7 ms·

Yes, I think people really underestimate how much data they leak all day long, and how strong the pattern is. Simply emitting bluetooth and wifi, nevermind cell

by Cacti 9y ago

Yes, I think people really underestimate how much data they leak all day long, and how strong the pattern is. Simply emitting bluetooth and wifi, nevermind cellular, all day long can expose an incredible amount of stuff, provided someone can piece it all together (which is exactly what Facebook and other ad companies do). We like to pretend we're unique and powered by free-will but the reality is most things you do are fairly easy to track and predict. We're not in 1984, but certainly the capability is _already_ there. The difference between us and 1984 is only really one of intent, and you can guess how long that'll last.

paloaltokid 9y ago
We _are_ in 1984, but unlike the book, it's not imposed on us. We signed up for it. And those of frequenting HN most likely are the ones helping to build it. Think about it: tomorrow is Monday. How many folks on this board will be working on analytics and tracking once they get in to the office? A lot of us, guaranteed. And how many of us will take a principled stand, swearing not to work on products until surveillance features are removed? A few of us, guaranteed.
- Cacti 9y ago
  You say people will take a stand, but the vast and overwhelming number of us wont, we will just continue to help build the greatest surveillance system in history. And then tell each other how we’re unicorns that are saving the world, that we cherish freedom and liberty and the hacker ethis, when really we just want to get paid.
  - jeffdavis 9y ago
    Nobody knows what stand to take. We stood and fought for open source everywhere, thinking that would be our salvation. But apperently there is more to it than that, and we aren't exactly sure what.
    - Cacti 9y ago
      Sure we are sure, we just don't like it. RMS gets a lot of flack, but he's mostly right---this is not a technical problem with a technical solution, it's a political problem with a necessarily political solution. Most of us live in democracies, so if you want to fix the problem, it's actually quite straight-forward, it's just that people don't want to give up their nice job and nice hobbies.
      - jeffdavis 9y ago
        If you know what the law should be, please tell us.
  - maxscam 9y ago
    Oh my god stop being so dramatic, both of you. The vast majority of people are not actively contritubing to the sorry state of data privacy nor are they heroically working to fix it. Put the blame where its due.
    - Cacti 9y ago
      Are you kidding me? HN is _built_ on startups that specialize in selling ads.
- katastic 9y ago
  >We _are_ in 1984, but unlike the book, it's not imposed on us. We're living in both 1984 and Brave New World. See this illustration between 1984 and Brave New World. https://i.imgur.com/vRBtL.jpg https://i.imgur.com/vRBtL.jpg
rowyourfuture 9y ago
When a person submits their email for free Wifi at a place with Zenreach, they pull from databases and build a profile on the person. I don't know which services provide this or how they gather data, but the thought of anyone being able to download a detailed file on you with only an email or phone number is scary.
- squarefoot 9y ago
  A few months ago I did a Google search for my name as i do once or twice a year just to see what comes out. This time I had mixed reactions because among first results there was full text taken from a scanned old magazine dated 1978 or so with my name complete with street address. That was long before the Internet was publicly available and having such data into a magazine would not hurt anyone because people expected it could be useful to get in touch with others with similar interests (electronics in this case), and it surely worked for me because I got a free subscription and some job offers which I would have gladly accepted if I wasn't only 12 years old:) But nearly 40 years have passed, the ubiquitous magazine called the Internet is read by anyone for free, and having your address and/or personal data there isn't that safe anymore. Luckily I relocated a few times since, but what if I didn't? Technically speaking it's great to see an old magazine brought back to life, but what about unfiltered personal information one would expect to remain buried that will instead remain available forever in other contexts? I'm not bashing Google's bots crawling around to turn anything into searchable data, and I surely would never ever want laws to limit what can be searched, but pay attention if you shared personal data on printed material because if until yesterday we said "everything you put on the internet stays there forever", today there is more.
  - leonroy 9y ago
    As a company director since the age of 15 I’ve had my personal address publicly listed for quite a while now. Prior to that there were phone books and whilst you could choose to be delisted clearly a lot of people didn’t since the books were so thick! I thoroughly agree that privacy is important but I don’t think people ever really minded very much or if they did not enough to do something about it like lobby for laws to ensure personal addresses are not disclosed publicly.
unicornporn 9y ago
> We're not in 1984 https://m.imgur.com/vRBtL https://m.imgur.com/vRBtL
- jwilk 9y ago
  Direct link to the image: https://i.imgur.com/vRBtL.jpg https://i.imgur.com/vRBtL.jpg
  - thisacctforreal 9y ago
    I get redirected regardless.
- yazaddaruvala 9y ago
  "that Huxley not Orwell was right" Implies only one can be right. There doesn't have to be only one answer. Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I’ve tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice. Everytime we avoid one possible dystopia, the possibility for another will surface. We just have to hold them at Bay faster than they can arrive
  - unicornporn 9y ago
    > "that Huxley not Orwell was right" Implies only one can be right. You're very right about this observation. That being said, I'm kind of tired of the 1984 meme because the state of things and the way we seem to be heading looks nothing like the future presented in 1984. In fact, if we are expecting dystopia to present itself like the one portrayed in 1984 it might obscure the fundamental issues and complexities that our society faces. Brave New World, on the other hand, has a better chance of helping us reveal them.
gnulinux 9y ago
> The difference between us and 1984 is only really one of intent I'm not convinced intent isn't there; I'm also confused why'd you assume that. As a free software activist, I wonder have you every checked EFF or FSF websites. I'm not saying EFF and FSF are saving the world (no, they are not) but if you browse what they're dealing with, you can easily see the intent is there. It is simply hard to do all these without people thinking intent is not there, which is why nothing is done as explicitly as 1984. For example, Windows 10 has built-in ads, INSIDE operating system, your OS, which you already paid quite a price, forces you see ads; and tracks your behavior "to optimize user experience". People are not worried about this since ads are such an integral part of our lives. But Microsoft perfectly intents to track which websites I visit, what do I eat, what do I like, where would I go. Maybe you can say intention is "different" as in in 1984 they use my personal information to prosecute me, whereas this is not what Microsoft is after. Well, then this brings us to some Foucoult reading. In a world where all my information collected what is the difference between using all my information for a specific cause, when this cause can change just tomorrow. What if NSA asks Microsoft to give bunch of people's data? (we all know this already happened, but it is better practice to ask questions) I am a programmer, I use my computer all the time, pretty much every single awake moment of mine. I don't want to be watched. But as you said it is depressingly hard to achieve this, since it feels like only 0.1% of the population shares this same desire. Most people are okay being watched, and this is part of the problem.
- isostatic 9y ago
  > ads are such an integral part of our lives I'll skip the futurama reference for now, but for me ads are far rarer than in the 90s. Adblock handles most things online, iPlayer, Netflix and amazon don't really have adverts on TV (they have a graphical menu but I would call that an advert), Spotify doesn't have adverts. Sure there are a few adverts if I go to somewhere like london, and Sainsbury's advertise their own deals in store, and of course products on the shelf are adverts in of themselves, but the only advert I have seen in the last 24 hours was one raising awareness of cistic fibrosis in a billboard outside of Sainsbury's. Oh and the train announcement saying "the on board shop is open for teas coffees and light refreshments". There wouldn't have been any product placement in the episode of once upon a time I watched last night either. The TV jingles I remember from childhood are still etched in my brain, the adverts I see in this decade are ones I hunt out depberatly (the John Lewis Xmas advert for example, or film trailers, or something about amazon delivery people stealing your sofa that was recommended at work) I did see adverts on Saturday night when we went to see Thor. I don't recall what was advertised other than odeon limitless, the trailers are adverts too of course, alas they don't really work - we'd rather see more films at the cinema than we do now, but getting babysitting is a pain. We missed Spider-Man and kingsmen for example. If anything there are more opportunities to avoid adverts than ever before.
rambojohnson 9y ago
the other difference between us and 1984 is that we are volunteering that data for free.

by Cacti 9y ago

paloaltokid 9y ago

We _are_ in 1984, but unlike the book, it's not imposed on us. We signed up for it. And those of frequenting HN most likely are the ones helping to build it. Think about it: tomorrow is Monday. How many folks on this board will be working on analytics and tracking once they get in to the office? A lot of us, guaranteed. And how many of us will take a principled stand, swearing not to work on products until surveillance features are removed? A few of us, guaranteed.

Cacti 9y ago
You say people will take a stand, but the vast and overwhelming number of us wont, we will just continue to help build the greatest surveillance system in history. And then tell each other how we’re unicorns that are saving the world, that we cherish freedom and liberty and the hacker ethis, when really we just want to get paid.
- jeffdavis 9y ago
  Nobody knows what stand to take. We stood and fought for open source everywhere, thinking that would be our salvation. But apperently there is more to it than that, and we aren't exactly sure what.
  - Cacti 9y ago
    Sure we are sure, we just don't like it. RMS gets a lot of flack, but he's mostly right---this is not a technical problem with a technical solution, it's a political problem with a necessarily political solution. Most of us live in democracies, so if you want to fix the problem, it's actually quite straight-forward, it's just that people don't want to give up their nice job and nice hobbies.
    - jeffdavis 9y ago
      If you know what the law should be, please tell us.
- maxscam 9y ago
  Oh my god stop being so dramatic, both of you. The vast majority of people are not actively contritubing to the sorry state of data privacy nor are they heroically working to fix it. Put the blame where its due.
  - Cacti 9y ago
    Are you kidding me? HN is _built_ on startups that specialize in selling ads.
katastic 9y ago
>We _are_ in 1984, but unlike the book, it's not imposed on us. We're living in both 1984 and Brave New World. See this illustration between 1984 and Brave New World. https://i.imgur.com/vRBtL.jpg https://i.imgur.com/vRBtL.jpg

rowyourfuture 9y ago

When a person submits their email for free Wifi at a place with Zenreach, they pull from databases and build a profile on the person. I don't know which services provide this or how they gather data, but the thought of anyone being able to download a detailed file on you with only an email or phone number is scary.

