5 ms·

Here's the thing though, would we ever get privacy? Even if we were to pay? I know that there are several defendants [drugs etc] even in my small area who have

Here's the thing though, would we ever get privacy? Even if we were to pay? I know that there are several defendants [drugs etc] even in my small area who have had deleted snapchat posts, deleted texts, deleted emails, "anonymous" forum posts etc etc etc show up as evidence in court. Now I'm obviously unfamiliar with the legal and technical means by which police investigators made things like that happen, but the fact that they happen means that we can assume that at LEAST the government has access to a record of most everything we do online. Free or otherwise. Even ignoring the question of the government surveillance net, once your data is on that company's server, how would you even be able to reliably validate what's being done with it? By which I mean, they say they don't share it, but how do you KNOW? So maybe we would get some pretty compelling new features in a lot of our services if we were to pay for them, but I'm not at all certain that ironclad privacy would be one of them. In fact, I'm fair certain that it wouldn't be.

dannyw 9y ago
It works through preservation orders, which LE can issue to companies and mandate they preserve records of something.
fjsolwmv 9y ago
"Bad money pushes out good money." Since you can't prove privacy, customers have to assume no-privacy and vendors must exploit that or else get outcompeted by someone who does. Same for any quality that customers want but can't verify, such as quickly long-life or organic ingredients or treatment of workers and animals.
- inlined 9y ago
  I wonder if it's possible for a watchdog organization to automate trap street accounts.
kgwxd 9y ago
I don't think paid-for services are going to solve anything. We pay up and out the ass for television, which obviously has ads, but I'm sure they're tracking as much as possible too. Unless you've been extremely diligent, there's no way you're going to escape a targeted invasion of privacy when someone, or some group, government or not, wants it bad enough. Trying to stop that would be exhausting and futile. Right now, we're allowing highly coordinated, highly detailed, nearly invisible, for-profit, stalking to take place legally. There's no doubt that's bad for society. We have anti-stalking laws for good reason. It's worth doing something about the current state of things, even if it doesn't bring the tracking down to nothing. The free market and tech has failed to fix it so far. They don't have forever to keep trying. Laws are the next line of defense. Laws might not stop criminals from crimin' but I'm sure the Tim Cooks of the world aren't going to risk their company profits (or personal freedoms, if the laws are strict enough) to get a little extra info on everyone.
- luckydude 9y ago
  Couldn't agree more though I got downvoted for saying more or less the same thing earlier today (still don't understand that but, um, internet).
  - luckydude 9y ago
    And again. WTF? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-tracking-of-non-users-sparks-broader-privacy-concerns_us_5ad34f10e4b016a07e9d5871 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-tracking-of-no... http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/04/antonio-garcia-martinez-former-facebook-employee-interview.html http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/04/antonio-garcia-martinez-f... Can someone explain to me why I'm getting down voted? Seems bogus. Whatever, it's internet points, if people want to take my points, take 'em, they are worth what I paid for them. I'm slowly getting to the point that hackernews is like facebook, the trolls win. If that's the case I'm out. There are lots of better uses of my time, I'm trying to help get a company started, my younger kid wants to build a gokart, I need this crap like a hole in the head. By the way, HN, shit like this is why important people don't hang out here. I'm not a big deal, I get that, but I'm not nobody. When you wonder why the real movers and shakers aren't here, this is why. Trolls. Why the heck would anyone doing stuff submit themselves to this crap? Why should they? I get it, there are bad players that down vote for bad reasons. You need to get that because of that, I think it's gonna be a rare event where you get AVB or WNJ or David Patterson or John Hennessy or anyone really doing stuff to come participate here. There is no upside, well, there are internet points and those have changed my life (jk), there is no upside and stupid people can piss all over you. I'm not as good as those guys I mentioned, though Granite Systems was a result of AVB finding me in a bar in SF and asking me to spell out what I'd want in a switch, but he did it, execution is everything, ideas are nothing. But I'm here and willing to share what I know and people shit on me? I started and ran a profitable company for 18 years in the valley and people shit on me? I've got lots to share, I'm retired and all I want to do is help people and still people are mad at me. Time to exit stage left. Enjoy not learning from me.
    - klez 9y ago
      I suggest you should chill a bit. I didn't see your previous post, but I guess this one has been downvoted because it's not saying anything of consequence regarding the OP and it's not adding anything to the conversation.
baddox 9y ago
Well, if you pay for a service that promises certain privacy protections, then they are legally obligated to fulfill those promises. That’s one mechanism, although obviously you still need watchdogs and a solid legal and court system to protect the promises.
ams6110 9y ago
It's possible that the prosecutors in a local drug case got Snapchat data by subpoena, but much more likely is that it was given to them by an informant. Here's the real thing. Anything you do online is not private. If you want to keep something private, don't do it online.
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> Here's the thing though, would we ever get privacy? Even if we were to pay? The issue is that the services have to be funded somehow. If they're funded through data mining, you lose your privacy. So if you want privacy, some other funding source is necessary but not sufficient. > once your data is on that company's server, how would you even be able to reliably validate what's being done with it? The answer is for it not to be on their server at all. Have it be on your server. Operating a server should be as simple as operating any other home appliance.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > The issue is that the services have to be funded somehow. If they're funded through data mining, you lose your privacy. So if you want privacy, some other funding source is necessary but not sufficient. That, and there has to be a legal or technical way to prevent them from datamining you anyway. Because seriously, almost no company is going to voluntarily leave money on the table. Why drop old profit source for the new one, when you can have both? > The answer is for it not to be on their server at all. Have it be on your server. Operating a server should be as simple as operating any other home appliance. That's an important part of the solution, I believe. Personally, what I'd love to see is the move towards making service providers stop trying to own data. The way SaaS currently works is: I send my data to the service for processing, they basically own it, and I'm lucky if I can even get the data back out and untangled from the service. The way this should be working is that I own and control the data, and I rent their code to be run on it. Come to think of it, that's how desktop software works, and that's why the abstraction of a file - the one the cloud is desperately trying to kill - is so awesome.
- lsc 9y ago
  >The answer is for it not to be on their server at all. Have it be on your server. Operating a server should be as simple as operating any other home appliance. But... operating non-computerized home appliances is difficult, too. Remember all the jokes about the VCR blinking 12:00? This was because every damn thing had it's own completely non-standard, unique interface. I mean, we've got fewer and fewer clocks we've gotta set, but back in the day, I remember I was the sort of person who would have to jimmy with a friend's car until their in-dash clock was right... and almost nobody I knew had a clock that was right year round, just 'cause they couldn't be bothered to look up or figure out how to set it. Now, with connected appliances? (as any of your 'social network' appliances would have to be) if you didn't apply the security updates (and maybe if you did) the data would be even more public than it is now.

