3 ms·

I like the article, but a line in it triggers one of my pet peeves. >These companies are basically engaging in mass surveillance. Just as governments justify t

by AgentME 10y ago

I like the article, but a line in it triggers one of my pet peeves. >These companies are basically engaging in mass surveillance. Just as governments justify tracking us to prevent terrorist attacks, these companies are tracking us online, without our consent, ... This equivalence that people often draw bugs me, because companies don't coerce people into being tracked. I can choose to or withold my consent with regards to companies. I can pick and choose to do business with more privacy-respecting companies, and I can block my browser from talking to popular tracking domains. Companies can't threaten me with legal trouble (jail, etc) if I want to run my own websites or programs that respect privacy or use cryptography. It's government surveillance that I don't have a choice of avoiding, short of avoiding the internet. Sure, cryptography does a lot of good, but it's a freedom that is repeatedly threatened, especially it seems like whenever anyone makes a too-convenient tool for it.

numlocked 10y ago
That's technically true, but not practically; tracking pixels, embedded 'like' buttons, etc. You are being followed around the internet by large companies, even if you don't directly use their services and avoid FB, Google, etc. entirely (which I think is a reasonable standard for an average user). I agree the distinction is important in that you can e.g. elect to not be a customer of a company, but can't exactly opt out of the government. But there are still plenty of underhanded privacy violations that companies can 'coerce' you into unknowingly. The best-practice security and privacy tools you cite, like Tor, end-to-end crypto, etc, are just as effective protecting against government privacy violations as they are coporate ones.
- mortendahl 10y ago
  I agree with numlocked that the option of opt-out from companies is less clear, in part because we are on a course where this becomes increasingly strange and irrational. Reminded me of a post on algorithms (data) and conformity: https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2016/01/the_risksand_benefit.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2016/01/the_risksan...
  - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
    Agreed. It's trivially true. Facile almost. It's the type of thing you'd say to yourself and others if you worked at one of those companies that mine people for data. Everybody can't be RMS. Hell, even RMS can't be RMS. For all practical purposes, you're stuck in a hell where you choose between options, all of which track you like a laboratory animal.
oulipo 10y ago
Hey AgentME, I'm Mael the co-founder of https://snips.ai https://snips.ai, we wrote the article on TechCrunch to explain why we are building an AI which respect people's privacy. You are entirely right in saying that people mostly wilfully accept to be tracked by companies, but we feel they do because they don't have alternatives, so they can only assume that some services will only be available if they share their data. We are building Snips because we want to prove that it is feasible to build an AI without storing the data of users on websites where it is exposed to hackers or governments, or to future decisions made by the company (or its next "evil CEO") that users may not yet be aware of. We believe it will one day be possible to build our AI alter-egos, capable of doing most grunt tasks at our place, if they can access our most intimate data. And this will be only possible through privacy-by-design Building systems with privacy-by-design is the only workable way to minimize risks over time for users!
- strgrd 10y ago
  > people mostly wilfully accept to be tracked by companies Most people accept this because they do not know the extent to which they are being tracked, and because they assume their data isn't being widely shared for purposes beyond being served 'better' advertisements. Most people accept tracking because they don't understand the implications of mass surveillance. Most people are unwilling to think about their government's efforts towards population-scale control. Even in the era of surveillance whistleblowing, it is still taboo, and in the realm of conspiracy, to speak of these things. I think the reality is that the demand for truly private platforms will remain very small because people trust Google and Apple, and at the end of the day, they have 'nothing to hide', so mass surveillance does not affect them.
hackuser 10y ago
> I can choose to or withold my consent with regards to companies. I can pick and choose to do business with more privacy-respecting companies, and I can block my browser from talking to popular tracking domains. Maybe you can, but realistically very few others can. I have the technical skill to do it, but certainly not the time. For the great majority of end-users, many/most don't know they are being spied on, few grasp the scope of it, very few understand the technology or have the skills to do anything about it, and few understand the consequences. One reason few understand what's going on is that companies (and government) take steps to hide it. If everyone is choosing to do it willingly and there's nothing wrong, then why hide it?
mindslight 10y ago
Withdrawing your consent (eg checking Do Not Track) will hardly affect the behavior of these companies. I agree that the best assurance is indeed technical, but let us not set our moral bar too high, blaming users when they do not do everything possible. The data leaks in our software are security vulnerabilities, which these companies are exploiting. There is little fundamental difference with government surveillance. After all, backbone providers are commercial entities that once again you are voluntarily using, who then voluntarily pass your data to USG. There only seems to be a gap because private-no-competition ISPs haven't fully gotten around to monetizing your traffic yet.
anexprogrammer 10y ago
Whilst what you say is true, if you want any sort of "normal" relationship with friends and family, choosing to not interact with privacy abusing companies is going to effectvely disconnect you. Most people I know now plan birthdays, weddings, parties etc on Facebook, or in apps. Now that they've long ago reached critical mass, if I choose to withhold consent, I'm now relying on someone remembering that I'm not on FB and to throw me a text or phone call. The coercion isn't from the companies as such, it's from your peers, near everyone you know. Participate or miss out on normal life. So it's just a Hobson's choice. So I find there's effective equivalence for nearly everyone.

