[HN Gopher] The Fantasy of Opting Out ___________________________________________________________________ The Fantasy of Opting Out Author : Fiveplus Score : 211 points Date : 2021-02-18 11:18 UTC (11 hours ago) (HTM) web link (thereader.mitpress.mit.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (thereader.mitpress.mit.edu) | marshmallow_12 wrote: | this level of monitoring can only become useful with tools that | don't yet exist. it's only theoretically possible to aggregate | all the available data on any individual. it will require | advanced AI and vastly greater data sharing in order to make this | a significant issue. i imagine though that by the time these are | developed, they will have their teeth blunted by advanced, new, | obfuscation techniques and technologies. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | I think this is a dangerous fantasy, it does not require any | AI, just putting all the data together with loads of man hours | pksebben wrote: | they're already abusing our data. adtech sells to the US army | (pointedly: data from apps that are marketed to Muslims). if | you wait for the exploitation to be absolute before dealing | with it, you'll miss the opportunity to deal with it at all | marshmallow_12 wrote: | The exploitation will never become absolute. Yes, blurred | lines are very dangerous, and yes an opportunity is being | missed here, but the scale of the danger is being | overestimated. The next data crisis will be entirely | unexpected but obvious in retrospect. (like every single | google account being breached). | pksebben wrote: | That's orthogonal to the discussion, though. The concern | isn't about cybersecurity, or breaches - this is about | governments and companies abusing their access. The | concern is that given enough time / development / etc | handing _anyone_ a "track all folks down to the | millimeter" is a fundamentally dangerous proposition. | | We know for a fact that government agencies misbehave. | Imagine McCarthy's America, but with the ability to | programatically crawl your every movement and spoken | word. _That's_ the nightmare scenario. | marshmallow_12 wrote: | imho Western Democracy is too strong and data gathering | is too weak to make this an immediate concern. even if | democracy unravels and the tech matures it may well be | less potent and/or effective than feared. A far more | pressing concern is a large data breach, which is | possible and probable. | marshmallow_12 wrote: | ...which is not practical and therefore only of consequence | for a person of interest, i.e. a criminal or suspected | criminal. I'm not saying it isn't a big problem, (suspicions | can be invented) i'm just pointing out it is unlikely to lead | to a dystopia. I think that laws will be drafted to | invalidate most data as evidence in court (since minor | offenses are universal and can't all be prosecuted). | hedora wrote: | The world needs to move to making all data collection opt-in. | There should be no negative impact to failing to opt in, unless | absolutely necessary. Those exceptions should be clearly | legislated, and be easily challenge in court. | | This would require a right-to-privacy constitutional amendment in | the US. | keiferski wrote: | I'm sure I'll be called crazy for this, but the true solution to | oppressive societal forces is personal space travel and | colonization. When it becomes possible for a small group of | people to fund their own "opt out" and escape into outer space, | individuals will regain some bargaining power. | | Obviously this won't happen for centuries. But on the timeline of | "future human existence", it's really not very long at all. I see | this as an inevitable outcome of technological development, even | if the Private Ownership of Spacecraft War of 2346 is bloody. | That gives me hope for the future. | packetlost wrote: | How is that any different from someone deciding to opt out from | society and move to... I dunno, the mountains? There's still a | lot of places on Earth that are sparsely inhabited or | completely uninhabited. | hertzrat wrote: | Living in the mountains, where I live, is about $2k per month | just for rent | keiferski wrote: | Still under the authority of a state. Escaping to Patagonia | doesn't really let you avoid governmental surveillance, just | makes you less of a target. | | Besides that, one shouldn't have to be a hermit in order to | avoid oppression. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | But how is it different if you're a space hermit? | gpm wrote: | I suppose because the cost to reach you is greatly | increased, meaning the cost to exercise authority is | greatly increased, so actual authority is greatly | deceased. | | Right now the cost for the government to send their | agents to "the mountains" is trivial, the most remote you | could possibly get is "a few hours commute and a | helicopter ride". The government is more than willing to | pay that price in important cases. | | I think they imagine that space travel can increase that | price to "months or years" and "expensive vehicles that | support people during that time". Rather like how much it | would have cost to send government agents to remote | places hundreds of years ago. | | (Personally I'm not particularly convinced, the number of | habitable rocks in the solar system is small. Living not | on a rock means you need to import resources. Maybe if we | get interstellar travel). | joubert wrote: | > oppressive societal forces is personal space travel and | colonization | | Why do you think colonies in space will be different and not | see "societal forces" emerge? | keiferski wrote: | Of course human societies will still have issues. But the | option of exiting will exist, as will the option of just | going off on your own. | joubert wrote: | The article had this but that stood out to me: | | "It isn't possible for everyone to live on principle; as a | practical matter, many of us must make compromises in | asymmetrical relationships, without the control or consent | for which we might wish." | | Even if you could just "go off on your own into space", you | will likely need to transact with other humans in order to | survive. Put differently, I think while it is an "option" | in principle, it isn't in reality. | keiferski wrote: | The ability to walk away is perhaps the single most | effective negotiation tactic. Simple as that. | | In MBA land they call it BATNA. Best alternative to a | negotiated agreement. | ccsnags wrote: | I think you are correct. | | The more accessible opting out becomes, the more leverage | regulator people will have when negotiating with the | dominant social order. | | Space travel like this is down the road, but it's only a | long road if you are