6 ms·

There are 7 Billion people in this world. I've have come to accept I am simply not that important. I'm sure BigBrother has too.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
This statement both ignores the tremendous effect smartphones have on you personally (as opposed to others being interested in you), and the tremendous effect tech platforms have on large scale groups of unimportant people.
- blackflame7000 8y ago
  Oh no doubt, and it does so intentionally. A voice assistant in my house effects me and only me. Therefore, I am ok with the privacy/convenience tradeoff because frankly IDK what Google thinks they know about me, but I google way too much random crap to ever put together a half-way decent profile about me and my interests.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    The whole point of big data is finding patterns in large amounts of seemingly random information.
    - blackflame7000 8y ago
      Maybe, but HFT have been working a long time to find a pattern in the markets. Human's are random and Sampling can only tell you so much especially when sampling bias is so easy to do accidentally
      - sah2ed 8y ago
        Humans can be spontaneous yes, but not exactly random. In aggregate, human behavior from online activities is predictable [0] according to Seth Stephens-Davidowitz in Everybody Lies. 0: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/review/B01AFXZ2F4/R2TPT5454UEKLK/ref=cm_cr_dp_mb_rvw_1?ie=UTF8&cursor=1 https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/review/B01AFXZ2F4/R2TPT5454UEKL...
        blackflame7000 8y ago
        To Quote the link you just posted, "Secondly, it's usually quite hard to control for all possible variables that may reflect a Google search; for instance in concluding that racism contributes the most to a particular political behavior, it's very hard to tease out all other factors that also may do so, especially when you are talking about a heterogeneous collection of human beings. How can you know that you have corrected for every possible factor? Thirdly and finally, the "science" part of "data science" still lacks rigor in my opinion. For instance, a lot of the conclusions the book talks about are based on single studies which don't seem to be repeated. In some cases the sample sizes are large, but in other cases they are small. Plus, people's opinions can change over time, so it's important to pick the right time window in which to do the study. All this points to great responsibility on the part of data scientists to make sure that their results are rigorous and not too simplistic, before they are taken up by both politicians and the general public as blunt instruments to change social policies. This responsibility increases especially as these approaches become more widespread and cheaper to use, especially in the hands of non-specialists. When you are in possession of a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail." - Thank you for making my point for me.
        sah2ed 8y ago
        You are not necessarily disagreeing with what I wrote about correlation, that humans are predictable in aggregate, which is the opposite of your point that humans are random (in aggregate). The text you quoted is disagreeing with the author with respect to the use of correlations to explain causality, which we both know will lead nowhere if all confounding variables are not properly accounted for; something which is infeasible to do in the real world.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
r00fus 8y ago
Go ahead and be an unpaid data gathering tool that can be used by bigcorps, those with the right exploit or (even if they don't do now) when ToS changes and that company starts selling your information to the highest bidder. They profit at your ignorance. The fact that it will execute commands with your recorded voice should tell you there's a lot of exploits that can happen without your intervention. If I want a device to start listening I'll go and push a button for it. The always listening stuff is way too big an vulnerability (like an unsecured API into your house).
- blackflame7000 8y ago
  I exist, and I also need email. Seems like a win-win for me and google. Realistically, what are you afraid of? Like I said if someone wanted to listen to me it would be very boring.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    If the only people who use private communications are those who need it, they'll be much easier to track, and that harms you indirectly.
    - blackflame7000 8y ago
      I mean they can only track what I choose to share with them. They don't have some magic wand that breaks HTTPS.
      - 908087 8y ago
        Actually, they do. It's called Google Analytics, and it exists on a very large portion of the web. TLS isn't going to help protect you when the site you're on is loaded with user tracking and analytics scripts anyway.
        ocdtrekkie 8y ago
        This is why Google's pushing HTTPS Everywhere so hard, just like net neutrality: It eliminates Google's competition in collecting and monetizing data about your viewing. Google will claim that they make these moves because they care about your privacy, security, and freedom, but malicious tracking scripts they don't do anything about, because that would close off their own profit scheme.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

