Why does the privacy of commoners not exist to Google and its customers? It’s absolutely because privacy is anathema to the basic conduct of big business in our age of two-way communications. Privacy would end the overclass’s ability to gather data on our off-the-job behavior via new media, and thereby refine and extend their sales efforts...[C]onsider also the radical uni-directionality of the relationship in question. Privacy is nothing, a mere remnant of earlier times to be eroded and strangled...What happens in the boardroom and in the lives of the primary beneficiaries of the system? Try telling them they have no privacy rights, and that all their affairs are open to public scrutiny...
The human-shaped Schmidt, and the venerable Dr. Dawson, refer to the perceived gradual degradation of "privacy." If we limit our temporal scope yet again to "America," we may recall that one of the revolution-worthy offenses of King George was to quarter soldiers in the homes of his subjects, i.e., the full removal of their privacy, with attendant costs, as well as allowing the searching and seizure of persons, structures, and other assets without "due process of law." Ergo, goes the American Declaration of Independence (not to be confused with Ho Chi Minh's declaration of Vietnamese independence, which America promptly voided to the tune of a few million children and counting), colonists would revolt to salvage their privacy.
One might conclude a number of things from that Declaration, or the apparent success of that Revolution:
(1) Privacy was, previously, expected;
(2) Privacy should, thereafter, be expected;
(3) The recent number of insanely tyrannical anti-privacy laws, growing alongside increasing technology, but most profoundly visible subsequent to the Patriot Act, is a wacky new thing caused by a recent, potentially proto-fascist turn in American government subsequent to Nineleven.
However, before and after that particular Declaration and Revolution, slaves had no privacy vis-à-vis their owners. Non-elite women had no privacy vis-à-vis their husbands. Children had no privacy vis-à-vis their caretakers. Unlicensed salesmen, unlicensed professionals, unlicensed product-users, people near the scene of a crime, suspicious people, or poor people had no privacy vis-à-vis State agents. Unlicensed people had no privacy vis-à-vis anyone.
Privacy has, as far as western civilization goes, never existed except in rare quantities for the elite, and within elite families, privacy often depends on role and status, and is limited to a few short years for any given individual. The privacy that many of us feel we are "losing" when something intrusive happens is an illusion: as a working and buying drone, privacy does not exist. When it does exist, it exists because of your powerlessness: secure elites don't much care whether you whine about their murders, as long as you're powerless enough in this density that you're not able or willing to change that. Dubya, for example, is free to giggle and play "where's the WMD" under his desk, in front of a camera to the whole world, because he knows you've got nothing.
Insecure elites, seeing the potential for real resistance to their rule, use purges and gulags, but when they do that, validated invasions of privacy don't so much matter anymore. Say we're in Compton in 1985: any cop can frisk any black person, but not every black person gets frisked or arrested, and not every person frisked or arrested is guilty. The illusion of privacy has little to no impact on who actually ends up receiving punishment, in a land of drop guns and dime bags. When an elite legislature or business slightly alters the way it invades privacy, it is more akin to tiny adjustments in the regulations governing housing foreclosure than it is to stormtroopers kicking down the door: the stormtroopers were always there, and all that changes is the colors of their uniforms and the reasons they think they're doing it.
The real, consistent, reliable privacy out there has only ever been enjoyed by elites (if you've been unlucky and lucky enough to be a non-elite with a real expectation of privacy, ignorance is bliss). Just as deistic or liberally democratic consumer religions once justified elite privacy, and feigned the illusion of non-elite privacy, efficient business privacy now provides the only real privacy: the kind of privacy backed up by armies, police, and judges.
This business privacy stems from the divine right of free markets, as kings and priests were once theoretically protected under different regimes. In actuality, the privacy came from power, but as with all elite rationalizations, there is often some wiggle room at the edges, exploitable to obtain the theoretical benefit the system is supposed to provide. Google's spying is sacrosanct because it is done as part of a business, generating advertising information and producing a profit. AGMI was developed to exploit this opportunity, providing privacy for profit, and making it, therefore, worthy of real protection under U.S. law.
Consider, as an example, "democracy." Democracy theoretically results in better government than monarchy or feudalism, ending tyranny, invasions of privacy, war, financial exploitation, et cetera, however, modern democracies have proven themselves little different. The same people run the show, even though lower classes now have leather couches and bigscreen TVs instead of hay bales and mutton. In the margins of democracy, though, the lofty theory of voting can be occasionally used to seize control of a small-town school board, send a single representative to the state legislature, or do something else like that--gaining an incremental, unintended benefit. To the elites, that's a small cost of doing business as a "democracy"--that occasionally, the theory will be used toward a result they didn't want. To medieval Christian elites, a similar cost would be the martyring of a disobedient nun who tried to care for the poor, whom they'd then be forced to dedicate a holiday to.
Do You Want Privacy?
This one's Full Information Security Project was viewed by many, incorrectly, as a parody of the logical inevitabilities of the idea of "intellectual property." Along the same lines, Arken Globernautical Markescopetrinomics, Inc., a joint venture of the managing underwriters of the High Arka Tropical EeX Fund 2 (ticker symbol HAT133+2) and the London office of Arken Orthopedic Innovations, Ltd., is proud to announce its solution to the problem of individual privacy invasion.
For the low, one-time fee of €26,995.00 (transfer fees inclusive!) payable online through our secondary UBS account, Arken Globernautical Markescopetrinomics, Inc. will enter into a marketing development contract with a private individual. AGMI's dynamic revenue model is based on the idea of consumer data integration. We project a substantial revenue stream through the process of copyrighting and trademarking individual consumer habits, and to make our business model effective, we must protect our customers' information using all means possible, including litigation. Accordingly, we are able to offer our contracted individuals protection from other forms of unauthorized data collection, including search-term tracking, e-mail reviewing, and in-home web-camera-based behavior modeling.
If you want to put the windows of your home on the aerial surveillance "do not zoom in" list; if you want to put your heat-vision bathroom and bedroom habits out of the purview of Viacom and D.H.S. satellites; if you want to use your Arken Expressway charge card at the bookstore without allowing Misters Barnes and Nobles to track your purchases: if you want any of these things, you need to contract with AGMI. Remember, your personal "privacy" is worthless compared to Google's right to model your behavior to learn about what products and services to offer you, but our right to sell you that privacy is valuable. Do the responsible thing for yourself and your family by doing business with Arken Globernautical Markescopetrinomics, Inc. Reclaim your privacy the real way, the fair way, and the open way. Choose AGMI.