4 ms·

Whenever I read one of these articles I am wondering why the examples of WHY mass surveillance affects ME as average Joe negatively have to be so weak / contriv

by kmonad 11y ago

Whenever I read one of these articles I am wondering why the examples of WHY mass surveillance affects ME as average Joe negatively have to be so weak / contrived: For example, imagine someone convinced by the argument "nothing to hide nothing to fear". Would this example convince them that in fact they do have to fear something? "You might think twice about contacting or meeting people (exercising your freedom of association) who you think might become “persons of interest” to the state". I do not think so, after all, average Joe does not know such people. The solution, in my experience when talking to sceptical people not convinced of the risks is talking about money. Imagine someone with the kind of knowledge we are talking about with mass surveillance. And imagine this person could inform your insurance companies. Do you still think that you have nothing to hide? One then must only show that data is never "safe" and could always be "leaked" to make a very simple, everyday example of why it is not in my (average Joe's) interest to be continuously monitored.

robmcm 11y ago
Ask to read through someone's bank statement, look at their photo library, access their medical history or read all their messages. I doubt anyone would be comfortable with someone doing that. Another good example is the use of shredders at home, perhaps you should suggest people leave their sensitive data in a box on the pavement outside rather than shredding it.
- EliRivers 11y ago
  I generally tell such people that I'll come round to their house next week to install the webcams in their bedroom. No need to wait for me; I'll just let myself in.
karmacondon 11y ago
Still not convincing, at least not to me and many of the people that I know. I'm pretty sure my insurance company has already calculated my premiums based on my demographics and claim history. I made not have told them "I have more than five drinks almost every weekend", but they know. They were making inferences from Big Data since back when it was just "data". And practically, I don't think most insurance companies have an infrastructure set up for handling snitching, especially not the smaller ones. I'm really still waiting to hear a convincing argument as to why I have something to hide, ideally something practical as opposed to hypothetical or philosophical.
- tombrossman 11y ago
  I think your question was answered at a link provided elsewhere in this thread[0]. What you might or might not need to hide cannot be reliably determined in advance. It is not a constant, it is a variable and you don't get to pick which way it goes. Consider the plight of the gay Russian blogger using LiveJournal, which was later sold to a Russian company. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10849248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10849248
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
  Imagine some type of insurance that typically costs 100 USD/month in premiums per person and where the insurance company typically pays out on average 90 USD/month for damages per person. Now, imagine that one insurance company has figured out a way to detect a certain group of people who will only have damages of on average 50 USD/month, which make up about 5% of the potential customers, and detecting which of their (potential) customers is in that group costs on average 0.10 USD/month per customer. Do you agree that they will start offering lower premiums for that group of people, because that will attract new customers, and thus increase income? And what if one company does this - what will other companies do? Will they keep the same price for that group as for everyone else? Then that group will leave for the company that's cheaper for them, right? Leaving the other companies with the higher-risk customers, right? So, they will have to pay out more for damages, right? Now, will they just go bankrupt? Or will they increase premiums to cover the costs? Noone says that insurance companies aren't making inferences from data. It's just that the more data there is available to them and the more powerful computers and algorithms get, the better they will be able to model risks. And individual companies won't be able to ignore that, even if they want to. And it's the exact opposite of what insurance is intended to do: It's intended to distribute risk. The more exact insurance companies are able to model risks, the more insurance will become unaffordable to those who need it, and the cheaper it will become for those who don't need it.
  - greeneggs 11y ago
    The insurance industry is fairly heavily regulated (in the US). They can only charge different rates based on specific factors. This means that your entirely imaginary (and therefore entirely unconvincing) scenario will remain entirely imaginary (and unconvincing). Personally, I would prefer if car insurers could price discriminate more based on data. I think this would lower rates for me personally, both in the short term because I try to cultivate safe driving habits, and in the long term because it would create an incentive for everybody to try to drive more safely.
HSO 11y ago
