7 ms·

People don't care. It is funny that smart people don't care about tech and ad companies violating their privacy by collecting data and profiting from it. But th

People don't care. It is funny that smart people don't care about tech and ad companies violating their privacy by collecting data and profiting from it. But they have an issue with the government doing it to protect them. Perhaps has something to do with the fact that silicon valley's success is based on the advertising business model and violation of people's privacy.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
For me, it has a lot to do with the fact that I have more to fear from the government collecting a lot of information about me than I do from having ad companies collecting information about me.
- vitd 11y ago
  I don't know about you, but I just assume that the government is a client of the ad companies and is buying data about me from them.
- Gustomaximus 11y ago
  I'm the same. I think a big reason is trust as you mention. The other is consequence, and significance of consequence. If a company abuses a peoples collected data they are likely just spamming them or something similar to sell me some product, and they can expect repercussions. If a government is abusing data there is likely nefarious activities happening challenging a countries democracy and little consequence to be easily had. Very different end results and motivations.
deanCommie 11y ago
Or perhaps it's because people don't trust that the government is interested in protecting them. If a private company uses the information it has on you maliciously at least you have some recourse - a competitor, or the justice system. When the powers in charge decide to use your data against you because they don't like your political stances, who is going to protect you?
- applel0ver 11y ago
  But at the moment, it is just some laws that are protecting you from this malicious behavior by a non-benevolent government. If such a government comes to power, why would they follow this law. The real solution should be to use encryption so that only you as a consumer holds the keys to your data. The reason the tech industry will never implement something like this is because it will kill their profit machines - not because it is not possible to implement this.
bitdeveloper 11y ago
I think it has to do with the fact that the government can imprison you years, or for life. Even if you were breaking a law on accident, or unknowingly. It's a matter of power imbalance.
mholt 11y ago
> It is funny that smart people don't care about tech and ad companies violating their privacy by collecting data and profiting from it. [citation needed] Also define "smart."
degif 11y ago
The issue is that advertising companies do not lie about why they track me - it's about them getting more revenue and that is ok with me. But I'm not so sure about the governmental espionage protection thingy.
Dwolb 11y ago
I don't think it's that simple. I believe people do care if they're getting tracked, for what reason, and for the possible repercussions. We can compare the issues between a marketing on Facebook re-targeting you and the government recording your text messages. In one scenario, your preferences are exposed and used to present you with an advertisment to buy a good. In the other scenario, you can be analyzed for whether or not you've committed a crime or are about to commit a crime. The two scenarios have vastly different consequences with varying levels of mindshare for thr general public.
- surferbayarea 11y ago
  Compare these scenarios: 1 a cop is passing by your house and sees you commit a murder. 2 government finds out from your phone's GPS data + public camera face recognition that you committed a murder 3 you admit to a murder on phone with an accomplice Why is one way of collecting evidence any better than the other. If you commit a crime, you should be convicted. Just because you are able to hide certain types of evidence today does not make the crime justified.
  - jschwartzi 11y ago
    What makes scenario 2 egregious is how easy it would be to use that evidence to implicate someone for parking nearby the victim's house while the real killer took the bus. That kind of mass data collection lets you get really convenient answers from the data, and I don't trust the police to do the additional work of physically placing me at the scene if they can get a prosecutor to railroad me using my gps data.
    - surferbayarea 11y ago
      How is that any different to the neighbor seeing you park your car in that street and not seeing the actual killer. Is there a difference in whether this evidence got collected by a person or a camera? What you do with this(and all other collected evidence) comes later. Eq - what if the government hires millions of police and place them on every intersection - that is acceptable, but having a camera on every intersection is not?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rz2k 11y ago
Someone's going to try to sell me something I'm susceptible to buying? So what. Authorities don't collect data on you to protect you, they are ostensibly doing it to protect other citizens from you. One of the reasons that "smart" people object to this, is that it could also limit their ability to play a leadership role in civic life, if there are people in positions of authority with different political philosophies or, even worse, who are outright corrupt or dishonest. Besides the obvious examples of abuse like the Nixon administration, I suspect there are very few counties in the country that don't have at least one case of someone in a sheriff department, school board, city council, etc that has been caught using their rather limited access to information about local citizens for the purpose of staying in power or for some form of personal gain.
- surferbayarea 11y ago
  This data should ideally be protected and owned by the individuals themselves - not the government, not the ad companies, not Google, not Facebook. As an individual who owns my data, I should have a right to decide who/when/how accesses my data. More than a question of privacy, this is a question of next-generation user experience. If as an individual, my data from uber, google, facebook, visa, amazon is all in one place I can give selective anonymized access to it to different services that can leverage the collective data to provide better user experiences to me.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
megablast 11y ago
How much can you care about? Between this, the environment, government tracking, eating well, exercising, spending time with family, friends, and many other things, you only have so much time and brain to devout to each subject. It is easy for tech guys to talk about this, they are already involved and understand what is going on.

