Isn't it a location! What are you afraid of? Will social media reveal IP location be monitored? ｜Let's talk about Mary

Not long ago, most social media such as Weibo, WeChat, and Douyin launched a new function, which is to force the display of the user's IP attribution. As soon as this feature came out, it caused a lot of shock in the Chinese social circle. In addition to letting a large number of offshore patriotic accounts show their real bodies, it also made people worry that this feature would expose users' privacy nakedly, which may It will lead to conflicts between regions and the risk of accelerated human flesh. The Global Times said without hesitation that this function will actually be a "mirror mirror" that can expose the "fox tails" of some foreign forces. The implication is that as long as you don't do anything wrong, you won't be afraid of ghosts knocking on the door. Many people think that I am open and aboveboard, and I have nothing to hide, and we can still hear some voices, who do you think you are, and who cares about your privacy. This kind of argument has been very popular in China and even the world for a long time. Is there a limit to personal privacy? From the perspective of national security, does the government have the right to invoke your privacy? Is it legal for Internet companies to use your personal information and behavior for commercial purposes? Today we are going to discuss this topic.

Hello everyone, I'm Marley, this is a small channel that advocates thinking and tearing fifty cents by hand. In each issue, we will combine a political and economic case to discuss the reasons behind it and different thinking dimensions.

When it comes to personal privacy, it literally means the secrets that people don't want to tell others or are inappropriate to tell others. Articles 1033 and 1035 of the Chinese Civil Code clearly stipulate that personal privacy and personal information are protected by law. No organization or individual can violate citizens' privacy, and the use and processing of personal information must obtain the consent and authorization of the individual. Obviously, this behavior of Chinese social networks is blatantly unconstitutional, but considering the particularity of Chinese laws, we can only laugh without saying a word. As for what privacy is, many people are still confused, let's watch another short film.

Yes, this is actually an advertisement of Apple. We will not discuss whether the fruit factory strictly abides by what he promised. We imagine that if your privacy and personal information are told to others like this, will you feel comfortable? Baidu boss Robin Li once said that Chinese people are less sensitive to privacy, and they are more willing to trade their privacy for convenient Internet services. Although these remarks caused quite a bit of controversy back then, four years later, the Chinese do not seem to think it is a problem. Of course, this kind of argument is also common in the global Internet circle. In 2009, former Google CEO Schmidt said that if you don’t want people to know, don’t do it. If you care about privacy, please face the reality. We do will obtain your personal information. If in the U.S., also under the Patriot Act (the one that became infamous after Snowden), this information may be given to authorities. And big companies such as Google and Facebook have indeed cooperated with the FBI to provide the suspect's data to the government as evidence to solve the case. It is very ironic that the US technology media Cnet once disclosed Schmidt's personal information in a news report. As a result, all CNET reporters were blacklisted by Google. The key is that this information is obtained through Google's searches and products. inquired. In the West, there are many similar arguments. For example, the closed-circuit television of the British government used to say "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." rhetoric to defend their surveillance system, etc. It can be seen that for public power, not only in China, but also many people in the so-called democratic Western countries hold similar views, which seems to show that privacy is like toilet paper, I Use it when you need it. As for whether your butt is dry or not, it depends on how I wipe it. I think at this time, the little pinks and the official media should come out and strongly condemn the irresponsible attitude of the West, this kind of thing How can I learn?

However, after the Snowden scandal and the revelation of massive government surveillance around the world, especially the discredited U.S. government, this argument has been challenged. In the legal systems of various countries, privacy is protected as a human right, that is to say, privacy is understood as the right to access and use of space, location and personal information, which means that the access rights are determined only by yourself. If individuals have the right to privacy, the so-called "nothing to hide" view is logically invalid. Since it is privacy, it is something that can be hidden. If someone says, I don't agree that people are aboveboard, the first reaction of many people is that what are you going to hide? In this regard, Schneier, the American cryptography and network security leader, said that openness is based on the fact that privacy can be used to conceal unethical behavior. For example, someone said, I want to blow up the White House, and I want to blow up the White House are two different concepts. The former belongs to the scope of freedom of speech, and the latter is illegal.