by AgentME 10y ago

numlocked 10y ago

That's technically true, but not practically; tracking pixels, embedded 'like' buttons, etc. You are being followed around the internet by large companies, even if you don't directly use their services and avoid FB, Google, etc. entirely (which I think is a reasonable standard for an average user). I agree the distinction is important in that you can e.g. elect to not be a customer of a company, but can't exactly opt out of the government. But there are still plenty of underhanded privacy violations that companies can 'coerce' you into unknowingly. The best-practice security and privacy tools you cite, like Tor, end-to-end crypto, etc, are just as effective protecting against government privacy violations as they are coporate ones.

mortendahl 10y ago
I agree with numlocked that the option of opt-out from companies is less clear, in part because we are on a course where this becomes increasingly strange and irrational. Reminded me of a post on algorithms (data) and conformity: https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2016/01/the_risksand_benefit.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2016/01/the_risksan...
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  Agreed. It's trivially true. Facile almost. It's the type of thing you'd say to yourself and others if you worked at one of those companies that mine people for data. Everybody can't be RMS. Hell, even RMS can't be RMS. For all practical purposes, you're stuck in a hell where you choose between options, all of which track you like a laboratory animal.

oulipo 10y ago

Hey AgentME, I'm Mael the co-founder of https://snips.ai https://snips.ai, we wrote the article on TechCrunch to explain why we are building an AI which respect people's privacy. You are entirely right in saying that people mostly wilfully accept to be tracked by companies, but we feel they do because they don't have alternatives, so they can only assume that some services will only be available if they share their data. We are building Snips because we want to prove that it is feasible to build an AI without storing the data of users on websites where it is exposed to hackers or governments, or to future decisions made by the company (or its next "evil CEO") that users may not yet be aware of. We believe it will one day be possible to build our AI alter-egos, capable of doing most grunt tasks at our place, if they can access our most intimate data. And this will be only possible through privacy-by-design Building systems with privacy-by-design is the only workable way to minimize risks over time for users!

strgrd 10y ago
> people mostly wilfully accept to be tracked by companies Most people accept this because they do not know the extent to which they are being tracked, and because they assume their data isn't being widely shared for purposes beyond being served 'better' advertisements. Most people accept tracking because they don't understand the implications of mass surveillance. Most people are unwilling to think about their government's efforts towards population-scale control. Even in the era of surveillance whistleblowing, it is still taboo, and in the realm of conspiracy, to speak of these things. I think the reality is that the demand for truly private platforms will remain very small because people trust Google and Apple, and at the end of the day, they have 'nothing to hide', so mass surveillance does not affect them.

hackuser 10y ago

> I can choose to or withold my consent with regards to companies. I can pick and choose to do business with more privacy-respecting companies, and I can block my browser from talking to popular tracking domains. Maybe you can, but realistically very few others can. I have the technical skill to do it, but certainly not the time. For the great majority of end-users, many/most don't know they are being spied on, few grasp the scope of it, very few understand the technology or have the skills to do anything about it, and few understand the consequences. One reason few understand what's going on is that companies (and government) take steps to hide it. If everyone is choosing to do it willingly and there's nothing wrong, then why hide it?

mindslight 10y ago

Withdrawing your consent (eg checking Do Not Track) will hardly affect the behavior of these companies. I agree that the best assurance is indeed technical, but let us not set our moral bar too high, blaming users when they do not do everything possible. The data leaks in our software are security vulnerabilities, which these companies are exploiting. There is little fundamental difference with government surveillance. After all, backbone providers are commercial entities that once again you are voluntarily using, who then voluntarily pass your data to USG. There only seems to be a gap because private-no-competition ISPs haven't fully gotten around to monetizing your traffic yet.

anexprogrammer 10y ago

Whilst what you say is true, if you want any sort of "normal" relationship with friends and family, choosing to not interact with privacy abusing companies is going to effectvely disconnect you. Most people I know now plan birthdays, weddings, parties etc on Facebook, or in apps. Now that they've long ago reached critical mass, if I choose to withhold consent, I'm now relying on someone remembering that I'm not on FB and to throw me a text or phone call. The coercion isn't from the companies as such, it's from your peers, near everyone you know. Participate or miss out on normal life. So it's just a Hobson's choice. So I find there's effective equivalence for nearly everyone.