pavel_lishin 11y ago

For me, it has a lot to do with the fact that I have more to fear from the government collecting a lot of information about me than I do from having ad companies collecting information about me.

vitd 11y ago
I don't know about you, but I just assume that the government is a client of the ad companies and is buying data about me from them.
Gustomaximus 11y ago
I'm the same. I think a big reason is trust as you mention. The other is consequence, and significance of consequence. If a company abuses a peoples collected data they are likely just spamming them or something similar to sell me some product, and they can expect repercussions. If a government is abusing data there is likely nefarious activities happening challenging a countries democracy and little consequence to be easily had. Very different end results and motivations.

deanCommie 11y ago

Or perhaps it's because people don't trust that the government is interested in protecting them. If a private company uses the information it has on you maliciously at least you have some recourse - a competitor, or the justice system. When the powers in charge decide to use your data against you because they don't like your political stances, who is going to protect you?

applel0ver 11y ago
But at the moment, it is just some laws that are protecting you from this malicious behavior by a non-benevolent government. If such a government comes to power, why would they follow this law. The real solution should be to use encryption so that only you as a consumer holds the keys to your data. The reason the tech industry will never implement something like this is because it will kill their profit machines - not because it is not possible to implement this.

bitdeveloper 11y ago

I think it has to do with the fact that the government can imprison you years, or for life. Even if you were breaking a law on accident, or unknowingly. It's a matter of power imbalance.

mholt 11y ago

> It is funny that smart people don't care about tech and ad companies violating their privacy by collecting data and profiting from it. [citation needed] Also define "smart."

degif 11y ago

The issue is that advertising companies do not lie about why they track me - it's about them getting more revenue and that is ok with me. But I'm not so sure about the governmental espionage protection thingy.

Dwolb 11y ago

I don't think it's that simple. I believe people do care if they're getting tracked, for what reason, and for the possible repercussions. We can compare the issues between a marketing on Facebook re-targeting you and the government recording your text messages. In one scenario, your preferences are exposed and used to present you with an advertisment to buy a good. In the other scenario, you can be analyzed for whether or not you've committed a crime or are about to commit a crime. The two scenarios have vastly different consequences with varying levels of mindshare for thr general public.

surferbayarea 11y ago
Compare these scenarios: 1 a cop is passing by your house and sees you commit a murder. 2 government finds out from your phone's GPS data + public camera face recognition that you committed a murder 3 you admit to a murder on phone with an accomplice Why is one way of collecting evidence any better than the other. If you commit a crime, you should be convicted. Just because you are able to hide certain types of evidence today does not make the crime justified.
- jschwartzi 11y ago
  What makes scenario 2 egregious is how easy it would be to use that evidence to implicate someone for parking nearby the victim's house while the real killer took the bus. That kind of mass data collection lets you get really convenient answers from the data, and I don't trust the police to do the additional work of physically placing me at the scene if they can get a prosecutor to railroad me using my gps data.
  - surferbayarea 11y ago
    How is that any different to the neighbor seeing you park your car in that street and not seeing the actual killer. Is there a difference in whether this evidence got collected by a person or a camera? What you do with this(and all other collected evidence) comes later. Eq - what if the government hires millions of police and place them on every intersection - that is acceptable, but having a camera on every intersection is not?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

rz2k 11y ago

Someone's going to try to sell me something I'm susceptible to buying? So what. Authorities don't collect data on you to protect you, they are ostensibly doing it to protect other citizens from you. One of the reasons that "smart" people object to this, is that it could also limit their ability to play a leadership role in civic life, if there are people in positions of authority with different political philosophies or, even worse, who are outright corrupt or dishonest. Besides the obvious examples of abuse like the Nixon administration, I suspect there are very few counties in the country that don't have at least one case of someone in a sheriff department, school board, city council, etc that has been caught using their rather limited access to information about local citizens for the purpose of staying in power or for some form of personal gain.

surferbayarea 11y ago
This data should ideally be protected and owned by the individuals themselves - not the government, not the ad companies, not Google, not Facebook. As an individual who owns my data, I should have a right to decide who/when/how accesses my data. More than a question of privacy, this is a question of next-generation user experience. If as an individual, my data from uber, google, facebook, visa, amazon is all in one place I can give selective anonymized access to it to different services that can leverage the collective data to provide better user experiences to me.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

megablast 11y ago

How much can you care about? Between this, the environment, government tracking, eating well, exercising, spending time with family, friends, and many other things, you only have so much time and brain to devout to each subject. It is easy for tech guys to talk about this, they are already involved and understand what is going on.