6 ms·

i dont share your concerns at all. my daily feelings and activities wouldnt change, whether facebook and google know about them or not. Contrast that to being k

by tyrex2017 9y ago

i dont share your concerns at all. my daily feelings and activities wouldnt change, whether facebook and google know about them or not. Contrast that to being killed by a drone. privacy concerns is rather an interesting intellectual problem, and not a real one. if it was a real problem, people would change their use of those tools but they dont. you can argue that loss of privacy allows corporations to manipulate us, but i see only trivial effects. look at how people vote and buy. i see more diversity and conclude less manipulation.

tjr225 9y ago
> privacy concerns is rather an interesting intellectual problem, and not a real one. if it was a real problem, people would change their use of those tools but they don't. It is a real problem and plenty of people do change their use of their tools.
- tyrex2017 9y ago
  i dont believe so. can you give an example? duck duck go, for example, has 0.3% market share. you need to look at the typical john and mary on the street.
  - tjr225 9y ago
    I may have been incorrect to use the word 'plenty.' So let me rephrase: people do change their use of those tools. I don't see how those people being insignificant statistically makes a problem any less real.
    - tyrex2017 9y ago
      well you didnt say majority so the word plenty is ok actually i agree that it is a real problem for lets say millions of people. but what counts is the majority opinion for me. there are all kinds of contrary (!) opinions among small subgroups of the population, and thus it isnt possible to adjust wide-ranging policies to those opinions
seren 9y ago
Some every day scenario, with an impact, * You apply for a loan, it is refused * Your admission, for you or your children, to a school or university is refused because more worthy people have applied * Your job application is refused, All because of a fuzzy social score, that is mined from your contacts, activities on social network, meta data gathered from your smartphone in an opaque way, CCTV cameras, etc I mean if we have a way to rate people, why not use it everywhere ! This is already partially implemented in China, I remember reading an example where with a low social score you have to pay for a deposit, and you don't have to with a high social score. In a way, that sound efficient and meritocratic, but also ruthless if you end up with a low score. edit : add a reference with some every day life examples https://www.wired.com/story/age-of-social-credit/ https://www.wired.com/story/age-of-social-credit/
- tudelo 9y ago
  Doesn't the vast amount of data we have allow for things like getting a loan without knowing a guy? As for point 2, if someone is more worthy... why is that bad? And why should an employer not use information easily accessible to them to determine the character of a potential employee when they only can have brief correspondence via interviews? I'm not sure if you're talking about future implications or what but it seems like this is the system that we exist in today. I don't think most of these decisions are based on a "fuzzy social score" though. At least not the topics you brought up.
  - seren 9y ago
    I am talking about a future that is already being built today, piece by piece. I am well aware we are already judged with multiple bias, in a an opaque way. But this is not systematic, hopefully Employer A can have different bias than Employer B. For me, the dystopic part would be to have a single, automated source of "truth", like the Sesame score, used everywhere. It means that everything becomes easy or difficult because of that score. Suddenly you cannot rent or at higher price, your insurance rate will increase, it is harder to get a job... Optimistically, in theory, it could make people "better", but who decides what "better" or "worthy" means ?
DougN7 9y ago
I'm sorry, but you're naive. The day might come when anyone with an 'X' in their online username is considered a threat. Ridiculous? Sure. But how about the things you've purchased? Schools/churches you've attended? Meetings you've gone to? Friends you have? The problem is when the definition of a threat changes, you can't go back and change your past, but are stuck. Being a Jew in Germany in 1910 wasn't an issue. They had nothing to hide. In 1940 there was no going back for them.
- tyrex2017 9y ago
  you are naive and live in a fantasy world if you are afraid of this. regarding the jew example, the problem is not about having stated in public what you are but with societies which discriminate. you might have a point saying “my life should not be transparent, as to make it more difficult for a potential discriminatory society to attack me”. but it makes no real sense to worry about it because it is so super minor in comparison to the deep problems this society will have. i know you disagree :)
  - DougN7 9y ago
    > the problem is not about having stated in public what you are but with societies which discriminate. Doesn't history teach us over and over that societies DO discriminate? I don't believe that basic human trait will ever change. If that could change, maybe someday we could do away with 'evil' altogether, but I don't see that happening either. Just look at Internet justice vigilanties. If you're on the wrong side of a social issue, you could very well be targeted. I have a few unpopular opinions, and I keep them to myself for that very reason. You don't have to look too far to see what happens if you don't.