squarefoot 9y ago
A few months ago I did a Google search for my name as i do once or twice a year just to see what comes out. This time I had mixed reactions because among first results there was full text taken from a scanned old magazine dated 1978 or so with my name complete with street address. That was long before the Internet was publicly available and having such data into a magazine would not hurt anyone because people expected it could be useful to get in touch with others with similar interests (electronics in this case), and it surely worked for me because I got a free subscription and some job offers which I would have gladly accepted if I wasn't only 12 years old:) But nearly 40 years have passed, the ubiquitous magazine called the Internet is read by anyone for free, and having your address and/or personal data there isn't that safe anymore. Luckily I relocated a few times since, but what if I didn't? Technically speaking it's great to see an old magazine brought back to life, but what about unfiltered personal information one would expect to remain buried that will instead remain available forever in other contexts? I'm not bashing Google's bots crawling around to turn anything into searchable data, and I surely would never ever want laws to limit what can be searched, but pay attention if you shared personal data on printed material because if until yesterday we said "everything you put on the internet stays there forever", today there is more.
- leonroy 9y ago
  As a company director since the age of 15 I’ve had my personal address publicly listed for quite a while now. Prior to that there were phone books and whilst you could choose to be delisted clearly a lot of people didn’t since the books were so thick! I thoroughly agree that privacy is important but I don’t think people ever really minded very much or if they did not enough to do something about it like lobby for laws to ensure personal addresses are not disclosed publicly.

unicornporn 9y ago

> We're not in 1984 https://m.imgur.com/vRBtL https://m.imgur.com/vRBtL

jwilk 9y ago
Direct link to the image: https://i.imgur.com/vRBtL.jpg https://i.imgur.com/vRBtL.jpg
- thisacctforreal 9y ago
  I get redirected regardless.
yazaddaruvala 9y ago
"that Huxley not Orwell was right" Implies only one can be right. There doesn't have to be only one answer. Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I’ve tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice. Everytime we avoid one possible dystopia, the possibility for another will surface. We just have to hold them at Bay faster than they can arrive
- unicornporn 9y ago
  > "that Huxley not Orwell was right" Implies only one can be right. You're very right about this observation. That being said, I'm kind of tired of the 1984 meme because the state of things and the way we seem to be heading looks nothing like the future presented in 1984. In fact, if we are expecting dystopia to present itself like the one portrayed in 1984 it might obscure the fundamental issues and complexities that our society faces. Brave New World, on the other hand, has a better chance of helping us reveal them.

gnulinux 9y ago

> The difference between us and 1984 is only really one of intent I'm not convinced intent isn't there; I'm also confused why'd you assume that. As a free software activist, I wonder have you every checked EFF or FSF websites. I'm not saying EFF and FSF are saving the world (no, they are not) but if you browse what they're dealing with, you can easily see the intent is there. It is simply hard to do all these without people thinking intent is not there, which is why nothing is done as explicitly as 1984. For example, Windows 10 has built-in ads, INSIDE operating system, your OS, which you already paid quite a price, forces you see ads; and tracks your behavior "to optimize user experience". People are not worried about this since ads are such an integral part of our lives. But Microsoft perfectly intents to track which websites I visit, what do I eat, what do I like, where would I go. Maybe you can say intention is "different" as in in 1984 they use my personal information to prosecute me, whereas this is not what Microsoft is after. Well, then this brings us to some Foucoult reading. In a world where all my information collected what is the difference between using all my information for a specific cause, when this cause can change just tomorrow. What if NSA asks Microsoft to give bunch of people's data? (we all know this already happened, but it is better practice to ask questions) I am a programmer, I use my computer all the time, pretty much every single awake moment of mine. I don't want to be watched. But as you said it is depressingly hard to achieve this, since it feels like only 0.1% of the population shares this same desire. Most people are okay being watched, and this is part of the problem.

isostatic 9y ago
> ads are such an integral part of our lives I'll skip the futurama reference for now, but for me ads are far rarer than in the 90s. Adblock handles most things online, iPlayer, Netflix and amazon don't really have adverts on TV (they have a graphical menu but I would call that an advert), Spotify doesn't have adverts. Sure there are a few adverts if I go to somewhere like london, and Sainsbury's advertise their own deals in store, and of course products on the shelf are adverts in of themselves, but the only advert I have seen in the last 24 hours was one raising awareness of cistic fibrosis in a billboard outside of Sainsbury's. Oh and the train announcement saying "the on board shop is open for teas coffees and light refreshments". There wouldn't have been any product placement in the episode of once upon a time I watched last night either. The TV jingles I remember from childhood are still etched in my brain, the adverts I see in this decade are ones I hunt out depberatly (the John Lewis Xmas advert for example, or film trailers, or something about amazon delivery people stealing your sofa that was recommended at work) I did see adverts on Saturday night when we went to see Thor. I don't recall what was advertised other than odeon limitless, the trailers are adverts too of course, alas they don't really work - we'd rather see more films at the cinema than we do now, but getting babysitting is a pain. We missed Spider-Man and kingsmen for example. If anything there are more opportunities to avoid adverts than ever before.

rambojohnson 9y ago

the other difference between us and 1984 is that we are volunteering that data for free.