This statement both ignores the tremendous effect smartphones have on you personally (as opposed to others being interested in you), and the tremendous effect tech platforms have on large scale groups of unimportant people.

blackflame7000 8y ago
Oh no doubt, and it does so intentionally. A voice assistant in my house effects me and only me. Therefore, I am ok with the privacy/convenience tradeoff because frankly IDK what Google thinks they know about me, but I google way too much random crap to ever put together a half-way decent profile about me and my interests.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  The whole point of big data is finding patterns in large amounts of seemingly random information.
  - blackflame7000 8y ago
    Maybe, but HFT have been working a long time to find a pattern in the markets. Human's are random and Sampling can only tell you so much especially when sampling bias is so easy to do accidentally
    - sah2ed 8y ago
      Humans can be spontaneous yes, but not exactly random. In aggregate, human behavior from online activities is predictable [0] according to Seth Stephens-Davidowitz in Everybody Lies. 0: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/review/B01AFXZ2F4/R2TPT5454UEKLK/ref=cm_cr_dp_mb_rvw_1?ie=UTF8&cursor=1 https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/review/B01AFXZ2F4/R2TPT5454UEKL...
      - blackflame7000 8y ago
        To Quote the link you just posted, "Secondly, it's usually quite hard to control for all possible variables that may reflect a Google search; for instance in concluding that racism contributes the most to a particular political behavior, it's very hard to tease out all other factors that also may do so, especially when you are talking about a heterogeneous collection of human beings. How can you know that you have corrected for every possible factor? Thirdly and finally, the "science" part of "data science" still lacks rigor in my opinion. For instance, a lot of the conclusions the book talks about are based on single studies which don't seem to be repeated. In some cases the sample sizes are large, but in other cases they are small. Plus, people's opinions can change over time, so it's important to pick the right time window in which to do the study. All this points to great responsibility on the part of data scientists to make sure that their results are rigorous and not too simplistic, before they are taken up by both politicians and the general public as blunt instruments to change social policies. This responsibility increases especially as these approaches become more widespread and cheaper to use, especially in the hands of non-specialists. When you are in possession of a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail." - Thank you for making my point for me.
        sah2ed 8y ago
        You are not necessarily disagreeing with what I wrote about correlation, that humans are predictable in aggregate, which is the opposite of your point that humans are random (in aggregate). The text you quoted is disagreeing with the author with respect to the use of correlations to explain causality, which we both know will lead nowhere if all confounding variables are not properly accounted for; something which is infeasible to do in the real world.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

r00fus 8y ago

Go ahead and be an unpaid data gathering tool that can be used by bigcorps, those with the right exploit or (even if they don't do now) when ToS changes and that company starts selling your information to the highest bidder. They profit at your ignorance. The fact that it will execute commands with your recorded voice should tell you there's a lot of exploits that can happen without your intervention. If I want a device to start listening I'll go and push a button for it. The always listening stuff is way too big an vulnerability (like an unsecured API into your house).

blackflame7000 8y ago
I exist, and I also need email. Seems like a win-win for me and google. Realistically, what are you afraid of? Like I said if someone wanted to listen to me it would be very boring.
- icebraining 8y ago
  If the only people who use private communications are those who need it, they'll be much easier to track, and that harms you indirectly.
  - blackflame7000 8y ago
    I mean they can only track what I choose to share with them. They don't have some magic wand that breaks HTTPS.
    - 908087 8y ago
      Actually, they do. It's called Google Analytics, and it exists on a very large portion of the web. TLS isn't going to help protect you when the site you're on is loaded with user tracking and analytics scripts anyway.
      - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
        This is why Google's pushing HTTPS Everywhere so hard, just like net neutrality: It eliminates Google's competition in collecting and monetizing data about your viewing. Google will claim that they make these moves because they care about your privacy, security, and freedom, but malicious tracking scripts they don't do anything about, because that would close off their own profit scheme.