tjr225 9y ago

> privacy concerns is rather an interesting intellectual problem, and not a real one. if it was a real problem, people would change their use of those tools but they don't. It is a real problem and plenty of people do change their use of their tools.

tyrex2017 9y ago
i dont believe so. can you give an example? duck duck go, for example, has 0.3% market share. you need to look at the typical john and mary on the street.
- tjr225 9y ago
  I may have been incorrect to use the word 'plenty.' So let me rephrase: people do change their use of those tools. I don't see how those people being insignificant statistically makes a problem any less real.
  - tyrex2017 9y ago
    well you didnt say majority so the word plenty is ok actually i agree that it is a real problem for lets say millions of people. but what counts is the majority opinion for me. there are all kinds of contrary (!) opinions among small subgroups of the population, and thus it isnt possible to adjust wide-ranging policies to those opinions

seren 9y ago

Some every day scenario, with an impact, * You apply for a loan, it is refused * Your admission, for you or your children, to a school or university is refused because more worthy people have applied * Your job application is refused, All because of a fuzzy social score, that is mined from your contacts, activities on social network, meta data gathered from your smartphone in an opaque way, CCTV cameras, etc I mean if we have a way to rate people, why not use it everywhere ! This is already partially implemented in China, I remember reading an example where with a low social score you have to pay for a deposit, and you don't have to with a high social score. In a way, that sound efficient and meritocratic, but also ruthless if you end up with a low score. edit : add a reference with some every day life examples https://www.wired.com/story/age-of-social-credit/ https://www.wired.com/story/age-of-social-credit/

tudelo 9y ago
Doesn't the vast amount of data we have allow for things like getting a loan without knowing a guy? As for point 2, if someone is more worthy... why is that bad? And why should an employer not use information easily accessible to them to determine the character of a potential employee when they only can have brief correspondence via interviews? I'm not sure if you're talking about future implications or what but it seems like this is the system that we exist in today. I don't think most of these decisions are based on a "fuzzy social score" though. At least not the topics you brought up.
- seren 9y ago
  I am talking about a future that is already being built today, piece by piece. I am well aware we are already judged with multiple bias, in a an opaque way. But this is not systematic, hopefully Employer A can have different bias than Employer B. For me, the dystopic part would be to have a single, automated source of "truth", like the Sesame score, used everywhere. It means that everything becomes easy or difficult because of that score. Suddenly you cannot rent or at higher price, your insurance rate will increase, it is harder to get a job... Optimistically, in theory, it could make people "better", but who decides what "better" or "worthy" means ?

DougN7 9y ago

I'm sorry, but you're naive. The day might come when anyone with an 'X' in their online username is considered a threat. Ridiculous? Sure. But how about the things you've purchased? Schools/churches you've attended? Meetings you've gone to? Friends you have? The problem is when the definition of a threat changes, you can't go back and change your past, but are stuck. Being a Jew in Germany in 1910 wasn't an issue. They had nothing to hide. In 1940 there was no going back for them.

tyrex2017 9y ago
you are naive and live in a fantasy world if you are afraid of this. regarding the jew example, the problem is not about having stated in public what you are but with societies which discriminate. you might have a point saying “my life should not be transparent, as to make it more difficult for a potential discriminatory society to attack me”. but it makes no real sense to worry about it because it is so super minor in comparison to the deep problems this society will have. i know you disagree :)
- DougN7 9y ago
  > the problem is not about having stated in public what you are but with societies which discriminate. Doesn't history teach us over and over that societies DO discriminate? I don't believe that basic human trait will ever change. If that could change, maybe someday we could do away with 'evil' altogether, but I don't see that happening either. Just look at Internet justice vigilanties. If you're on the wrong side of a social issue, you could very well be targeted. I have a few unpopular opinions, and I keep them to myself for that very reason. You don't have to look too far to see what happens if you don't.