Because nobody, as far as I know, has brought together the issues of knowledge and control yet. In short, my argument goes something like this: 1) It is possible to manipulate or influence people. This extends to their memories, perceptions, emotions, actions, even complex beliefs. And it can be more or less direct. Humans think of themselves as special snowflakes, but we are actually quite simple. 2) The degree to which one can manipulate or influence other people depends on ___a) the effort and intelligence one expends on it, ___b) the degree to which one has knowledge about the target, and on ___c) how close one is to the target (i.e. are you "under their skin", in their house, or 10 km away; what are your intervention options). 3) As social animals, we have always been subject to the influence of other people. Usually, this influence has been local, fuzzy, costly, relatively obvious to the target and "controllable" (in the sense that knowledge about target was strongly negatively correlated to (generalized) distance; if target became suspicious of you, target could simply cut you off or increase distance). 4) Technology and science currently change the rules of the game, and in profound, basic ways: ___a) We learn more and more about how to influence people, both by physical means (regulating temperature, lighting or noise conditions; psychotropic substances or, you know, food; changing the color of a button or playing with the timeline of events; etc.) and psychological means (e.g. using the right words or framing to elicit a certain response or evoke a certain emotion; exploiting properties of the social graph; etc.). This knowledge is, of course, still very imperfect but it is also cumulative. ___b) More and more of our interaction with the external or social world becomes mediated by technology ⇒ the options to intervene in the life of someone multiply as technology becomes a more integral part of life. As a result, it becomes very cheap to make targeted interventions in someone's life. Example: Today, ranking of search results or filtering of news; tomorrow, entire articles machine-written for you (personally). Automated homes. The mind boggles with the possibilities of augmented reality and/or immersive experiences. Farther out: Optogenetics. ___c) Deep and very detailed information about people can be collected in real-time and stored cheaply (no memory decay). The more ingrained the tech, the more detailed the data. For example, real-time monitoring of blood sugar and, in the future, perhaps even stress hormone levels. ___d) Physical distance becomes meaningless. 5) Due to the tendency towards natural monopolies in the sector, all this information and power accrues in very few hands ⇒ strong and unprecented centralization of both fine-grained knowledge about individuals as well as the means to intervene in their world without regard to distance or cost. It is not hard to see that, to indulge in some hyperbole, "mind control" of a large population undermines traditional means of checking power. Who cares about elections if I can control whom people like? Why bother with competitive markets if I can make people want whatever I have to give (and make them pay reservation prices)? No more need for violent suppression of dissent because I can detect and change inconvenient ideas surgically. To be clear, I am not saying we are already living in a mind-controlled society. What I am saying is that collecting data (or rather letting someone collect data) about us is an integral part of this scenario. If data became more compartmentalized and limited, say, this whole thing wouldn't work (or be far less effective). In fact, because technology and science progress anyway, how we handle our data may be the only way we can influence the course of events in this respect. At least to my mind, this is the real issue of privacy. Alas, I seem to be alone so far. It's really hard to see for me why this is not totally obvious to everybody. I should finally write that essay that I've been meaning to for the longest time. Then someone can at least attack my argument. Sometimes, in your weaker moments, that nobody seems to see what you see can make you question your own sanity... _______________________ PS: I am also not claiming that Larry Page or Mark Zuckerberg are rubbing their hands gleefully ("hihihi") at the prospect of world domination. I think concrete persons are incidental to this scenario. Heck, the one who ends up controlling, in this scenario, might not even be human. It just doesn't matter who. If it is technologically possible, it will be done. Loss or neglect of privacy makes it possible.
jmartinpetersen 11y ago
I'm reminded of an article from last year which is only tangentially related, but it has a perspective I think could be used to explain the severity to average Joes: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/magazine/the-loser-edit-that-awaits-us-all.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/magazine/the-loser-edit-th...
tombrossman 11y ago
Flip it around, don't accept the questioners' premise that you need to defend your position. Challenge them to explain why they think a third party should be granted access to your info. And be ready to tell people 'no thanks' and that you are not willing to explain why. Resist taking a subservient position when you have what they other party wants, make them justify the need (this is obviously less practical advice for gov't surveillance than for corporate). I do this frequently and while it can be a bit awkward when dealing with marketing or PR types, as long as you are polite about it things work out. And anyone pestering you with repeated requests for data or an explanation can receive a less polite response.
dozzie 11y ago
> For example, imagine someone convinced by the argument "nothing to hide nothing to fear". "Please strip yourself to underpants. Yes, this very moment. We (society) need to make sure you don't have any concealed weapons or explosives. I will then assure these other people that are totally unrelated that you don't pose any threat to them. What? Your privacy? Safety is more important than privacy, right? And you do have nothing to hide, so why do you fear stripping?"
joeyespo 11y ago
I'm sure there are more direct examples, but I watched a video about Sesame Credit recently and it paints a rather dystopian picture of what's possible when you mix surveillance and gamification. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI

by kmonad 11y ago

robmcm 11y ago

Ask to read through someone's bank statement, look at their photo library, access their medical history or read all their messages. I doubt anyone would be comfortable with someone doing that. Another good example is the use of shredders at home, perhaps you should suggest people leave their sensitive data in a box on the pavement outside rather than shredding it.

EliRivers 11y ago
I generally tell such people that I'll come round to their house next week to install the webcams in their bedroom. No need to wait for me; I'll just let myself in.

karmacondon 11y ago

Still not convincing, at least not to me and many of the people that I know. I'm pretty sure my insurance company has already calculated my premiums based on my demographics and claim history. I made not have told them "I have more than five drinks almost every weekend", but they know. They were making inferences from Big Data since back when it was just "data". And practically, I don't think most insurance companies have an infrastructure set up for handling snitching, especially not the smaller ones. I'm really still waiting to hear a convincing argument as to why I have something to hide, ideally something practical as opposed to hypothetical or philosophical.

tombrossman 11y ago
I think your question was answered at a link provided elsewhere in this thread[0]. What you might or might not need to hide cannot be reliably determined in advance. It is not a constant, it is a variable and you don't get to pick which way it goes. Consider the plight of the gay Russian blogger using LiveJournal, which was later sold to a Russian company. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10849248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10849248
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
Imagine some type of insurance that typically costs 100 USD/month in premiums per person and where the insurance company typically pays out on average 90 USD/month for damages per person. Now, imagine that one insurance company has figured out a way to detect a certain group of people who will only have damages of on average 50 USD/month, which make up about 5% of the potential customers, and detecting which of their (potential) customers is in that group costs on average 0.10 USD/month per customer. Do you agree that they will start offering lower premiums for that group of people, because that will attract new customers, and thus increase income? And what if one company does this - what will other companies do? Will they keep the same price for that group as for everyone else? Then that group will leave for the company that's cheaper for them, right? Leaving the other companies with the higher-risk customers, right? So, they will have to pay out more for damages, right? Now, will they just go bankrupt? Or will they increase premiums to cover the costs? Noone says that insurance companies aren't making inferences from data. It's just that the more data there is available to them and the more powerful computers and algorithms get, the better they will be able to model risks. And individual companies won't be able to ignore that, even if they want to. And it's the exact opposite of what insurance is intended to do: It's intended to distribute risk. The more exact insurance companies are able to model risks, the more insurance will become unaffordable to those who need it, and the cheaper it will become for those who don't need it.
- greeneggs 11y ago
  The insurance industry is fairly heavily regulated (in the US). They can only charge different rates based on specific factors. This means that your entirely imaginary (and therefore entirely unconvincing) scenario will remain entirely imaginary (and unconvincing). Personally, I would prefer if car insurers could price discriminate more based on data. I think this would lower rates for me personally, both in the short term because I try to cultivate safe driving habits, and in the long term because it would create an incentive for everybody to try to drive more safely.

