7 ms·

Nothing will change until the law cracks down on this. The people who work on these systems are smart enough to comprehend the wider consequences, but they do i

Nothing will change until the law cracks down on this. The people who work on these systems are smart enough to comprehend the wider consequences, but they do it anyway because money. Without significant external pressure, there will always be a long line of engineers willing to dial their cognitive dissonance up to 11 and build software that is clearly unethical in exchange for a fat paycheck.

killjoywashere 9y ago
The law will not crack down on this. The politicians stand to gain too much. See The Dictator's Handbook (which is as relevant to democrats as autocrats).
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  I've just finished that and second the recommendation - while the ideas have been around for a while, the presentation of them in that book is outstanding.
- jaskerr 9y ago
  Which "Dictator's Handbook"? There are two on Amazon. [1] The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845 https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Po... [2] The Dictator's Handbook: A Practical Manual for the Aspiring Tyrant https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Practical-Manual-Aspiring/dp/0615652425 https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Practical-Manual-A...
  - Bakary 9y ago
    They're referring to the one by Mesquita because it was popularized by a recent CGP grey video
    - killjoywashere 9y ago
      I was referring to the one by Mesquita, but because my brother, an attorney, recommended it, not because of a GCP grey video. Perhaps you meant "I think it's because..."?
  - zafiro17 9y ago
    I'm the author of the second book. Happy to offer Hacker News readers the epub/mobi/pdf at no charge. zafiro17@gmail.com
    - killjoywashere 9y ago
      I was referring to the first one, but your offer is quite generous.
- vidoc 9y ago
  Recent BBC Panorama on the matter was pretty good: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08qgbc3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08qgbc3 That said, I'm personally certain the laws will evolve rapidly in a favorable manner. Privacy issues resulting from Facebook/Google and co are becoming increasingly unacceptable for the society.
  - y_u_no_rust 9y ago
    LOL well not in the united states at least
- 659087 9y ago
  The thought that Mark Zuckerberg might one day run for president, and actually have a chance, is absolutely terrifying to me. If this happens, kiss the concept of personal privacy goodbye forever.
angry-hacker 9y ago
Name and shame campaigns might beva solution. I don't know how know how I would feel about it it this but it's an opportunity for pressure.
baddox 9y ago
Could you pretend I either disagree or have yet to form an opinion, and explain why this is "clearly unethical"?
- thr0waway1239 9y ago
  Unethical: lacking moral principles. Moral: of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong I think it is "clearly wrong" that Facebook creates shadow profiles, because it is violating the freedom of people who have not signed up for their service, in the same way that it is clearly wrong for me to take away your favorite pet for ritualistic sacrifice against your wishes, even if "everyone" in the community agrees that it has been a consistently effective method for pleasing the Gods. Of course, you know these analogies are tenuous, and you will eventually go into very precise definitions of words (or worse, you will actually start taking my pet sacrifice analogy and dissecting it). Perhaps you could tell us about something you think is clearly unethical, and we will try and draw the connection for you.
  - hueving 9y ago
    I think the commenter was looking for an explanation of why you think shadow profiles are unethical. In your argument you state that it violates peoples' freedom, but you need to define how their freedom is being violated.
    - patkai 9y ago
      Basically if FB creates a - shadow - profile of someone _not_ on FB they don't gibe her the chance to accept or reject their terms.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - Waterluvian 9y ago
    I can't claim it's wrong because I'm not a good ethicist. But I can say anecdotally that I feel upset and disgusted by the idea that even though I don't have Facebook, they may have a dossier on me. Simply because friends use my name or share photos including me. It's upsetting because I don't know what I can do about it. How do I protect my privacy in this world? Do I stop having friends? Do I wear a mask everywhere?
qyv 9y ago
I think it is more likely that the market corrects this well before the law. How much longer can the status-quo of online advertising remain intact? Do these targeted ad's really work? There is a ton of time and talent being poured into hyper-advanced targeted advertising systems, how long can this be sustained?
- hueving 9y ago
  >Do these targeted ad's really work? The massive income Facebook has seems to imply so.
  - still_grokking 9y ago
    No, the massive income Facebook generates only imply that the people spending money on targeted ads believe (!) these ad are working. It is not a prove per se these ads really are worth their costs.
    - smcnally 9y ago
      Buyers have access to a detailed audit trail of their ads and campaign activities. They see where ads they bought ran, the number of people who were able to see their ads, and clicks and other interactions with their ads. If "these ads are working" is defined as "these ads are accomplishing what they were intended to when purchased," peoples' spend is founded more in data than belief. Buyers have access to ~2BN people and tools to target them by age, interest, and geography -- much of that demographic and psychographic data is explicitly and freely given by those people themselves; tons more are derived and inferred. Buyers repeat their buys because these ads accomplish what they intended at purchase -- they can effectively drive traffic or commerce or whatever else. This real power to generate revenue makes the issues around privacy, security, transparency, awareness, responsibility, ethics, laws, oversight more important than if it was created by ignorant beliefs. The latter would be temporary; the former generally strengthens as more data gets into the system.
      - Houshalter 9y ago
Msurrow 9y ago
In the EU the law just did crack down on this with the new EU Data Protection Directive[1]. The DPD covers not only EU based companies, but also any company that provides services for EU citizens in the EU (so, Facebook, LinkedIn etc. are covered by this..but also e.g. your little weather app). The new DPD is strict compared to previous regulation, but there are two parts of the directive that a particularly interesting: - The Data Portability concept: A company covered by the DPD is required to deliver to the user all data the company has on the user, in a standardised format. That means Facebook now has to hand out all your data (information, pics, likes, posts,...) for you to use freely - also in other services. I think this in effect means you own your data. I'm excited to see the effect of this one. - The right to be forgotten: A company is required to delete all data they have on a user, if the user requests. Actually, if the user invokes this right, the company is not allowed make public, <b>store or process</b> any data related to the user. From what I hear in discussions between american colleagues, american companies have no clue whats about to hit them. I know there is a mild panic here in Denmark, and the DPD is the most talked about subject in IT at the moment - and we've always been rather anal with the privacy stuff (e.g. cookie-law). Edit: Oh, I forgot the fun part; this gets a lot of attention due to the sizes of the fines companies get for not adhering to the directive. Fines are up to EUR 20.000.000 or 4% of the company's global annual revenue, whichever is higher. Facebook made USD27.638.000.000 in 2016, so thats a fine of USD1.105.520.000 for not playing nice. (I posted this in reply to another post, but seems relevant here too)
- amelius 9y ago
  > The Data Portability concept: A company covered by the DPD is required to deliver to the user all data the company has on the user, in a standardised format. That means Facebook now has to hand out all your data (information, pics, likes, posts,...) for you to use freely - also in other services. I think this in effect means you own your data. I'm excited to see the effect of this one. The problem here is that those companies use fingerprinting to collect data. This means that in theory they are not 100% sure who is the person they are collecting data from, but in practice they could be 99.99% sure. Still, this makes it impossible to hand out all this data, because there is still a 0.01% chance that the data does not belong to the person who requested it.
dkarapetyan 9y ago
We are all complicit. It's not just smart engineers.
ahmedk92 9y ago
"...are smart enough to comprehend the wider consequences" Smart is not wise. Just complicate what you think people would hesitate to do, and they will get fooled into dong it. Especially if it challenges their intelligence (e.g. algorithms).

