I’ve also been working on gaining skills that make me more reliable at keeping things private, and making it lower cost for myself to take on confidential information.
Although we may be able to introduce and encourage good privacy etiquette in smaller groups, I doubt society at large will embrace such etiquette for a long time, if ever. Thus, I am interested to hear more about such skills/techniques to make confidentiality-bearing less costly to myself.
may be able to introduce and encourage good privacy etiquette in smaller groups
It’s worth exploring what dimensions you’re worried about. You’ll come up with different mechanisms and different expectations (for yourself and others) if you frame it as “etiquette” or “norms” than if you frame it as “value or harm from additional disclosure”.
Do you mean that the mechanisms and expectations will be more severe if it’s framed as value/harm rather than etiquette? If so, I wasn’t intending to reduce the potential seriousness with my phrasing.
I suspect that “severity of mechanism” will have the same range for the two framings. I think the complexity and utility of the ruleset will be different.
Trying to work from human norms and politeness/guess-culture assumptions will lead to weird exceptions and hard-to-predict behaviors. Working from a consequentialist harm/benefit framework seems likely to navigate those nuances and exceptions.
Yeah, the use case I have for this post is mostly for small-to-medium sized groups of people (who disproportionately read LessWrong or hang out with people who do). Agreed it’s unlikely to help with society as a whole, or at companies/social-groups that aren’t predisposed to reading blogposts like this.
Nevertheless, even if there are confidentiality-bearing cost reduction skills which aren’t widely applicable outside of this use case, I think they would be useful to know.
Were you mostly referring to the TAP you outlined about having meta-conversations? If so, that’s definitely a good start, but I wonder if there’s anything else possible.
Although we may be able to introduce and encourage good privacy etiquette in smaller groups, I doubt society at large will embrace such etiquette for a long time, if ever. Thus, I am interested to hear more about such skills/techniques to make confidentiality-bearing less costly to myself.
It’s worth exploring what dimensions you’re worried about. You’ll come up with different mechanisms and different expectations (for yourself and others) if you frame it as “etiquette” or “norms” than if you frame it as “value or harm from additional disclosure”.
Do you mean that the mechanisms and expectations will be more severe if it’s framed as value/harm rather than etiquette? If so, I wasn’t intending to reduce the potential seriousness with my phrasing.
I suspect that “severity of mechanism” will have the same range for the two framings. I think the complexity and utility of the ruleset will be different.
Trying to work from human norms and politeness/guess-culture assumptions will lead to weird exceptions and hard-to-predict behaviors. Working from a consequentialist harm/benefit framework seems likely to navigate those nuances and exceptions.
something something something....the triumph of truth over etiquette....something something something.....complete :)
Yeah, the use case I have for this post is mostly for small-to-medium sized groups of people (who disproportionately read LessWrong or hang out with people who do). Agreed it’s unlikely to help with society as a whole, or at companies/social-groups that aren’t predisposed to reading blogposts like this.
Nevertheless, even if there are confidentiality-bearing cost reduction skills which aren’t widely applicable outside of this use case, I think they would be useful to know.
Were you mostly referring to the TAP you outlined about having meta-conversations? If so, that’s definitely a good start, but I wonder if there’s anything else possible.