HSO 11y ago

Because nobody, as far as I know, has brought together the issues of knowledge and control yet. In short, my argument goes something like this: 1) It is possible to manipulate or influence people. This extends to their memories, perceptions, emotions, actions, even complex beliefs. And it can be more or less direct. Humans think of themselves as special snowflakes, but we are actually quite simple. 2) The degree to which one can manipulate or influence other people depends on ___a) the effort and intelligence one expends on it, ___b) the degree to which one has knowledge about the target, and on ___c) how close one is to the target (i.e. are you "under their skin", in their house, or 10 km away; what are your intervention options). 3) As social animals, we have always been subject to the influence of other people. Usually, this influence has been local, fuzzy, costly, relatively obvious to the target and "controllable" (in the sense that knowledge about target was strongly negatively correlated to (generalized) distance; if target became suspicious of you, target could simply cut you off or increase distance). 4) Technology and science currently change the rules of the game, and in profound, basic ways: ___a) We learn more and more about how to influence people, both by physical means (regulating temperature, lighting or noise conditions; psychotropic substances or, you know, food; changing the color of a button or playing with the timeline of events; etc.) and psychological means (e.g. using the right words or framing to elicit a certain response or evoke a certain emotion; exploiting properties of the social graph; etc.). This knowledge is, of course, still very imperfect but it is also cumulative. ___b) More and more of our interaction with the external or social world becomes mediated by technology ⇒ the options to intervene in the life of someone multiply as technology becomes a more integral part of life. As a result, it becomes very cheap to make targeted interventions in someone's life. Example: Today, ranking of search results or filtering of news; tomorrow, entire articles machine-written for you (personally). Automated homes. The mind boggles with the possibilities of augmented reality and/or immersive experiences. Farther out: Optogenetics. ___c) Deep and very detailed information about people can be collected in real-time and stored cheaply (no memory decay). The more ingrained the tech, the more detailed the data. For example, real-time monitoring of blood sugar and, in the future, perhaps even stress hormone levels. ___d) Physical distance becomes meaningless. 5) Due to the tendency towards natural monopolies in the sector, all this information and power accrues in very few hands ⇒ strong and unprecented centralization of both fine-grained knowledge about individuals as well as the means to intervene in their world without regard to distance or cost. It is not hard to see that, to indulge in some hyperbole, "mind control" of a large population undermines traditional means of checking power. Who cares about elections if I can control whom people like? Why bother with competitive markets if I can make people want whatever I have to give (and make them pay reservation prices)? No more need for violent suppression of dissent because I can detect and change inconvenient ideas surgically. To be clear, I am not saying we are already living in a mind-controlled society. What I am saying is that collecting data (or rather letting someone collect data) about us is an integral part of this scenario. If data became more compartmentalized and limited, say, this whole thing wouldn't work (or be far less effective). In fact, because technology and science progress anyway, how we handle our data may be the only way we can influence the course of events in this respect. At least to my mind, this is the real issue of privacy. Alas, I seem to be alone so far. It's really hard to see for me why this is not totally obvious to everybody. I should finally write that essay that I've been meaning to for the longest time. Then someone can at least attack my argument. Sometimes, in your weaker moments, that nobody seems to see what you see can make you question your own sanity... _______________________ PS: I am also not claiming that Larry Page or Mark Zuckerberg are rubbing their hands gleefully ("hihihi") at the prospect of world domination. I think concrete persons are incidental to this scenario. Heck, the one who ends up controlling, in this scenario, might not even be human. It just doesn't matter who. If it is technologically possible, it will be done. Loss or neglect of privacy makes it possible.

jmartinpetersen 11y ago

I'm reminded of an article from last year which is only tangentially related, but it has a perspective I think could be used to explain the severity to average Joes: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/magazine/the-loser-edit-that-awaits-us-all.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/magazine/the-loser-edit-th...

tombrossman 11y ago

Flip it around, don't accept the questioners' premise that you need to defend your position. Challenge them to explain why they think a third party should be granted access to your info. And be ready to tell people 'no thanks' and that you are not willing to explain why. Resist taking a subservient position when you have what they other party wants, make them justify the need (this is obviously less practical advice for gov't surveillance than for corporate). I do this frequently and while it can be a bit awkward when dealing with marketing or PR types, as long as you are polite about it things work out. And anyone pestering you with repeated requests for data or an explanation can receive a less polite response.

dozzie 11y ago

> For example, imagine someone convinced by the argument "nothing to hide nothing to fear". "Please strip yourself to underpants. Yes, this very moment. We (society) need to make sure you don't have any concealed weapons or explosives. I will then assure these other people that are totally unrelated that you don't pose any threat to them. What? Your privacy? Safety is more important than privacy, right? And you do have nothing to hide, so why do you fear stripping?"

joeyespo 11y ago

I'm sure there are more direct examples, but I watched a video about Sesame Credit recently and it paints a rather dystopian picture of what's possible when you mix surveillance and gamification. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI