3 ms·

We are not heading to a post-privacy world. Post-Privacy means no one can get privacy even if they want it. That has never been the case. What you are merely

We are not heading to a post-privacy world. Post-Privacy means no one can get privacy even if they want it. That has never been the case. What you are merely seeing is people are ok with the amount of data that has been collected on them. The lack of true widespread outrage means we are either at the limit or we can still collect a bit more before users get really pissed.

warent 9y ago
With things like Facebook shadow profiles, you're pretty much driven out of any sufficiently developed society if you want true privacy.
- matte_black 9y ago
  Shadow profiles aren’t public.
putlake 9y ago
> Post-Privacy means no one can get privacy even if they want it. That has never been the case. We are already there. 3-letter govt agencies can listen track your calls, intercept your browsing and read your email. Unless you pay in cash and shop only at your local mom and pop shop, your purchases are already being tracked and reported. Your cellphone carrier is selling your information to third parties.[1] You may not be on Facebook or WhatsApp but all your IRL friends and family are. They have your phone number in their contacts list and they have shared it with Google, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin and God knows how many other companies. They have taken your pictures and tagged you. Other than a very small number of privacy-conscious people, which includes living-off-the-grid doomsday preppers, the rest of the country is already there. 1. https://www.csoonline.com/article/3233211/security/mobile-carriers-sell-users-personal-information-to-third-parties.html https://www.csoonline.com/article/3233211/security/mobile-ca...
- gm-conspiracy 9y ago
  Why do you assume everybody is using email, has a cellphone, and only buys goods from mega-corps?
  - StudentStuff 9y ago
    Many HN readers have a very myopic view of the world, constraining their perspective to what they already know and do. There is a whole army of people out there that don't have cellphones, email and don't buy from mega-corps, but those who frequent HN have little knowledge of or connection to those who live exclusively in meatspace.
  - JasonFruit 9y ago
    And license plate readers, and security cameras, and facial recognition, and gait recognition, and . . . and . . . ad infinitum.
  - incongruity 9y ago
    Why do you assume they’re not? Constraining the discussion to America, you’d be far more wrong to assume someone doesn't use the internet[1][2] or a cellphone.[3][4] [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/05/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/05/some-america... - Only 11% of American adults don’t use the internet. Of 18-24 year olds, only 2% don’t. 2%. Holding narrowly onto your assertion, the numbers are higher for poor, rural, elderly and non-high school graduates. [2]http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-20... - 68% of adults use Facebook. 73% use YouTube. Looking at 18-24 year olds, 95% use YouTube. [3]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/28/10-facts-about-smartphones/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/28/10-facts-abo... - 77% of adults own a smartphone. [4]http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/ http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/ - 95% of adults own a cellphone. Shopping at mega corps? Well, it’s well documented that Walmart has done a good job of decimating local economies and there is definitely a homogenization of retail options in the US - but even if you don’t shop at one of them, if you use a credit or debit card, a mega-corp is tracking you. Doubly so if you use a smartphone.
- sanbor 9y ago
  What about 500 years ago where families would sleep all in the same floor and your parents would be having sex meters away from you? And the lords could do whateverthey wanted. There were not much privacy for most people at that time.
closeparen 9y ago
Only someone who specifically values privacy for its own sake is sensitive to how much data gets “collected” by the first parties they deliberately share it with. The rest of us care how it’s used, and ad targeting is mostly benign. The Facebook scandal is not about data or collection, but how the combination of data and attention can influence politics.
- alex30 9y ago
  People are missing a very important thing in this earning statement. The earning statement is for Jan 1- Mar 31 ONLY. The Cambridge Analytica story was released around March 18. So around 10-12 days of #DeleteFacebook would NOT have any noticeable effect on their earnings. What would actually be noticeable would be Q2 Earnings (Apr 1- Jun 30)
  - matte_black 9y ago
    With our current news cycles and the speed at which sentiments spread nowadays 10-12 days is more than enough time for us to see negative noticeable effects. The fact is, if it hasn’t been observed by then it’s probably not happening at all.
    - Lionsion 9y ago
      > The fact is, if it hasn’t been observed by then it’s probably not happening at all. That's a big assumption. The metrics we're shown might not have enough resolution to show the effects of 10-12 days of scandal. The fallout may be a much more gradual process than you assume. For instance: take this scenario: someone decides to #deletefacebook, even though they use it daily as a communications tool. What do you think they'll do? You seem to assume they're ragequit immediately, but I think it's far more likely that they'll dial back their usage, explore replacements for certain features, exchange alternate contact info with FB-only friends, etc. Only much later will they actually delete or show a significant usage decrease. That scenario isn't hypothetical, it's exactly what I'm doing. I've made the decision to disengage from Facebook, but I still show up as an active user because I'm not done with the process. If you're going to measure a phenomenon with data, you have to understand what you're measuring and have an instrument that will detect that. Otherwise, it's just sciency voodoo.

warent 9y ago

With things like Facebook shadow profiles, you're pretty much driven out of any sufficiently developed society if you want true privacy.

matte_black 9y ago
Shadow profiles aren’t public.

putlake 9y ago

> Post-Privacy means no one can get privacy even if they want it. That has never been the case. We are already there. 3-letter govt agencies can listen track your calls, intercept your browsing and read your email. Unless you pay in cash and shop only at your local mom and pop shop, your purchases are already being tracked and reported. Your cellphone carrier is selling your information to third parties.[1] You may not be on Facebook or WhatsApp but all your IRL friends and family are. They have your phone number in their contacts list and they have shared it with Google, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin and God knows how many other companies. They have taken your pictures and tagged you. Other than a very small number of privacy-conscious people, which includes living-off-the-grid doomsday preppers, the rest of the country is already there. 1. https://www.csoonline.com/article/3233211/security/mobile-carriers-sell-users-personal-information-to-third-parties.html https://www.csoonline.com/article/3233211/security/mobile-ca...

gm-conspiracy 9y ago
Why do you assume everybody is using email, has a cellphone, and only buys goods from mega-corps?
- StudentStuff 9y ago
  Many HN readers have a very myopic view of the world, constraining their perspective to what they already know and do. There is a whole army of people out there that don't have cellphones, email and don't buy from mega-corps, but those who frequent HN have little knowledge of or connection to those who live exclusively in meatspace.
- JasonFruit 9y ago
  And license plate readers, and security cameras, and facial recognition, and gait recognition, and . . . and . . . ad infinitum.
- incongruity 9y ago
  Why do you assume they’re not? Constraining the discussion to America, you’d be far more wrong to assume someone doesn't use the internet[1][2] or a cellphone.[3][4] [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/05/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/05/some-america... - Only 11% of American adults don’t use the internet. Of 18-24 year olds, only 2% don’t. 2%. Holding narrowly onto your assertion, the numbers are higher for poor, rural, elderly and non-high school graduates. [2]http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-20... - 68% of adults use Facebook. 73% use YouTube. Looking at 18-24 year olds, 95% use YouTube. [3]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/28/10-facts-about-smartphones/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/28/10-facts-abo... - 77% of adults own a smartphone. [4]http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/ http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/ - 95% of adults own a cellphone. Shopping at mega corps? Well, it’s well documented that Walmart has done a good job of decimating local economies and there is definitely a homogenization of retail options in the US - but even if you don’t shop at one of them, if you use a credit or debit card, a mega-corp is tracking you. Doubly so if you use a smartphone.
sanbor 9y ago
What about 500 years ago where families would sleep all in the same floor and your parents would be having sex meters away from you? And the lords could do whateverthey wanted. There were not much privacy for most people at that time.

closeparen 9y ago

Only someone who specifically values privacy for its own sake is sensitive to how much data gets “collected” by the first parties they deliberately share it with. The rest of us care how it’s used, and ad targeting is mostly benign. The Facebook scandal is not about data or collection, but how the combination of data and attention can influence politics.

alex30 9y ago
People are missing a very important thing in this earning statement. The earning statement is for Jan 1- Mar 31 ONLY. The Cambridge Analytica story was released around March 18. So around 10-12 days of #DeleteFacebook would NOT have any noticeable effect on their earnings. What would actually be noticeable would be Q2 Earnings (Apr 1- Jun 30)
- matte_black 9y ago
  With our current news cycles and the speed at which sentiments spread nowadays 10-12 days is more than enough time for us to see negative noticeable effects. The fact is, if it hasn’t been observed by then it’s probably not happening at all.
  - Lionsion 9y ago
    > The fact is, if it hasn’t been observed by then it’s probably not happening at all. That's a big assumption. The metrics we're shown might not have enough resolution to show the effects of 10-12 days of scandal. The fallout may be a much more gradual process than you assume. For instance: take this scenario: someone decides to #deletefacebook, even though they use it daily as a communications tool. What do you think they'll do? You seem to assume they're ragequit immediately, but I think it's far more likely that they'll dial back their usage, explore replacements for certain features, exchange alternate contact info with FB-only friends, etc. Only much later will they actually delete or show a significant usage decrease. That scenario isn't hypothetical, it's exactly what I'm doing. I've made the decision to disengage from Facebook, but I still show up as an active user because I'm not done with the process. If you're going to measure a phenomenon with data, you have to understand what you're measuring and have an instrument that will detect that. Otherwise, it's just sciency voodoo.