thinking in terms of your own finite | existence. | | Also, opting out is in demand. From a more immediate | perspective, I think that there is a lot of room for | innovation around personal privacy and opting out. No | system created by humans is permanent. More surveillance | means that humans will create systems to subvert it or | render it useless. This has already happened in many ways. | | A system is nicer to its people when they are there | voluntarily. These changes will also work to improve the | quality of life of those in the system as well as those | outside of it. | ymbeld wrote: | I won't call you crazy, but I will call you naive. Modern | civilization was what brought us centralized states and | corporations. And yet we always seem to think that that next | hill, just over the horizon is where everything will flip on | its head and we will be back to some mythical past where we | could roam wherever we please--all enabled by technology of | course. | | New World 2.0 isn't coming. | keiferski wrote: | I don't see the early 19th century as a "mythical past", nor | did I say big changes were "just over the horizon." | | Space is quite literally limitless from a human perspective; | to assume that somehow human beings will make zero progress | on space travel 500 or 1,000 years from now seems naive to | me. | timerol wrote: | Are you familiar with Sealand? It was basically the same idea, | but in international waters | throwawayboise wrote: | Good point, you could do it now, far more cheaply, and far | more safely than going into space. | keiferski wrote: | Most of these sort of attempts have been either poorly | planned or deliberate shut down by nation states (like the | ones near Italy and Thailand.) | | I'd also imagine it's far less exciting to live on a floating | platform in the ocean than out in space. Certainly the | marketing materials will be more appealing. | coldtea wrote: | > _I'm sure I'll be called crazy for this, but the true | solution to oppressive societal forces is personal space travel | and colonization. When it becomes possible for a small group of | people to fund their own "opt out" and escape into outer space, | individuals will regain some bargaining power._ | | Besides the infissibility for billions to do so in the next | 2-3-5 centuries at least, it will probably also be the total | opposite if/when it happens. | | Those space colonies won't be like roaming around in some empty | earth. It will be like living in some very close knit community | on Earth, when everybody is monitored and depends on everybody | else don't doing something stupid/suicidal to put the colony in | danger... | | > _I see this as an inevitable outcome of technological | development_ | | Why would it be inevitable? | | There are big show stopping issues which are only handwaved | away atm with "but, progress" (as if technological development | is boundless and creativity can bypass any hard constraint). | | Some issues as so hard physics problems, that (BS like | "Alcubierre drive" aside) would mean the best we could ever do | would be "generation ships". | keiferski wrote: | By inevitable, I mean that space travel will become | affordable enough to be personal, and that this is a question | of time, not physical limitations. | | We're also talking about hundreds or thousands of years here. | It seems totally reasonable to me to assume that a private | spaceship priced at ~$500,000 in 2021 dollars will exist by | say, 2500. | simonh wrote: | This is silly, we are all observed by other people almost all of | our lives, but that's fine because they don't conspire behind our | backs to create a comprehensive record that's handed over to the | government. I don't mind if the building security records me | entering the building, or the bank records me using the ATM, or | that London Transport videos me on the train. What I object to is | if all of those are stitched together and handed over to | advertising agencies or my employer. | | Likewise I don't care that Google knows what I searched for, or | that Twitter knows what I tweeted, or that LinkedIn has my | employment history. What I don't want is all of that being sold | to Cambridge Analytica to then aggregate and sell on to someone | else for goodness knows what purposes. | | An awful lot of my life and interests are easily searchable. My | handle here is basically just my name, and I use the same handle | or even more complete versions everywhere I can. When I'm out in | public, the public can see me. When I post in public, the public | can read what I say. That's fine, that's why I said it. | | However my private correspondences with my wife and kids on | iMessage or WhatsApp are nobody else's business. My bank | transactions and online shopping likewise, that latter is mainly | between me and Amazon. Where I would get upset is if Amazon sold | that data to Google to show me 'relevant ads', or show my | purchases to my friends. Remember Facebook Beacon? There need to | be clear, hard lines in the sand. | feralimal wrote: | You're naive, sorry to say. | | I would think that all that data is being shared. And if its | not being shared now, it is being recorded. And an AI will run | through all that information and process it in the future. Why | anyone would trust self-serving governments and corporations | with private information amazes me! | | It is a perfectly rational hypothesis to consider that a lot of | the reasons governments use to take civil liberties away, are | ones that they orchestrated themselves to facilitate their | power grab. To not consider this as a possibility, in | psychological terms, is like being the co-dependent in a | narcissistic relationship, or like the victim in Stockholm | syndrome - you can't imagine that someone would be that | abusive, even though you know already that governments and | corporations do NOT have your back. | | All government conspiracy aside, anyone can see that one makes | lots of decisions to do things (or not) on account of what it | means to be in public. In your mind, contrast the idea of being | in public in a busy city versus a quiet country road. You do | not act in the same way! You are under greater stress in a | city, you will conform with the social norms as you perceive | them, you will not 'flower' as an individual. | | This stuff is all known. We are better managed in cities hence | 'they' want to move the mass of people into 'smart' (spy) | cities. Its not a secret. Its been being planned for a long | time. Look into technocracy. | [deleted] | simonh wrote: | Of course it is, I even game examples of data being used in | that way (Beacon and Cambridge Analytica). How can you | possibly think I'm not aware of activities I cited examples | of? That's