Two types of privacy
Rohan makes a valiant and useful attempt to expand the over-simplified
notion of digital privacy. Anything that throws more light on this
area is welcome. However I feel that some of the distinctions are
incomplete or need highlighting more strongly.<p>The word &#x27;tracking&#x27; shouldn&#x27;t be used to stand-in for &quot;absence of
privacy&quot;.  For example, I may <i>want</i> to be tracked in every detail and
might buy a GPS tracker. However it should remain under my exclusive
control. If I find it&#x27;s defective because it&#x27;s treacherously uploading
my data somewhere I didn&#x27;t ask it to, that&#x27;s a breach of privacy.<p>The suggestion that techniques for web browsing might be generalisable
to wider privacy doesn&#x27;t hold up well. The main focus is mitigations
(evasion and reduction) against cross-site identity leakage. Active
obfuscation, avoidance, spoofing, dazzle, camouflage and decoying
isn&#x27;t covered, nor are threat actors or actor position. For example my
ISP or device vendor may be a greater threat than a website (doubly so
when the device and site are owned by the same entity eg. Google.)<p>It is oft said that privacy means different things to different
people, but this is not the same as saying people have different use
cases and needs, and is rarely unpacked by socio&#x2F;psychological
analysis (different expectations and ethical judgements may exist
within the same use-cases and needs).<p>Also, someone &quot;being okay&quot; with a violation of privacy is not a
sufficient indicator. Objective harms exist and they don&#x27;t go away
because the user is ignorant or convinced, or coerced to make
&quot;acceptable trade-offs&quot;.