5 ms·

Like heat mapping a visual UI, there are a lot of people out there recording audio. However, I think that I disagree with you on whether or not sharing the dat

Like heat mapping a visual UI, there are a lot of people out there recording audio. However, I think that I disagree with you on whether or not sharing the data is important. If you are heat mapping me, like facebook and probably everyone else from Microsoft to CNN and FoxNews does, or you are recording me like everyone from Facebook to Samsung does, I'm sorry, I've got a problem with it. I don't care if you don't share that data. I don't want Samsung recording what's going on in my living room. Doesn't matter if the data isn't shared. It's just the principle of the thing. It's gotten to the point where I actually purchased a certain model of Sony TV, because the teardown verified that there is no microphone in it. Then I tossed the remote control and got a generic remote with no voice control. People joke about me being paranoid, but I'm not paranoid. Sheez... I'm old and boring, I know that no one cares about what's going on in my house or on my computers. I'm just stubborn. Why let the privacy invaders win?

code_duck 8y ago
The difference is how the data is used and the whether it's associated with an individual's permanent personal data. If it's only gathered anonymously and used for internal UI improvement, that isn't objectionable. At the other extreme, association with a real-world individual enables many uses that are potentially harmful, such as unmasking those who legitimately prefer to be anonymous. Edit: I wanted to add that I didn't intent to focus on whether the data is shared. I think FB having and using it is bad enough, especially if they're ubiquitous. Also, once anyone creates such data, other entities such as governments will seek to obtain it and likely do so eventually.
- gbrown 8y ago
  Anonymous data is one identifier or clever match away from identification. This is particularly severe for sites/services/hardware that records audio (man, who would knowingly allow that kind of abuse??), but it can apply to mouse tracking too. Mouse tracking fingerprints could be used to re-identify all sorts of other things.
  - code_duck 8y ago
    It depends how much data is collected in the first place, and how much is available to the person trying to break anonymization. If I'm not mistaken, everything is deanonymizable with global traffic analysis.
- mkay581 8y ago
  For some people, there is no difference ultimately. Because it's not that they aren't doing anything malicious with the collected data now, it's about the fact that they CAN do it if they desire to (ethical or not) in the future--the data is being collected, stored (perhaps indefinitely), and will always be accessible. In a world where capitalism reigns, to think that any large corporate business would treat our data with the best care and in our bests interests seems a little silly. I have always held the belief that businesses are not people and it's reasonable to expect that businesses may not be inclined to always do the right thing, especially if it gains them more money and power.
  - code_duck 8y ago
    I'm picturing the minimum being a system that collects nothing more than a mouse movements, rather than also IP address, full URL, user account, and other details that could easily tie it to a person. I mean more the minimum as an abstract ideal, than something anyone actually does.
- jhayward 8y ago
  There is no such thing as anonymous data. The belief that something is anonymous is simply an aspect of statistical ignorance or naiveté. And, since we can't know in advance all the ways data can be combined, recombined, projected, and analyzed there is no such thing as informed consent to use said data unless specifically restricted to a single analysis using only given data.
  - code_duck 8y ago
    I realize this, but I can picture a bare minimum store of heatmap generated data that would be extremely difficult to use for anything other than knowing what people on the website clicked on. Indeed, the more info collected, the more likely someone can combine it with other data to make broader conclusions. Such as, any time you store a precise time in connection with user actions that has privacy implications. I picture simply not recording the time or exact URL. If the system is designed without any sort of privacy in mind, and just records whatever data is convenient and too much, that's easier to abuse than one that intentionally records a minimum with privacy in mind. I agree it's amazing the way all of this can be subverted, and yes, I realize that HN is stocked with data scientists who are more knowledgeable about this than I am.
dbuder 8y ago
They could use the speakers as a microphone. Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you.
anoncoward111 8y ago
Not only that, but it makes the sites literally unplayable on most devices and computers manufactured more than like 2 years ago. The technical bloat is horrendous.
twostoned 8y ago
I'm on your side mate. Everyone seems to think people like us are nuts. Only time will tell what side of history we were on. Be the change you want to see in the world and all that. Big faceless corporations make me uncomfortable in general; having their tentacles in my home, with my family, makes me even more uncomfortable. Don't pitch me any nonsense about trying to provide me with a service because that's absurd: you literally have to use technology to be a part of modern society. There's no option. I don't care if people think I'm a wacko for being privacy conscious, I think they're wacko for the opposite. Even if there is no future horrible implications of the surveillance state, which is hard to imagine, I think just trying to exist without having every micro detail of my life profiled by what seems like every mega international on the planet is a worthwhile ambition. I got carried away and rambling but I mean, come on. Mouse movements? Really? I suppose you have to give them credit they are creative in a very perverted sense.
gvurrdon 8y ago
May I ask what model of television that was? Might be worth getting one myself.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  43x800d You need to be careful though because the microphone is in the remote control instead. So buy the remote control WITHOUT voice control, get rid of the remote that comes with the TV, and you're good. There will be no mic's in your tv setup. (This will cost you a bit extra. About 20 or 30 bucks for a generic one.) A second problem is that it is a smart tv, so you have to make sure to NOT connect it to the internet and get your smart services via a box you control. (I haven't been able to prove that Sony siphons smart data usage from its tv's the way the Samsung Android tv's do, but it is technically possible for them to do so.) In any case, under no circumstances should you get a samsung. You can't even use those tvs without the privacy invasion equipment activated.
  - jake_the_third 8y ago
    Thank you for sharing this information. I have a 10 year-old tv that I might get replaced soon, so your comment is very helpful. >You can't even use those tvs without the privacy invasion equipment activated. Could you elaborate further? If I don't connect a samsung smart TV to my network, shouldn't I still be able to use it as a normal TV?
  - gvurrdon 8y ago
    Thanks. I'm in similar circumstances to jake_the_third and have been wondering for some time about how to find a decent television that's not full of this. Indeed, I would never buy a Samsung smart TV (or phone).
AngryData 8y ago
I agree with all of that. Personally I don't even use a smart phone because of the lack of controls over knowing what or who is tracking whatever crazy shit. I either carry a laptop or a netbook when I go places, which isn't perfect still, but with proper precautions is fairly secure. I don't do anything im worried about people finding out, but that doesn't mean I want to let them listen in either. Maybe if someone was upfront about it from the beginning or showed us what they were truly doing, but seeing how shady it all seems to be makes me assume they are doing shady shit with it.