exactly the sort of thing we need to focus our | efforts on stopping, | ttt0 wrote: | > Likewise I don't care that Google knows what I searched for, | or that Twitter knows what I tweeted, or that LinkedIn has my | employment history. What I don't want is all of that being sold | to Cambridge Analytica to then aggregate and sell on to someone | else for goodness knows what purposes. | | So you don't like Cambridge Analytica, but Google, Twitter and | LinkedIn using your data for goodness know what purposes is | fine? I'm pretty sure they're running all that data through all | sorts of machine learning algorithms and some of that might be | used at some point for surveillance and censorship purposes or | dystopian stuff in general. Not might, _will_ be, if already | isn 't. Because you'd have to be stupid to have this amount of | data and not use it to further your political agenda. | simonh wrote: | They need this information to provide the services they | offer, if you don't want the services don't provide the data. | I thought I made it abundantly, crystal clear I am against | them arbitraging or selling this data for other purposes of | the kind you describe. That's what we need to focus on with | regulation. Of course they want to use this data for other | purposes, and we need to make sure they do not. I find it | somewhat exasperating that you seem to think I believe | otherwise. | SamuelAdams wrote: | > I would get upset is if Amazon sold that data to Google to | show me 'relevant ads' | | If the email account you use for Amazon is a Gmail account they | email a receipt of purchase to that account, which Google will | use for 'relevant ads'. | | But of course in that case you are expressly granting | permission for Amazon to contact google. If it was done via a | TOS agreement or something then yes I agree, that would be | concerning. | andagainagain wrote: | Even then, that's more a problem with google than amazon. Or, | more accurately, it's a problem that we treat email as | electronic mail. We feel we own the account like we own our | address, Heck, for some stupid reason we use them for | identification all over the internet. | | But technologically, they are postcards sent to a business. | And we just visit the business to pick up our postcards. | Imagine every time you bought something, they sent the | receipt to walmart for you to pick up. Not in an envelope, | just handed to the guy at the counter and put into a box for | you. We never should have let email get this far, but we did. | dnissley wrote: | Supposedly that's no longer the case: | | https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/technology/gmail-ads.html | zeta0134 wrote: | This is something I wish was noted more often. When I'm | searching for something on Amazon, I have intentionally visited | that storefront and am willfully handing them my data (in the | form of search and browsing history); of _course_ Amazon is | going to keep that and use it to personalize my results. | Frankly that 's part of their value add, so this is neither | surprising nor particularly upsetting. | | What's surprising to most people (and should be the focus of | any litigation, imho) is precisely this third-party data | sharing. It's partly why the cookie law drives me nuts, since | it's made all tracking the bogeyman, and in reality, most first | party "tracking" is completely benign. If companies would agree | not to sell or share my data with third parties (law | enforcement serving a warrant being the major exception) then I | have no real issue with the tech. The blatant sharing, and | especially _ad networks_ make my blood boil. | II2II wrote: | > It's partly why the cookie law drives me nuts, since it's | made all tracking the bogeyman, and in reality, most first | party "tracking" is completely benign. | | There is a lot more disclosure about the use of cookies due | to those laws. One of the things those disclosures will note | is how many of those cookies are from third-parties. How many | people have even reviewed a single disclosure? Of those who | have, how many know how to disable third-party cookies? I am | not surprised that tracking ended up as the bogeyman due to | the amount of it, the dubious motives of most of it, and the | limited control that people have. | | Even if you eliminate third-party tracking and other forms of | data sharing, the amount of tracking happening through first- | party cookies is sometimes questionable. A company may be | fully justified in figuring out how their services are used, | but does that extend to creating profiles on individuals? | There is a big difference between a business using aggregate | data to improve sales and using data to tailor services to | individuals. It is worth noting that many people would | consider the former as being too manipulative, while it is | reasonable to argue that the latter is exploiting the | vulnerabilities of individuals. | | Personally, I find any sort form of tracking beyond ensuring | security and performance to be excessive since most of the | other tracking is intended to establish a one-sided | relationship to the benefit of the people doing the tracking. | Arguing that it sometimes improves the lives those being | tracked is missing the point since it is usually very much | unintentional. | Jgoure wrote: | Anecdotally, I purchased a heated blanket from Amazon for my | father and had it shipped to his address. When I went to look | at order details, Amazon advertised to me other things the | person I shipped this item to may like. Men Diapers, Pet | treats etc... I don't own a pet due to allergies and I am | very young to be searching for adult diapers. I found it very | rude and unprofessional of Amazon to share such a personal | suggestion with me. | | I called Amazons customer service to complain about their | suggestions. The representative said that their suggestions | are based on my searches and purchases. I believe the | suggestions are also based on the purchases made for that | address. | | My father doesn't even get an option to opt out of Amazon | suggesting things he's purchased, to other people to purchase | for him. There isn't an option for privacy. | africanboy wrote: | > of course Amazon is going to keep that and use it to | personalize my results | | and yet after years of buying the same pair of shoes, year | after year, amazon still doesn't know what's my shoe size and | I have to check if my size is still available every time... | | I believe they are not really trying to improve _my_ | experience, but their profits. | | But I have no proof. | sandworm101 wrote: | >> of course Amazon is going to keep that and use it to | personalize my results. Frankly that's part of their value | add | | You think