41 ms·
I hear you on that point and broadly agree that the penalties can be too trivial to cause deterrence (though VW's steep fines and criminal charges signal change
by vm 10y ago
I hear you on that point and broadly agree that the penalties can be too trivial to cause deterrence (though VW's steep fines and criminal charges signal change).
However in this case, who doesn't assume that everything we do is tracked for optimization? Every recommended product, story, TV show, news feed article, whatever comes from boatloads of testing.
And it doesn't seem like people care. Although some bemoan Facebook and Google data tracking, almost everyone still uses the products.
- xanderstrike 10y ago> who doesn't assume that everything we do is tracked for optimization This kind of acquiescence is dangerous. What you're essentially saying is "why bother enforcing the laws, nobody follows them" which is a terrible moral position if the laws are just.
- eugeniub 10y agoPeople still use them because there are often significant consequences to not using them. Not using Facebook can often mean some level of social ostracism, missing out on important moments from family and friends. Not using Google means not being able to collaborate with people using Docs, not watching videos your friends send you, and so on. They're almost like public utilities, and saying "you use Facebook so you must not actually care about privacy" is like saying "you rely on the police, so you most not actually care about cases of police brutality."
- morganvachon 10y ago> They're almost like public utilities, and saying "you use Facebook so you must not actually care about privacy" is like saying "you rely on the police, so you most not actually care about cases of police brutality." While I agree that they are like public utilities in many ways, I think your analogy is grossly flawed. For Facebook and Google to do what we want them to, they have no choice but to constantly invade our privacy. The very features we desire most from them are directly related to and tied to our personal information. By contrast, a police department absolutely does not require a single officer to commit violent crimes in order for them to keep the peace, arrest criminals, and protect the public.
- Arizhel 10y ago>They're almost like public utilities, and saying "you use Facebook so you must not actually care about privacy" is like saying "you rely on the police, so you most not actually care about cases of police brutality." False equivalence. Facebook is NOT a public utility, despite your assertion. The police are. The police are paid for by your taxes (plus traffic fines...), and are part of your local government. You can vote for your local governmental leaders, who have control over the local police. Facebook is a private corporation with voluntary membership. It is not part of government, you have no say over it whatsoever aside from "voting with your feet", and you can't even compare it to actual public utilities like your local CableCo that you probably get your internet service from, or the cellular provider you get your phone and mobile data service from. It's not a utility, so it's not subject to any real regulation the way that utilities are in theory. It's entirely an optional, voluntary service. So a better analogy is "'you use Facebook so you must not actually care about privacy' is like saying 'you drive a giant jacked-up pickup truck with gigantic wheels and commute 100 miles/day in it, so you must not actually care about the environment', or, "...'you participate in illegal dog-fighting and cock-fighting activities, so you must not actually care about animal rights and welfare'". Facebook is not a utility, it's not a necessary service at all. You have the choice to use it, or not, just like you have the choice to subscribe to cable TV, Netflix, Hulu, etc. or to use other web services like YouTube, Gmail, Yahoo! Mail, AOL, or MySpace. (There's actually people who still use those last 3!) If your social circle has a problem with you not using AOL and MySpace and Yahoo! Mail, then maybe you need some better friends. Same goes for Facebook.
- turc1656 10y agoThis is the same line of thinking that is allowing the NSA to get away with mass surveillance programs and not having every single employee (or at least the high ranking ones) locked up for decades for what are obvious rights violations on a mass scale. Case in point - you choose to do business with your cell phone provider. The general assumption is that they inherently know your location to provide you service (through triangulation and general connectivity to their cell towers). The government took that and then asserted a random claim saying they had a right to that information. That's literally what the federal judge said - that the government had a right to that private data agreement between you and your cell provider, without a warrant. So our privacy was stolen from us and when it finally came out what they were really doing and the scope of it all, people were shocked but half accepted it as the cost of doing business in the digital age. That's a lazy argument because the constitution expressly forbids such activity - "search and seizure", with seizure being the operative word here. Then they expanded this claim to include email and all private, non-public communications on social media as well.
- pdimitar 10y agoNSA and the likes rely on the judicial precedent effect, and the generational effect. I am 36. When I talk to people between 20 and 25 I am shocked to find out they find the whole spying thing pretty normal. They are kind of born into a world where this is already the norm. And we know that most people never challenge the rules of the environment they were born into, not until they turn at least 30 (more often 35-40 IMO) anyway. Between their claim of "well, things have always been that way" (since they're too young to remember other times) and "I have nothing to hide so I don't care", I'd say NSA and Co. are winning crushingly.