The "privacy is dead" meme has been around for a while -- former Sun CEO (and present Trump backer) Scott McNealy uttered this famously in 2000.
"Identity is Dead" is the headline of a 2006 IT World piece, which puts an interesting twist on the concept.
Wtf did they confuse "privacy" with "authenticity" ?
@Wolf480pl They didn't. Nor did I.
But "privacy" and "identity" are two dimensions of phenomena challenged by a glob-spanning, high-speed, high-capacity, hugely-interconnected, fragile, and tremendously interconnected and complexly-interacting information technology network.
I'm impressed that, thirteen years ago, someone had the prescience to consider identity challenged in much the same way that privacy clearly is. I've had the same thought myself, arrived at years later than they.
From the article you linked:
> A key part of the overall concept of privacy is the concept of identity. Who sent me this e-mail?
How do they define "privacy" so that this is true?
And as for identity - for me, it was obvious from when I started using the Internet that
pseudonymous identities are a thing, and it doesn't really matter if the person who sent the message I'm responding to is a PhD, really has "Edward Morbius" as their legal name, is a human being, etc. All I care about is that it's the same Doc Edward Morbious I talked with a couple months ago, and even that isn't always important.
@Wolf480pl Mind, the relationship between privacy, authentication, and encryption / cryptography, is complex. I don't pretend to understand it, but I've been thinking about it for years.
(Including an exchange with @danyork, I think on Ello, possibly here, that I haven't been able to track down.)
If "privacy" is "the ability to define and enforce limits on the spread of personal information", then knowing _who_ you are sharing with, and enforcing that constraint, matters. Which means identity.
Generalistic and moderated instance.