dannyw 9y ago

It works through preservation orders, which LE can issue to companies and mandate they preserve records of something.

fjsolwmv 9y ago

"Bad money pushes out good money." Since you can't prove privacy, customers have to assume no-privacy and vendors must exploit that or else get outcompeted by someone who does. Same for any quality that customers want but can't verify, such as quickly long-life or organic ingredients or treatment of workers and animals.

inlined 9y ago
I wonder if it's possible for a watchdog organization to automate trap street accounts.

kgwxd 9y ago

I don't think paid-for services are going to solve anything. We pay up and out the ass for television, which obviously has ads, but I'm sure they're tracking as much as possible too. Unless you've been extremely diligent, there's no way you're going to escape a targeted invasion of privacy when someone, or some group, government or not, wants it bad enough. Trying to stop that would be exhausting and futile. Right now, we're allowing highly coordinated, highly detailed, nearly invisible, for-profit, stalking to take place legally. There's no doubt that's bad for society. We have anti-stalking laws for good reason. It's worth doing something about the current state of things, even if it doesn't bring the tracking down to nothing. The free market and tech has failed to fix it so far. They don't have forever to keep trying. Laws are the next line of defense. Laws might not stop criminals from crimin' but I'm sure the Tim Cooks of the world aren't going to risk their company profits (or personal freedoms, if the laws are strict enough) to get a little extra info on everyone.