it is value add because you assume they are using | the data to send you more relevant content. That's just not | how data is always used. A google customer (eg an advertiser) | might want to hit you with deliberately non-relevant ads, ads | to divert you away from a competitor product. You might want | to book a trip to visit family in Hawaii, but the Florida | resort advertiser doesn't much care what you want actually. | They will hit you with Florida ads in hopes that they can | divert a potential traveler to a different destination. You | will miss out on relevant Hawaii content simply because | Florida has paid more to put content in front of you. | gumby wrote: | Also they can use this to change the price they offer you | zeta0134 wrote: | Don't misunderstand: this is a bad advertising practice. I | don't like most advertising, relevant or otherwise, so if | this happens as you describe then yes, the value add is | negative. That doesn't make the data usage _surprising_ | though, and that was my point. It 's okay if Amazon uses | data I entered into search directly to advertise to me, | even if they're not very good at it. Ethically, no line was | crossed here. | | What would be surprising (to most consumers) is if the | Florida resort advertiser, instead of bidding on some broad | target demographic, has access to enough data to target me | individually. However that comes about, _that_ is the line | that is crossed. Why does the third party have direct(ish) | access to this data? Why wasn 't I informed? Etc. Whether | that is direct sale of the data, or indirect targeting | through unusually specific ad campaign targeting, the | effect is the same: it's _creepy._ | doggodaddo78 wrote: | Amazon then sells your searches to every other company that | happens by and correlates it with other broker data, and | resells that. | Wowfunhappy wrote: | Counterpoint: Many of the tech giants are so big and all- | encompassing that they are practically their own third party. | Google can take your location history from Google Maps and | use it to recommend videos on Youtube. | | Perhaps more importantly, restricting third-party but not | first-party sharing creates bad incentives. If Google could | share search data with first-party services like Google | Reviews, but not third-party ones like Yelp, what does that | mean for Yelp? We'd just be encouraging the largest companies | to bring even more of the world in-house. | antasvara wrote: | If I'm not mistaken, this problem is exactly what is | attempting to be solved by the current anti-trust suit | against the big tech companies in the United States (this | is the suit brought by Texas and a few other states). | Depending on the outcome, vertical integration like you're | describing could be deemed monopolistic and result in | Google being spun off into separate entities for each of | the parts you're describing. | | I think views related to this topic somewhat depend on | whether or not you consider Google a monopoly in the | digital advertising space. If you do, it would seem that | bringing more of the world in-house would be deemed illegal | under anti-trust laws. | Wowfunhappy wrote: | I do believe that Google, Facebook, Amazon, and even | Apple ought to be broken up. However, I don't have a ton | of faith that it will happen, and even if it does, I'm | wary of policies that would encourage future | consolidation. | cjfd wrote: | Good, let us forbid cross-service sharing of data. Gmail | can do everything it likes to with whatever data is | generated while I am using that. Let us just not allow it | to also use this data in google maps and on Youtube. | Wowfunhappy wrote: | How do you define a single service? What if Google adds | gmail results to Google Search, or Facebook integrates | Whatsapp into Facebook Messenger? | hertzrat wrote: | "Everything it likes" is pretty broad, isn't it? | tehjoker wrote: | Why should they be able to personalize to the individual? Why | shouldn't they be working from depersonalized aggregated | statistics? | clairity wrote: | > "...willfully handing them my data (in the form of search | and browsing history); of course Amazon is going to keep that | and use it to personalize my results." | | sure for the few minutes that that data is relevant to | selling you stuff you're looking for right now, but why would | you expect them to keep it for longer, as this seems to | imply? | | the time dimension matters too. keeping that data for more | than a few minutes should also be explicitly opt-in, as it's | data being collected and potentially shared in the future | (intentionally or not). | | reach and accessibility are naturally limited 'in the old | days' where a salesperson might remember your preferences, | even writing them down to share with other salespeople, but | that data hardly leaked out to other retailers (and potential | competitors). it seems that that should be our baseline, and | any further gathering/sharing be subject to explicit opt-in. | cmckn wrote: | I agree that the time dimension should at a minimum be | communicated, and longer term analytics on this kind of | data can almost always be done without associating the data | with individuals. | dmitryminkovsky wrote: | > most first party "tracking" is completely benign | | Drinking water, breathing fresh air, sitting by a fire on a | cold day, hugs from loved ones--things like this tend to be | completely benign. A permanent record of your activity in | somebody else's hands should never be assumed to be benign, | much less _completely_ benign. On the contrary, such a record | should be assumed to be hostile, because there is no | legislation or level of care in the world that can truly | prevent this record from leaking to third parties, or from | being abused by the first party. In the United States we have | this beautiful right to remain silent, because anything we | say can and will be used against us in the a court of law. I | believe it is wise to at least deeply internalize this, so | that even if you do share data with "first parties," you | won't be surprised later when that activity comes to bite | you, because eventually it will. | einpoklum wrote: | > but that's fine because they don't conspire behind our backs | to create a comprehensive record that's handed over to the | government. | | > I don't mind if the building security records me entering the | building, or the bank records me using the ATM | | Actually, I would pretty much bet the government in a bunch of | states in the world can access your bank records. Places like | the US, or China, or Russia. But let's ignore that. | | > What I object to is if all of those are stitched together and | handed over to advertising agencies or my employer. | | The thing