killjoywashere 9y ago

The law will not crack down on this. The politicians stand to gain too much. See The Dictator's Handbook (which is as relevant to democrats as autocrats).

anigbrowl 9y ago
I've just finished that and second the recommendation - while the ideas have been around for a while, the presentation of them in that book is outstanding.
jaskerr 9y ago
Which "Dictator's Handbook"? There are two on Amazon. [1] The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845 https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Po... [2] The Dictator's Handbook: A Practical Manual for the Aspiring Tyrant https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Practical-Manual-Aspiring/dp/0615652425 https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Practical-Manual-A...
- Bakary 9y ago
  They're referring to the one by Mesquita because it was popularized by a recent CGP grey video
  - killjoywashere 9y ago
    I was referring to the one by Mesquita, but because my brother, an attorney, recommended it, not because of a GCP grey video. Perhaps you meant "I think it's because..."?
- zafiro17 9y ago
  I'm the author of the second book. Happy to offer Hacker News readers the epub/mobi/pdf at no charge. zafiro17@gmail.com
  - killjoywashere 9y ago
    I was referring to the first one, but your offer is quite generous.
vidoc 9y ago
Recent BBC Panorama on the matter was pretty good: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08qgbc3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08qgbc3 That said, I'm personally certain the laws will evolve rapidly in a favorable manner. Privacy issues resulting from Facebook/Google and co are becoming increasingly unacceptable for the society.
- y_u_no_rust 9y ago
  LOL well not in the united states at least
659087 9y ago
The thought that Mark Zuckerberg might one day run for president, and actually have a chance, is absolutely terrifying to me. If this happens, kiss the concept of personal privacy goodbye forever.

angry-hacker 9y ago

Name and shame campaigns might beva solution. I don't know how know how I would feel about it it this but it's an opportunity for pressure.

baddox 9y ago

Could you pretend I either disagree or have yet to form an opinion, and explain why this is "clearly unethical"?

