5 ms·

If the data is public, why is it a problem? If they're sending private info to cops, that's different, but a reasonable person expects all public info to be vi

by Pxtl 10y ago

If the data is public, why is it a problem? If they're sending private info to cops, that's different, but a reasonable person expects all public info to be visible to the last person you want to see it. Theyre just feeding the customers the same data users can see in a more condensed form aren't they?

dragonwriter 10y ago
Probably, because it violates the terms of services of the data access agreement, which I would imagine prohibits the use that was being made because it's the kind of use which discourages people from using the service from which the data is sourced, and it is therefore in the interest of the service provider to officially prohibit the use and to take action to deal with misuse at a minimum when it has become public. The chilling effect of surveillance has commercial as well as liberty implications, and commercial entities have rather strong reasons to care about the former even if they aren't concerned with the latter.
the_watcher 10y ago
The firehose isn't public.
- tantalor 10y ago
  Access is not, but the content is.
  - malchow 10y ago
    COTY.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    Only if you follow everybody, which is impossible as a practical matter.
eveningcoffee 10y ago
If something is public then it does not follow directly that you can collect it or share it with a third-party. It all depends on relying legal framework. Especially when it depends on additional spacial and temporal parameters.
idlewords 10y ago
Mass databases, in a format that can be read and cross-referenced by computer, are an example where a difference in degree really makes for a difference in kind.
ben_jones 10y ago
IMO the average person does not know enough about the freemium services they use to make an informed decision regarding their own privacy, and it's kept that way intentionally by companies like Facebook, LinkedIn, Apple, Google etc. Long terms and conditions that constantly change, user interfaces built to delay gratification until a box or button is checked (and them giving that checkbox a significance that goes well beyond common sense), planned obsolescence and deprecation that force migration to other services..
throw2016 10y ago
This conflation is made too often. I think the problem with the assumption that if someone made something public willingly they don't care is if people knew they are under surveillance they may not speak their mind, or speak at all. If people who use the internet expect all their activities to be logged and mined for patterns that can potentially be used against them, they may behave very differently. Since we all act in self interest this means no one will speak freely. This is what surveillance does, this is what the chilling effect is. This reduces the value of the internet for the free exchange of ideas and discussion. People who seek this will have to resort to encryption and other tools and forced to behave in a secretive fashion as if they were doing something wrong. Protests and activism are supposed to be normal part of every democracy and its disconcerting the see the strange discomfort our 'democratic societies' show to activism and the sheer amount of effort devoted to managing it from infiltration to surveillance.
- cyphar 10y ago
  > If people who use the internet expect all their activities to be logged and mined for patterns that can potentially be used against them, they may behave very differently. Unfortunately you see this already. Though usually people are worried about adversaries taking screenshots of conversations out of context and then painting them in a negative light, not the government doing that. But ultimately it's the same issue, there's a chilling effect on speech which is caused by the overwhelming fear of mass surveillance.
freshhawk 10y ago
But almost all location data is "public". I could follow you around, staying in public places, maybe have a friend or two help me out. And hire an army of private investigators to do the same for a bunch more people. But that doesn't scale, so much so that the difference in degree becomes a practical difference in kind. That's just an exaggerated version of the difference here. One of the most effective practical tools to combat bulk surveillance is to increase the cost. I'm also of the opinion that people are kinda asking for this by giving that data away and posting it publicly, but that doesn't mean those already collecting this data have no responsibility if they package it up and make it easy to use for surveillance.
CoryG89 10y ago
The data may be public, but they get greater access to the entire data set than the general public. This greater access is what was cut off. Also most people aren't aware that this level of access is even possible, much less that it's being sold to the highest bidder. Which in my opinion, is a problem.
newman314 10y ago
The same reason ALPRs (with long retention rate) are a bad idea. "No reasonable expectation of privacy in public" is the US norm today. I'm suggesting that maybe it should be revisited in light of the pervasive surveillance that has come into being.

by Pxtl 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

Probably, because it violates the terms of services of the data access agreement, which I would imagine prohibits the use that was being made because it's the kind of use which discourages people from using the service from which the data is sourced, and it is therefore in the interest of the service provider to officially prohibit the use and to take action to deal with misuse at a minimum when it has become public. The chilling effect of surveillance has commercial as well as liberty implications, and commercial entities have rather strong reasons to care about the former even if they aren't concerned with the latter.

the_watcher 10y ago

The firehose isn't public.

tantalor 10y ago
Access is not, but the content is.
- malchow 10y ago
  COTY.
- rhizome 10y ago
  Only if you follow everybody, which is impossible as a practical matter.

eveningcoffee 10y ago

If something is public then it does not follow directly that you can collect it or share it with a third-party. It all depends on relying legal framework. Especially when it depends on additional spacial and temporal parameters.

idlewords 10y ago

Mass databases, in a format that can be read and cross-referenced by computer, are an example where a difference in degree really makes for a difference in kind.

ben_jones 10y ago

IMO the average person does not know enough about the freemium services they use to make an informed decision regarding their own privacy, and it's kept that way intentionally by companies like Facebook, LinkedIn, Apple, Google etc. Long terms and conditions that constantly change, user interfaces built to delay gratification until a box or button is checked (and them giving that checkbox a significance that goes well beyond common sense), planned obsolescence and deprecation that force migration to other services..

throw2016 10y ago

This conflation is made too often. I think the problem with the assumption that if someone made something public willingly they don't care is if people knew they are under surveillance they may not speak their mind, or speak at all. If people who use the internet expect all their activities to be logged and mined for patterns that can potentially be used against them, they may behave very differently. Since we all act in self interest this means no one will speak freely. This is what surveillance does, this is what the chilling effect is. This reduces the value of the internet for the free exchange of ideas and discussion. People who seek this will have to resort to encryption and other tools and forced to behave in a secretive fashion as if they were doing something wrong. Protests and activism are supposed to be normal part of every democracy and its disconcerting the see the strange discomfort our 'democratic societies' show to activism and the sheer amount of effort devoted to managing it from infiltration to surveillance.

cyphar 10y ago
> If people who use the internet expect all their activities to be logged and mined for patterns that can potentially be used against them, they may behave very differently. Unfortunately you see this already. Though usually people are worried about adversaries taking screenshots of conversations out of context and then painting them in a negative light, not the government doing that. But ultimately it's the same issue, there's a chilling effect on speech which is caused by the overwhelming fear of mass surveillance.

freshhawk 10y ago

But almost all location data is "public". I could follow you around, staying in public places, maybe have a friend or two help me out. And hire an army of private investigators to do the same for a bunch more people. But that doesn't scale, so much so that the difference in degree becomes a practical difference in kind. That's just an exaggerated version of the difference here. One of the most effective practical tools to combat bulk surveillance is to increase the cost. I'm also of the opinion that people are kinda asking for this by giving that data away and posting it publicly, but that doesn't mean those already collecting this data have no responsibility if they package it up and make it easy to use for surveillance.

CoryG89 10y ago

The data may be public, but they get greater access to the entire data set than the general public. This greater access is what was cut off. Also most people aren't aware that this level of access is even possible, much less that it's being sold to the highest bidder. Which in my opinion, is a problem.

newman314 10y ago

The same reason ALPRs (with long retention rate) are a bad idea. "No reasonable expectation of privacy in public" is the US norm today. I'm suggesting that maybe it should be revisited in light of the pervasive surveillance that has come into being.