is, once the information is gathered, and stored, | it's an easy transition to feed it somewhere. And judging by | current trends, - some company will soon offer pay those | disparate surveillers to feed such data to it, constantly - | since it can processed and analyzed en masse, and monetized. | Oh, and they'll probably send the government a copy of | everything too (judging by what FAANG do, for example). | | > Likewise I don't care that Google knows what I searched for | | That's not "likewise". Google is already a huge stitcher of | surveillance - the kind you said you disapprove of. And, again, | they send everything to the US government. | | > that latter is mainly between me and Amazon. | | You mean between you and the entity controlling a huge chunk of | all on-line commerce and whose operations are larger in | monetary terms than most states in the world? And that acts | like a government with its own body of rules and internal | judicial system for disputes? ... yeah, it's "just" between you | and them. | andagainagain wrote: | Indeed. | | I'm not trying to separate myself from society. I'm just trying | to keep the stalkers away. | | A lot of companies seem to want to act less like members of | society and more like stalkers. | hinkley wrote: | My go-to response for people who say "If you don't have | anything to hide then why do you care if we know?" Is that | clearly they have never bought Preparation-H or itch cream from | the drugstore, or they're not thinking about how that purchase | is not information their classmates or rivals need to know | about. | | I once told someone something about my kid, and they responded, | "why haven't you told me this before???" My flat reply was, | "because it's not the most interesting thing about her." I'm | about 50-50 on smart versus stupid answers, but occasionally I | surprise even myself. That's one of my best one-liners. | | Setting aside police/surveillance state dystopias for a moment: | People try to make you small by labeling you. The more things | they know about you, the more labels they have. If you don't | believe me just look at the sewer that flows through replies to | AOC's tweets. Having depression as a teenager should not define | you. Being a survivor of assault or harassment should not | define you. Having a working class upbringing should not | pigeonhole you. Having an itchy groin should not be ammo for | somebody to derail and deflect what you're trying to do. Mind | your own goddamned business and keep the conversation on topics | that are actually relevant, like your embezzlement conviction | or my ongoing bribery lawsuit. | doggodaddo78 wrote: | Live in a glass house, tell me your complete sexual history | including all of the kinks you're ashamed of, and give me your | email password. I thought so. | | Your viewpoint come across as extremely naive until you've had | political persecution, targeted harassment, or stalking issues. | Privacy isn't something you or anyone else gets to decide no | one else needs because you don't understand it or value it, but | you're free to try living in a fantasy world so long as you | don't put the lives of reporters or refugees at risk, or | condone the invasion of the lives and personal effects of | others. | grawprog wrote: | >Likewise I don't care that Google knows what I searched for, | or that Twitter knows what I tweeted, or that LinkedIn has my | employment history. What I don't want is all of that being sold | to Cambridge Analytica to then aggregate and sell on to someone | else for goodness knows what purposes. | | This logic would be fine if all google did was search, if all | amazon did was shopping, but they don't. They have federal | government contracts, they work with defense contractors and | law enforcement, they control huge amounts of the internet | infrastructure. Google, amazon, facebook gathering your data is | more than just a search engine, a store front and a social | network gathering it, even if theh share it with nobody other | than their internal businesess, those ternal businesses have | massive control over the internet qnd many people's lives. | throwaway98797 wrote: | Hiding in plane sight is powerful. Especially true if one can do | it with a community. | maxerickson wrote: | How many bits revealed by choosing the wrong spelling of | 'plain'? | [deleted] | germinalphrase wrote: | There will be a great spookiness to augmented reality. | | Already, we invite soft surveillance into our private spaces, but | will we agree to having those spaces mapped to the millimeter, | our objects tracked in kind and location, our private actions (in | addition to our words) persistently noticed, considered and | logged? | airstrike wrote: | Relevant (and still disturbing): | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs | pdkl95 wrote: | I strongly recommend everyone watch Raph Koster's talk "Still | Logged In: What AR and VR Can Learn from MMOs"[1] about the | ethical issues involved in VR/AR... and how VR/AR can be used | as a weapon. | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgw8RLHv1j4 | germinalphrase wrote: | It is a solid piece of work, but the blaring visual pollution | is probably not our biggest worry. | ergl wrote: | Needs a (2019) in the title | choeger wrote: | The issue will become obvious rather soon. It won't be the state | that uses the surveillance like Stasi or Gestapo would have | (although, it might come closer with excuses like IP or public | health). Instead my bet is on online shopping. | | Right now dynamic pricing is still asynchronous. If They do it, | They have a model of you that fits some marketeers understanding | of people. And this model suggests a price increase or maybe even | a decrease. | | But what _will_ happen is real-time data exchange. Say you booked | a nice hotel for your vacation and now search for flights. Wonder | why your prices are 50% higher? Say your TV just broke, or your | car didn 't start this morning, or you mentioned on whatsapp how | you need new sports equipment. Basically whenever you will _need_ | something, you will pay a Premium. No matter where the data comes | from. That 's the price of giving up privacy. | GCA10 wrote: | In today's society, the desire to be noticed is easily 50x the | level of anxiety about being in a surveillance state. | | We could start with the nonstop, look-at-me nature of Instagram | (or any other social site). They satisfy a deep craving that just | keeps growing. We could marvel at the Jan. 6 rioters posting | their moments in history for all to see. It's endless, and it | isn't slowing down. | | Yes, there's a powerful argument to be made that nonstop | surveillance could work out badly. But after 15 years of seeing | such pieces thunder into