luckydude 9y ago
Couldn't agree more though I got downvoted for saying more or less the same thing earlier today (still don't understand that but, um, internet).
- luckydude 9y ago
  And again. WTF? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-tracking-of-non-users-sparks-broader-privacy-concerns_us_5ad34f10e4b016a07e9d5871 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-tracking-of-no... http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/04/antonio-garcia-martinez-former-facebook-employee-interview.html http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/04/antonio-garcia-martinez-f... Can someone explain to me why I'm getting down voted? Seems bogus. Whatever, it's internet points, if people want to take my points, take 'em, they are worth what I paid for them. I'm slowly getting to the point that hackernews is like facebook, the trolls win. If that's the case I'm out. There are lots of better uses of my time, I'm trying to help get a company started, my younger kid wants to build a gokart, I need this crap like a hole in the head. By the way, HN, shit like this is why important people don't hang out here. I'm not a big deal, I get that, but I'm not nobody. When you wonder why the real movers and shakers aren't here, this is why. Trolls. Why the heck would anyone doing stuff submit themselves to this crap? Why should they? I get it, there are bad players that down vote for bad reasons. You need to get that because of that, I think it's gonna be a rare event where you get AVB or WNJ or David Patterson or John Hennessy or anyone really doing stuff to come participate here. There is no upside, well, there are internet points and those have changed my life (jk), there is no upside and stupid people can piss all over you. I'm not as good as those guys I mentioned, though Granite Systems was a result of AVB finding me in a bar in SF and asking me to spell out what I'd want in a switch, but he did it, execution is everything, ideas are nothing. But I'm here and willing to share what I know and people shit on me? I started and ran a profitable company for 18 years in the valley and people shit on me? I've got lots to share, I'm retired and all I want to do is help people and still people are mad at me. Time to exit stage left. Enjoy not learning from me.
  - klez 9y ago
    I suggest you should chill a bit. I didn't see your previous post, but I guess this one has been downvoted because it's not saying anything of consequence regarding the OP and it's not adding anything to the conversation.

baddox 9y ago

Well, if you pay for a service that promises certain privacy protections, then they are legally obligated to fulfill those promises. That’s one mechanism, although obviously you still need watchdogs and a solid legal and court system to protect the promises.

ams6110 9y ago

It's possible that the prosecutors in a local drug case got Snapchat data by subpoena, but much more likely is that it was given to them by an informant. Here's the real thing. Anything you do online is not private. If you want to keep something private, don't do it online.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

> Here's the thing though, would we ever get privacy? Even if we were to pay? The issue is that the services have to be funded somehow. If they're funded through data mining, you lose your privacy. So if you want privacy, some other funding source is necessary but not sufficient. > once your data is on that company's server, how would you even be able to reliably validate what's being done with it? The answer is for it not to be on their server at all. Have it be on your server. Operating a server should be as simple as operating any other home appliance.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> The issue is that the services have to be funded somehow. If they're funded through data mining, you lose your privacy. So if you want privacy, some other funding source is necessary but not sufficient. That, and there has to be a legal or technical way to prevent them from datamining you anyway. Because seriously, almost no company is going to voluntarily leave money on the table. Why drop old profit source for the new one, when you can have both? > The answer is for it not to be on their server at all. Have it be on your server. Operating a server should be as simple as operating any other home appliance. That's an important part of the solution, I believe. Personally, what I'd love to see is the move towards making service providers stop trying to own data. The way SaaS currently works is: I send my data to the service for processing, they basically own it, and I'm lucky if I can even get the data back out and untangled from the service. The way this should be working is that I own and control the data, and I rent their code to be run on it. Come to think of it, that's how desktop software works, and that's why the abstraction of a file - the one the cloud is desperately trying to kill - is so awesome.
lsc 9y ago
>The answer is for it not to be on their server at all. Have it be on your server. Operating a server should be as simple as operating any other home appliance. But... operating non-computerized home appliances is difficult, too. Remember all the jokes about the VCR blinking 12:00? This was because every damn thing had it's own completely non-standard, unique interface. I mean, we've got fewer and fewer clocks we've gotta set, but back in the day, I remember I was the sort of person who would have to jimmy with a friend's car until their in-dash clock was right... and almost nobody I knew had a clock that was right year round, just 'cause they couldn't be bothered to look up or figure out how to set it. Now, with connected appliances? (as any of your 'social network' appliances would have to be) if you didn't apply the security updates (and maybe if you did) the data would be even more public than it is now.