Why have philosophers historically failed to think seriously about privacy? How do invasions of privacy really impact a person? What do we give up when we let our data be freely commoditized by Big Tech companies without being fully aware of how they’re doing it?

Carissa Véliz is an Associate Professor in Philosophy at the Institute for Ethics in AI, a Fellow at Hertford College at the University of Oxford, and the author of multiple books including most recently, The Ethics of Privacy and Surveillance.

Greg and Carissa discuss why philosophers have historically neglected privacy as a subject, the modern implications of privacy in the digital age, and the ethical issues surrounding data collection and targeted advertising. Carissa argues for a nuanced, objective approach to privacy that considers its deep evolutionary and societal roots. They touch on the tension between convenience and privacy, the importance of legal frameworks, and the responsibilities of both individuals and companies in safeguarding personal data.

*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*

Show Links:

Recommended Resources:

• Louis Brandeis
• Judith Jarvis Thomson
• Rima Basu
• Civil Inattention
• Paul de Man
• 23andMe

Guest Profile:

• CarissaVeliz.com
• Faculty Profile at Hertford College
• Faculty Profile at Oxford University
• Wikipedia Profile
• LinkedIn Profile
• Social Profile on X

Her Work:

• Amazon Author Page
• The Ethics of Privacy and Surveillance
• Privacy Is Power: Why and How You Should Take Back Control of Your Data
• Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics

Episode Quotes:

The hidden risks of sharing genetic data

34:40: Most people don't really realize what it means to give away your genetic data. Genetic data is something so abstract that I don't think our psychology is built to understand it. It's not something you can touch or you can see. I can't visually show it to you, I mean, except in a very abstract form. And so I don't think people think it through. I think in a society in which we are very respectful of private property, it's very intuitive to think that if we make privacy a question of private property, then we are being respectful towards privacy. And it just doesn't work that way, because when I sell my genetic data to one of these companies, I'm selling the data of my siblings, my parents, my kids, even my very distant kin who might get deported, who could have their insurance denied. So it's not a personal thing.

Privacy is a protection against possible abuses of power

06:09: Privacy is a protection against possible abuses of power. And as long as institutions are institutions, and people are people, there will always be that temptation to abuse power. We can see this very clearly because people who are more vulnerable to abuses of power tend to care more about privacy.

Can consent in data co-exist?

50:52: Consent in the data world just doesn't exist because it's not informed. You have no idea what they're doing with your data or where your data is going to end up. And it's not because you're uninformed; no data scientist would know it either. It's because of the way the data market works, and it's not really voluntary because if you say no, then you can't use the service, and not using the service might mean not getting a job or not getting an education. So, we need to change the kind of framework, and I propose an opt-in framework, in which you can opt in to have certain kinds of data collected, and that's effortful, and you only have to do it once.

Navigating privacy in a digitally-driven world

38:07: As long as the data exists, there's already a privacy risk. And that was my point with the iron law of digitization—that when you turn the analog into the digital, it might seem like a very neutral thing to do, but it's not because you turn something that wasn't trackable into something that's taggable, and that means it's being surveilled. That's what it means to surveil, to track something. And so, when we turn the analog into the digital, we're doing something very morally significant.