obscurity, rehashing the same arguments | in isolation seems futile. | | Anyone who wants to contribute to the conversation needs to spend | serious time thinking about the reasons why so many people want | strangers to know about them. It's a deep-felt desire. For a lot | of people, the dread of being unknown/un-noticed/ignored is | greater than the risks that come from being noticed. Once we | understand why that's so, we might be able to move forward. | lucasmullens wrote: | These seem unrelated to me. I should be able to post on social | media publicly while still wanting privacy in other aspects of | my life. A desire to be seen is not in any way fulfilled by | security cameras and tracking cookies. | GCA10 wrote: | Dash cam footage! Why has dash-cam footage become a thing on | YouTube? Why aren't people demanding that it be shut down? | | Even security cameras are now part of performance culture | ymbeld wrote: | Beware of loudest people in the room bias. | colllectorof wrote: | The wast majority of people out there have no mental capacity | to imagine how data they post online and provide to various | orgs could be and most likely eventually _will be_ used against | them. This is evidenced by the continuing proliferation of dumb | comments along the lines of "I am boring", "I am doing nothing | wrong", etc. | | There is a tremendous cognitive bias in play here. The idea | that because most people around you don't weaponize certain | types of information means no one anywhere will ever weaponize | that information, even if it is globally and indefinitely | available. | GCA10 wrote: | Agreed that a lot of people do things that are appealing now | and not so wise later. But I think we'll get farther if we | talk about this as a "short horizon" problem, rather than | assailing their mental capacity. | | It's all a variant of "candy today; diabetes in 20 years." | Public health experts have probably thought the hardest about | how to get people to take the long term into account. There | must be something in their playbook that could benefit the | anti-surveillance cause. | colllectorof wrote: | I would gladly just say "imagination" instead of "mental | capacity to imagine", but that word has been ruined by | making it sound like something only kids and painters have | to exercise. Hard reality: modern world _requires_ | imagination to navigate. | | For example, most people can imagine living with diabetes, | but they have no idea what it would feel like if some | entity started using their leaked data against them. It's a | much more complex scenario with lots of possible outcomes | and variables. | ymbeld wrote: | They don't have the mental capacity? In what sense? | anaerobicover wrote: | You're right, but there's a crucial and fundamental difference | between surveillance and posting to social media: the second is | _voluntary_. The poster has chosen to share whatever it is. | They may not be completely aware of the full range of | consequences, but it 's still their choice. In some measure, | the tech is empowering them to do this thing that they want -- | to be noticed. | | Surveillance -- including stuff like profiling people by | analyzing their voluntary social media posts -- is _imposed_ on | a person by someone else. It is taking away the surveilled | person 's free choice, and its entire purpose is to gain power | over them. | | There's also absolutely no _inherent_ reason that surveillance | -- the deliberate steps of gathering /cataloging/analyzing -- | has to come along with people being able to post things in | public. That's just a f'd-up practice that our society has | adopted. | hertzrat wrote: | Is it really a deep craving, or even a real choice? I am | working on an indie game. I really don't want to play the | social media game, I don't even have Twitter or Facebook. Yet, | I'm spending today researching how to make a YouTube channel | and how to gain followers. Indie games just almost never sell | unless you build an audience before release. Don't assume | everyone does this out of vanity or enjoys the idea of being | talked about online | rjbwork wrote: | Personally I don't take pictures of myself and don't have any | of the real name or picture based social media sites (Facebook, | Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, etc.) I only use HN, Reddit, and | Discord because I enjoy talking about current goings on and | ideas with others, and to communicate about shared hobbies or | interests. | | Do I like to get some Karma on HN/Reddit or reactions on | Discord or replies on all 3? Yeah, I do, but not because of | some "desire to be noticed" (I think) but because it means | someone thinks I have provided some input to a conversation and | they want to talk about it at the very least it lets me know | I'm not a crazy person talking out of my ass. In fact, I'd | prefer that nobody knows my real name or what I look like on | all 3 of those sites. I can be a bit more authentic and candid | than I'd feel comfortable being otherwise. | jpm_sd wrote: | David Brin covered this topic in a 1996 Wired article [1] and a | follow-on 1998 book [2]. So far, we're not doing great on the | "Accountability" part. | | Bruce Schneier disagreed with him in 2008 [3] (and probably still | does). | | [1] https://www.wired.com/1996/12/fftransparent/ | | [2] https://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html | | [3] https://www.wired.com/2008/03/securitymatters-0306/amp | frompdx wrote: | _Privacy does not mean stopping the flow of data; it means | channeling it wisely and justly to serve societal ends and values | and the individuals who are its subjects, particularly the | vulnerable and the disadvantaged._ | | I found the conclusion to be very open ended. Who decides what it | means to channel the flow of data _wisely and justly_ , and to | what ends? | naringas wrote: | > Those who know about us have power over us. | | I'm not sure about this, those who can change our behavior have | power over us. knowing somebody does not necessarily mean I have | power over said somebody. | | likewise, there are things that have power over us without even | having to know us. | | however if someone has power over somebody AND knows a lot about | said somebody then their power is (indeed) more effective. | ReactiveJelly wrote: | If someone can't change your behavior, they can share their | knowledge with someone who can. | eternalban wrote: | Brunton & Nissenbaum describe some of the features and mechanics | of the panopticon -- "the apparatus of total surveillance" -- but | do not comment on the _psychological effects_ of "total | surveillance" on collective and individual behavior. | | Foucault on 'Panopticism' addresses that far important aspect. | Psychologically