The data privacy paradox: Why privacy doesn’t always equal more security

cointelegraph.com:

Data privacy was virtually nonexistent when technology exploded in the early 2000s. There was limited privacy regarding personal information and online behaviors, and shockingly, most of it was considered company property for profit gain. With more government intervention, in addition to evolving user awareness and market forces, people have far more control over their data than ever before. But as with anything, is total user privacy inherently a good thing? 

The use of “surveillance capitalistic” practices — or the undisclosed extraction and profiteering of personal data — has risen into public consciousness and government debate over the past two decades. The growing discomfort and scrutiny over unchecked powers within our data economy led many to seek out alternate decentralized internet platforms in the name of anonymity and data security. It also prompted an onslaught of U.S. legislative action, including the passage of at least 27 online privacy bills which aim to regulate the data markets and increase privacy and protection alone — advancements are only continuing to expand. 

While these advancements in the name of data security are well-intended, it is important to remember that data privacy is nuanced and categorized in a number of different ways. Taking extreme measures to elevate certain aspects of privacy could prove quite dangerous to users and organizations at large.

In total, there are three tenants of privacy that should be discussed independently from one another, each carrying a certain level of gravity to the data privacy paradox.

When people think of data privacy, they’re primarily concerned with the idea of acquiring security. Namely, the need to keep passwords, private keys or other data that can be