It's met with ridicule now, but the value of ridicule has slumped in
30 years.
Ian Levy, when he was at NCSC spoke about "shame as a weapon against
Big Tech". But he missed a crucial flaw - they do not give a fuck.
Shame and ridicule only work in societies where people have dignity,
self-respect, mutuality and care.
It's true that nobody has any reasonable expectation of privacy when
using a Google smartphone. But the ruling talks about "willingly".
What does "will" have to do with modern life where people are badgered
incessantly to surrender their choice, boundaries, and dignity?
To exercise "will" these days, is quite a big deal, and usually means
going against the flow and suffering some loss.
Shame is far more often used as a weapon promoting Big Tech. I am constantly ridiculed for not having Facebook or Whatsapp accounts, and many people that I meet are suspicious of me. Try meeting women on Tinder without Whatsapp.
I get enough matches and interesting conversations. It's moving that conversation to a different medium that is problematic when they want to see "who you are" first and you have no Facebook to show them, and even not Whatsapp to write to them.
For what it's worth, mentioning Telegram is even worse because that application is associated with drugs in our country.
Ian Levy, when he was at NCSC spoke about "shame as a weapon against Big Tech". But he missed a crucial flaw - they do not give a fuck. Shame and ridicule only work in societies where people have dignity, self-respect, mutuality and care.
It's true that nobody has any reasonable expectation of privacy when using a Google smartphone. But the ruling talks about "willingly". What does "will" have to do with modern life where people are badgered incessantly to surrender their choice, boundaries, and dignity?
To exercise "will" these days, is quite a big deal, and usually means going against the flow and suffering some loss.