defeated people will _not_ seek to "opt out". | Opting out is the analog of escaping from prison: most prisoners | do not seriously entertain such notions, much less act on them. | "A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious | relation." | | https://foucault.info/documents/foucault.disciplineAndPunish... | | "Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the | inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures | the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the | surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is | discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should | tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this | architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and | sustaining a power relation independent of the person who | exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a | power situation of which they are themselves the bearers. To | achieve this, it is at once too much and too little that the | prisoner should be constantly observed by an inspector: too | little, for what matters is that he knows himself to be observed; | too much, because he has no need in fact of being so. In view of | this, Bentham laid down the principle that power should be | visible and unverifiable. Visible: the inmate will constantly | have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower from | which he is spied upon. Unverifiable: the inmate must never know | whether he is being looked at at any one moment; but he must be | sure that he may always be so. In order to make the presence or | absence of the inspector unverifiable, so that the prisoners, in | their cells, cannot even see a shadow, Bentham envisaged not only | venetian blinds on the windows of the central observation hall, | but, on the inside, partitions that intersected the hall at right | angles and, in order to pass from one quarter to the other, not | doors but zig-zag openings; for the slightest noise, a gleam of | light, a brightness in a half-opened door would betray the | presence of the guardian. The Panopticon is a machine for | dissociating the see/being seen dyad: in the peripheric ring, one | is totally seen, without ever seeing; in the central tower, one | sees everything without ever being seen. | | It is an important mechanism, for it automatizes and | disindividualizes power. Power has its principle not so much in a | person as in a certain concerted distribution of bodies, | surfaces, lights, gazes; in an arrangement whose internal | mechanisms produce the relation in which individuals are caught | up. The ceremonies, the rituals, the marks by which the | sovereign's surplus power was manifested are useless. There is a | machinery that assures dissymmetry, disequilibrium, difference. | Consequently, it does not matter who exercises power. Any | individual, taken almost at random, can operate the machine: in | the absence of the director, his family, his friends, his | visitors, even his servants (Bentham, 45). Similarly, it does not | matter what motive animates him: the curiosity of the indiscreet, | the malice of a child, the thirst for knowledge of a philosopher | who wishes to visit this museum of human nature, or the | perversity of those who take pleasure in spying and punishing. | The more numerous those anonymous and temporary observers are, | the greater the risk for the inmate of being surprised and the | greater his anxious awareness of being observed. The Panopticon | is a marvellous machine which, whatever use one may wish to put | it to, produces homogeneous effects of power. | | A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious | relation. So it is not necessary to use force to constrain the | convict to good behaviour, the madman to calm, the worker to | work, the schoolboy to application, the patient to the | observation of the regulations. " | mrmikardo wrote: | Thanks for reminding me of this. A very pertinent and | insightful observation and, as you suggest, one that is missing | from the linked article. | antattack wrote: | I view it as a done deal, there's no escape and we need to plan | for the future: | | Our current laws are not very detailed, often times they are | overly severe to serve as a determent and/or make assumptions | based on available evidence (which was less before). | | As we know more and more of an individual (due to gadgets, online | activity, and cashless transactions)- laws and punishment need to | take it all into account and be more tailored to actual crime and | make less assumptions because there's plenty of evidence to go | by. | | Another important issue is that we should not allow those in | power shield themselves from surveillance and accountability | under a guise of safety or security. | bogomipz wrote: | >"The browser plugins TrackMeNot and AdNauseam, which explore | obfuscation techniques by issuing many fake search requests and | loading and clicking every ad, respectively. | | I would be curios to hear anyone's experience and/or feedback on | these plugins. | purplezooey wrote: | "life outside the totalitarian microscope?"... exaggerate much? | pdkl95 wrote: | > Obfuscation may be our best digital weapon. | | From Dan Geer's portentous talk _" Cybersecurity as | Realpolitik"_[1][2]: | | >> Privacy used to be proportional to that which it is impossible | to observe or that which can be observed but not identified. No | more -- what is today observable and identifiable kills both | privacy as impossible-to-observe and privacy as impossible-to- | identify, so what might be an alternative? If you are an optimist | or an apparatchik, then your answer will tend toward rules of | data procedure administered by a government you trust or control. | If you are a pessimist or a hacker/maker, then your answer will | tend towards the operational, and your definition of a state of | privacy will be my definition: _the effective capacity to | misrepresent yourself_. | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-TGvYOBpI | | [2] http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt | waynecochran wrote: | Is there any hope in feeding the surveilance noise -- a lot of | it? e.g., create bots with my credentials that visit random web | sites, have a phone that reports bogus GPS coordinates, | numerous dummy accounts, that sort of thing... | | Or if enough folks gang up and feed the system an avalanche of | random (or misdirected) information that we can drown our | signature in a sea of noise? | marshmallow_12 wrote: | short term: i expect so, long term not so much. At best, some | occasional fuzz will mar an otherwise clear picture of you | and your activities. Too many fake accounts will only force | users to surrender more personal information