Psychologically, what makes us “human” is that we discover that we can hide certain things from other people. Philosopher and psychoanalyst Modini said the idea that there is "nothing to hide" is inherently paradoxical, the point is not what to hide, but that we have the right and the ability to hide something. This sentence is a bit brain-burning, we can take an example, Snowden once said, if a person says, I don't care about privacy because there is nothing to hide, it is equivalent to I don't care about freedom of speech because I have nothing to say. . In effect it is saying that I have no rights because I cannot justify my rights. Let’s take Weibo as an example. Although the real-name system is used in China, at least some of my information is kept secret from ordinary people. If you force me to disclose my location information, it will increase my exposure to human flesh and Internet violence. Probability, who should be responsible for the various consequences of this? The recent Emperor Bar administrator incident is a typical example, because his ip was displayed in Taiwan, he was quickly exposed, and the Taiwan government arrested them on the grounds of publishing rumors. I'm not here to complain for them, but from my heart, I'm still quite happy. When many people see this kind of person accidentally injured by an iron fist and applaud one after another, we think in turn, if an ordinary person is raped by pink human flesh and the Internet, or even arrested by the authorities, is this fair? Let's start with the political position and right or wrong. At least everyone has the right to hide their personal information. As for whether you use your real avatar, real name, real IP, it is your right, but it is absolutely not the platform or the government to decide what you should disclose. information. If the privacy of pink cannot be protected now, then the privacy of the anti-thief will be used casually as it should. If you feel that I don't do anything wrong now, it doesn't matter if I publish my location information. When one day Weibo can show your home address, do you still feel that it doesn't matter?

The famous French cardinal once said: "If you give me six words written by the most honest man, I will definitely find the reason for hanging him", referring to the fact that the national government can play a role in a person's life. Find any party to prosecute or blackmail the person, ** the so-called "security versus privacy" battle is really a "freedom versus control" battle.

With regard to privacy, psychology also proves that when a person finds themselves being watched, their behavior becomes submissive, they involuntarily avoid their own wishes and desires, and any decisions made in this situation are not theirs The will itself is precisely the behavior the monitors want to see in them. I once talked about a concept called the "chilling effect" in a previous program. After the Snowden incident, people found that their communications might be monitored by the government, and they became obviously panicky and even began to self-censor the content of their communications. Even avoid a lot of communications over public networks, even if they don't mean to make any security-threatening remarks. Many writers deliberately avoid writing and speaking on specific and sensitive topics, and traffic to articles marked as privacy-sensitive on Wikipedia has plummeted since June 2013. But for a democratic and free country, this is undoubtedly a serious injury to freedom of speech and the protection of personal privacy. Law professor Daniel Soloway also published an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education against the government's actions, pointing out that if the government is at fault in this regard, if personal information leaks from government departments, it will cause harm to people who Government agencies may also use collected personal information to deny someone access to public services, even through no fault of their own. All in all, no matter what the government is doing, the behavior of public power to monitor privacy from the perspective of God is very terrifying, and there is no way to make people believe in the credibility of the government. Many people also believe that if this view of "no need to hide" is reasonable, then this view should be taken to the extreme and treated equally to NSA agents, politicians, police officers or entrepreneurs, and they themselves should bear the brunt of it with absolute openness and transparency. information to allow people to monitor themselves. If this were the case, Google CEO Schmidt would not have blocked CNET back then.

In an interview with the French media, Lin Junyue, the chief designer of China's social credit scoring system, once bluntly said that China's system is used to fight against some people. He is also proud to say that if you have this system, you will Never worry about the Yellow Vests rebellion because we will act before they do.

There is a documentary on Netflix called "Intelligent Society - Dilemma", which explains how the current social network is eroding people's freedom and will step by step. The film says that product designers use "enhanced" techniques to produce The falling waterfall makes users addicted to swiping the phone and can't stop, and the principle of this "enhancement" is a domestication experiment done by a psychologist using pigeons. When a pigeon accidentally pecks the word "PECK" on the wall, immediately feed it a crumb. After a few minutes, it pecks again, and you feed it another crumb. Over time, pigeons have learned the word peck. Using the same method, they have also taught pigeons to recognize English, play table tennis, and even control missiles. This is actually the same principle as Pavlov's dog. When we marvel at these brainwashing methods, we can actually reflect on ourselves. Although human beings yearn for freedom, our actions are often determined by the results of our actions. Compared with animals, we do not have free will. How advanced. And to a large extent, I am obsessed with the feeling of being manipulated. In the so-called era of big data, product managers have racked their brains to design a function and button that can make you feel very human and convenient. Using our gender, age, location, and mental models refined with every click, scroll, purchase, comment, we are just the result of long-term domestication like dogs and pigeons.

Let's go back to the first movie. If a stranger suddenly came to you and told you, I know your measurements, first love, home address, income, etc., even if he is handsome and polite, will he gasp? A breath of fresh air. Then why do you feel that you are understood, cared and protected on the Internet? So it's not that Chinese people are not sensitive to privacy, but the person who gets your privacy has regarded your privacy as a quid pro quo in your daily life.