant version of a monopoly. It appears to be more efficient because farmers can all use the same techniques, and the market prefers the uniformity of their produce. But if a disease breaks out against that particular breed, it can wipe out a nation’s entire supply. This is what happened in the Irish Potato Famine and resulted in thousands of people dying or emigrating to other countries, including America. A mono-culture, just like a monopoly, makes some things easier in the short run, but is worse in the long run. It is dangerous to become overly reliant on one company or service, just as it is dangerous to rely on one single species of plant for food, especially as an entire society. In business, a monopoly always leads to abuse of power and stagnation in innovation due to lack of competition.
The tendency toward monopoly and a single solution is even stronger in technology. In many areas we observe the network effect, where a service increases its value the more people join it. This leads to a “winner-takes-all” market where the first company to grow big tends to offer the greatest value to people, and thus dominates and squeezes out the smaller players. Yet there are signs that this phenomenon doesn’t hold true in every case, that it is more complex than it appears on the surface, and that sometimes it can even work against a dominant company. One of the ways in which this effect is countered is when people show a strong enough preference to start switching to other services. This requires them to go against the flow for a while, but if persistent enough, they eventually end up reversing the flow, taking it in their direction. Remember when Apple’s slogan used to be, “Think Different”? Of course, that was when Apple was an underdog. But enough people “thought different” that Apple now has a secure position in the market.
Many people complain that for phones there are really only two choices: Apple or Android. But how did we get here? By only choosing those options, in mass. Most platforms need critical mass to be viable. There have been efforts to set up open-source alternative platforms for phones, but they failed for lack of critical mass. Fortunately, there are still some alternatives out there trying to survive. Be the one who takes a risk to experiment with one of these alternative platforms, and help them gain enough momentum to bring a real alternative to people.
Finally, there is a difference between the domination of companies and the domination of standards or protocols. Once a protocol has been established that is good enough to solve the problem, it tends to take over. For example, email uses established protocols and standards set up a long time ago. Some of the problems mentioned above still apply to protocols and standards, but generally these are more neutral. Their dominance does not necessarily lead to a concentration of power; to continue with the email example, there are many email providers competing in the marketplace established by the email protocol. So in standards and protocols, if we are choosing a winner, we should favor the protocol that provides an even playing field for many players to compete.
In short: use alternatives to the dominant services and companies, to encourage competition, decentralization, and diversity in the marketplace.
Denying Access is Part of the Solution
If an app requests too many permissions, don’t grant them to it, and see if it still works acceptably well. If you think it doesn’t need a certain permission or function to do its job but it keeps asking or refuses to work without the requested permission, uninstall it and try a competing app. Before you uninstall it, give it a 1-star rating in the app store, and explain in the comments why: it is too invasive of your privacy.
If an app or a service asks you for too much information, refuse to give it. Leave as many fields blank in a form as possible. If a form requires you to fill out too many details about yourself, and you are uncomfortable with it, go to another competing service. Don’t just go with the flow like sheep.
If you absolutely must have the service and they keep requiring certain information they don’t absolutely need to provide the service, complain to their support line. Tell them not to ask for that information, or at least to make it opt-in. If they ask why, or treat you like a paranoid person, don’t just lie down and take it. That’s how we got here: people incrementally got used to giving out anything and everything asked of them without questioning or pushing back. Because it’s Black History Month, my son was recently learning about Rosa Parks at school. She said about her decision in 1955 not to give in to the demand to cede her seat to a white man, “I had not planned to get arrested. I had plenty to do without having to end up in jail. But when I had to face that decision, I didn’t hesitate to do so because I felt that we had endured that too long. The more we gave in, the more we complied with that kind of treatment, the more oppressive it became.” Of course, protecting our privacy is not exactly like the civil rights movement of that time, but in a way privacy is one of the civil rights issues of our time.
If all else fails, see how much of the information you can fake. Use a throwaway email if they really don’t need your email on an ongoing basis to message you. Use a throwaway phone number (there are plenty of services for this). Fake your date of birth and other details. This is a form of civil disobedience. Remember, Rosa Parks disobeyed the law when she refused to give her seat up for a white man.
Also remember that it’s not enough that she did it alone. After she was arrested and her case became well known, black people decided to stop using the bus system until the laws were changed. Was it an inconvenience for them? Of course; many of them had to walk in the rain. Will it be an inconvenience for you to do all of this for the sake of increased privacy? Will you sometimes feel like the only one taking a stand? Yes. But don’t stand alone: voice your objections and make yourself heard, and stand firm on your position. That’s the only way to make change happen.
In short, refuse to go along with invasive apps and services that don’t respect your privacy. If it means you have to stop taking the bus and walk in the rain sometimes (or, quit Facebook and actually use the phone and email to stay in touch), then make that sacrifice.
What I’m Doing About It
For me, the topic of Internet privacy is not new, nor is it tied to politics. Since before Facebook existed, I’ve always instinctively been careful about what I post on the Internet. Even making this blog and attaching my real name to it is a big step.
I have used Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, YouTube, and the rest, to some degree. However, as I said at the beginning, I try to use alternatives when practical, and when there aren’t any smaller company alternatives, I play the big companies against each other by using the less dominant one in a particular area. Sometimes I simply choose to do without a particular service that I feel is too compromising of my privacy.
In the next few posts, I’ll share some more concrete steps and alternatives I am using.
Be First to Comment