in order to | authenticate themselves. | keiferski wrote: | Deepfakes may do this job for us. | kodah wrote: | Giving these big detailed anecdotes about how we're actively in a | surveillance state isn't working. People don't care. A lot of | those same people have probably helped, in the form of public | opinion solidarity, to make it this way. When you support or make | excuses for engineering firms that engage in aggressive tracking, | you give them clearance. When you constantly murmur about | immigration or terrorism, it provides tools and reasoning for | these systems to exist. If you fear monger about all the "bad | people" on the internet, you create pathways for things like real | name policies, sentiment analysis, or private data collection to | prove who you are and what faith you come in. Then there's people | who will aid these people and say things like, "Well those | governments and companies aren't quite sharing data yet!" as if | mass aggregation at a governmental level or through private | partnerships isn't already happening. When you put all this hand | wringing together it forms a useful set of tools for governments | and private companies to abuse or misuse. Privacy on the internet | was never about one small thing, it was always about an aggregate | of decisions that achieve an outcome. | pksebben wrote: | My interpretation of this article is that the author wanted to | remind us to engage, and to contribute the conversation because | we don't know how to manage the situation. It sounds like you | have some format of a game plan to deal with this, would you | care to share it? I'm legitimately interested. | kodah wrote: | > There is no simple solution to the problem of privacy, | because privacy itself is a solution to societal challenges | that are in constant flux. Some are natural and beyond our | control; others are technological and should be within our | control but are shaped by a panoply of complex social and | material forces with indeterminate effects. Privacy does not | mean stopping the flow of data; it means channeling it wisely | and justly to serve societal ends and values and the | individuals who are its subjects, particularly the vulnerable | and the disadvantaged. Innumerable customs, concepts, tools, | laws, mechanisms, and protocols have evolved to achieve | privacy, so conceived, and it is to that collection that we | add obfuscation to sustain it -- as an active conversation, a | struggle, and a choice. | | The author comes to the same conclusion I do. I just stated | that making vivid images of what your loss of privacy looks | like aren't really making a dent. | | The author also says it best: there is no simple solution. | Rather, the problem exists in people's behavior and belief | systems. They feel justified in their beliefs for a cause, | and once they are galvanized into that belief system they are | no longer required to consider second and third order effects | from their belief support. In fact, they're totally allowed | to just dismiss people altogether as long as they are doing | so _in support of the cause_. | | This isn't anything new. Hot topics show that people _just do | this_ when they feel some type of way about a given topic. If | you want to solve these problems I think the place to start | is making vocal calls to people within your belief system | that are encouraging a loss of privacy. This _must_ be from | within your belief system because people don 't listen fully | to people of polar belief systems and it must be vocal so | that everyone sees the example. | | More or less saying: privacy must be a common concern that is | continually addressed and answered for in every discussion | where we encourage change. It can no longer be an option. | pksebben wrote: | Thank you for this. You managed to put fairly specific | words to something that I constantly struggle to define, | which is the process by which one affects and influences | the culture they exist in. I think it's important to bring | these things up and talk about them, especially with people | who are not exposed to echo chambers like this one. Talking | about these issues on HN is important, but only matters if | you take the subject matter and expose it to folks in other | contexts. You describe this process really well. | | I wonder, too, how we as tech-minded hackers and | programmers and doers can use what we have and what we work | with to strengthen these signals. Like, facebook and | twitter et al have optimized for things like raw engagement | numbers / advertising exposure etc. Are there things we | could do to optimize for engagement / cultural development? | I pose this question in earnest. It's something I have | thought about a lot without many good answers to show for | it. | raintrees wrote: | A concept explored by Greg Bear in his book Slant: | https://www.amazon.com/Slant-Novel-Greg-Bear/dp/0812524829 | ThrustVectoring wrote: | > If the apparatus of total surveillance that we have described | here were deliberate, centralized, and explicit, a Big Brother | machine toggling between cameras, it would demand revolt, and we | could conceive of a life outside the totalitarian microscope. | | Really not sure how to turn this into actionable legislation, but | the fundamental problem isn't the data _collection_. Rather, it | 's the massive reduction in cost in organizing and querying the | data. The laws and norms were set up when the only way to tell if | someone had walked down a specific street was to pay someone to | watch or to knock on doors and talk to people with faulty | memories. Cameras couldn't store years of footage, databases | weren't invented yet, and machine facial recognition was pure | fantasy. | | Like, in the 19th century it'd be absolutely _ridiculous_ to | insist that you have a right of "privacy" that means that people | can't recognize you when you're walking around in public. And for | a long time, pointing a camera outside your window was basically | just like looking out it, and it got treated that way. A database | of camera footage looking out at a majority of public streets, | recording 24/7 with 5 years of back footage, indexed by time + | location + facial recognition match, on the other hand, exploits | people's privacy in a way that is _far_ more than the sum of | parts. | | Essentially, my view is that some databases are repugnant to | public policy and should be illegal to build and to query. GDPR | has well shown the problems involved in legislating this, and | there's a massive free speech argument that torpedoes the whole | thing anyhow, so I'm pessimistic about actually fixing things. | jtbayly wrote: | Needs 2019 added to title ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-02-18 23:01 UTC)