thr0waway1239 9y ago
Unethical: lacking moral principles. Moral: of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong I think it is "clearly wrong" that Facebook creates shadow profiles, because it is violating the freedom of people who have not signed up for their service, in the same way that it is clearly wrong for me to take away your favorite pet for ritualistic sacrifice against your wishes, even if "everyone" in the community agrees that it has been a consistently effective method for pleasing the Gods. Of course, you know these analogies are tenuous, and you will eventually go into very precise definitions of words (or worse, you will actually start taking my pet sacrifice analogy and dissecting it). Perhaps you could tell us about something you think is clearly unethical, and we will try and draw the connection for you.
- hueving 9y ago
  I think the commenter was looking for an explanation of why you think shadow profiles are unethical. In your argument you state that it violates peoples' freedom, but you need to define how their freedom is being violated.
  - patkai 9y ago
    Basically if FB creates a - shadow - profile of someone _not_ on FB they don't gibe her the chance to accept or reject their terms.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- Waterluvian 9y ago
  I can't claim it's wrong because I'm not a good ethicist. But I can say anecdotally that I feel upset and disgusted by the idea that even though I don't have Facebook, they may have a dossier on me. Simply because friends use my name or share photos including me. It's upsetting because I don't know what I can do about it. How do I protect my privacy in this world? Do I stop having friends? Do I wear a mask everywhere?

qyv 9y ago

I think it is more likely that the market corrects this well before the law. How much longer can the status-quo of online advertising remain intact? Do these targeted ad's really work? There is a ton of time and talent being poured into hyper-advanced targeted advertising systems, how long can this be sustained?

hueving 9y ago
>Do these targeted ad's really work? The massive income Facebook has seems to imply so.
- still_grokking 9y ago
  No, the massive income Facebook generates only imply that the people spending money on targeted ads believe (!) these ad are working. It is not a prove per se these ads really are worth their costs.
  - smcnally 9y ago
    Buyers have access to a detailed audit trail of their ads and campaign activities. They see where ads they bought ran, the number of people who were able to see their ads, and clicks and other interactions with their ads. If "these ads are working" is defined as "these ads are accomplishing what they were intended to when purchased," peoples' spend is founded more in data than belief. Buyers have access to ~2BN people and tools to target them by age, interest, and geography -- much of that demographic and psychographic data is explicitly and freely given by those people themselves; tons more are derived and inferred. Buyers repeat their buys because these ads accomplish what they intended at purchase -- they can effectively drive traffic or commerce or whatever else. This real power to generate revenue makes the issues around privacy, security, transparency, awareness, responsibility, ethics, laws, oversight more important than if it was created by ignorant beliefs. The latter would be temporary; the former generally strengthens as more data gets into the system.
    - Houshalter 9y ago

Msurrow 9y ago

In the EU the law just did crack down on this with the new EU Data Protection Directive[1]. The DPD covers not only EU based companies, but also any company that provides services for EU citizens in the EU (so, Facebook, LinkedIn etc. are covered by this..but also e.g. your little weather app). The new DPD is strict compared to previous regulation, but there are two parts of the directive that a particularly interesting: - The Data Portability concept: A company covered by the DPD is required to deliver to the user all data the company has on the user, in a standardised format. That means Facebook now has to hand out all your data (information, pics, likes, posts,...) for you to use freely - also in other services. I think this in effect means you own your data. I'm excited to see the effect of this one. - The right to be forgotten: A company is required to delete all data they have on a user, if the user requests. Actually, if the user invokes this right, the company is not allowed make public, <b>store or process</b> any data related to the user. From what I hear in discussions between american colleagues, american companies have no clue whats about to hit them. I know there is a mild panic here in Denmark, and the DPD is the most talked about subject in IT at the moment - and we've always been rather anal with the privacy stuff (e.g. cookie-law). Edit: Oh, I forgot the fun part; this gets a lot of attention due to the sizes of the fines companies get for not adhering to the directive. Fines are up to EUR 20.000.000 or 4% of the company's global annual revenue, whichever is higher. Facebook made USD27.638.000.000 in 2016, so thats a fine of USD1.105.520.000 for not playing nice. (I posted this in reply to another post, but seems relevant here too)

amelius 9y ago
> The Data Portability concept: A company covered by the DPD is required to deliver to the user all data the company has on the user, in a standardised format. That means Facebook now has to hand out all your data (information, pics, likes, posts,...) for you to use freely - also in other services. I think this in effect means you own your data. I'm excited to see the effect of this one. The problem here is that those companies use fingerprinting to collect data. This means that in theory they are not 100% sure who is the person they are collecting data from, but in practice they could be 99.99% sure. Still, this makes it impossible to hand out all this data, because there is still a 0.01% chance that the data does not belong to the person who requested it.

dkarapetyan 9y ago

We are all complicit. It's not just smart engineers.

ahmedk92 9y ago

"...are smart enough to comprehend the wider consequences" Smart is not wise. Just complicate what you think people would hesitate to do, and they will get fooled into dong it. Especially if it challenges their intelligence (e.g. algorithms).