code_duck 8y ago

The difference is how the data is used and the whether it's associated with an individual's permanent personal data. If it's only gathered anonymously and used for internal UI improvement, that isn't objectionable. At the other extreme, association with a real-world individual enables many uses that are potentially harmful, such as unmasking those who legitimately prefer to be anonymous. Edit: I wanted to add that I didn't intent to focus on whether the data is shared. I think FB having and using it is bad enough, especially if they're ubiquitous. Also, once anyone creates such data, other entities such as governments will seek to obtain it and likely do so eventually.

gbrown 8y ago
Anonymous data is one identifier or clever match away from identification. This is particularly severe for sites/services/hardware that records audio (man, who would knowingly allow that kind of abuse??), but it can apply to mouse tracking too. Mouse tracking fingerprints could be used to re-identify all sorts of other things.
- code_duck 8y ago
  It depends how much data is collected in the first place, and how much is available to the person trying to break anonymization. If I'm not mistaken, everything is deanonymizable with global traffic analysis.
mkay581 8y ago
For some people, there is no difference ultimately. Because it's not that they aren't doing anything malicious with the collected data now, it's about the fact that they CAN do it if they desire to (ethical or not) in the future--the data is being collected, stored (perhaps indefinitely), and will always be accessible. In a world where capitalism reigns, to think that any large corporate business would treat our data with the best care and in our bests interests seems a little silly. I have always held the belief that businesses are not people and it's reasonable to expect that businesses may not be inclined to always do the right thing, especially if it gains them more money and power.
- code_duck 8y ago
  I'm picturing the minimum being a system that collects nothing more than a mouse movements, rather than also IP address, full URL, user account, and other details that could easily tie it to a person. I mean more the minimum as an abstract ideal, than something anyone actually does.
jhayward 8y ago
There is no such thing as anonymous data. The belief that something is anonymous is simply an aspect of statistical ignorance or naiveté. And, since we can't know in advance all the ways data can be combined, recombined, projected, and analyzed there is no such thing as informed consent to use said data unless specifically restricted to a single analysis using only given data.
- code_duck 8y ago
  I realize this, but I can picture a bare minimum store of heatmap generated data that would be extremely difficult to use for anything other than knowing what people on the website clicked on. Indeed, the more info collected, the more likely someone can combine it with other data to make broader conclusions. Such as, any time you store a precise time in connection with user actions that has privacy implications. I picture simply not recording the time or exact URL. If the system is designed without any sort of privacy in mind, and just records whatever data is convenient and too much, that's easier to abuse than one that intentionally records a minimum with privacy in mind. I agree it's amazing the way all of this can be subverted, and yes, I realize that HN is stocked with data scientists who are more knowledgeable about this than I am.

dbuder 8y ago

They could use the speakers as a microphone. Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you.

anoncoward111 8y ago

Not only that, but it makes the sites literally unplayable on most devices and computers manufactured more than like 2 years ago. The technical bloat is horrendous.

twostoned 8y ago

I'm on your side mate. Everyone seems to think people like us are nuts. Only time will tell what side of history we were on. Be the change you want to see in the world and all that. Big faceless corporations make me uncomfortable in general; having their tentacles in my home, with my family, makes me even more uncomfortable. Don't pitch me any nonsense about trying to provide me with a service because that's absurd: you literally have to use technology to be a part of modern society. There's no option. I don't care if people think I'm a wacko for being privacy conscious, I think they're wacko for the opposite. Even if there is no future horrible implications of the surveillance state, which is hard to imagine, I think just trying to exist without having every micro detail of my life profiled by what seems like every mega international on the planet is a worthwhile ambition. I got carried away and rambling but I mean, come on. Mouse movements? Really? I suppose you have to give them credit they are creative in a very perverted sense.

gvurrdon 8y ago

May I ask what model of television that was? Might be worth getting one myself.

bilbo0s 8y ago
43x800d You need to be careful though because the microphone is in the remote control instead. So buy the remote control WITHOUT voice control, get rid of the remote that comes with the TV, and you're good. There will be no mic's in your tv setup. (This will cost you a bit extra. About 20 or 30 bucks for a generic one.) A second problem is that it is a smart tv, so you have to make sure to NOT connect it to the internet and get your smart services via a box you control. (I haven't been able to prove that Sony siphons smart data usage from its tv's the way the Samsung Android tv's do, but it is technically possible for them to do so.) In any case, under no circumstances should you get a samsung. You can't even use those tvs without the privacy invasion equipment activated.
- jake_the_third 8y ago
  Thank you for sharing this information. I have a 10 year-old tv that I might get replaced soon, so your comment is very helpful. >You can't even use those tvs without the privacy invasion equipment activated. Could you elaborate further? If I don't connect a samsung smart TV to my network, shouldn't I still be able to use it as a normal TV?
- gvurrdon 8y ago
  Thanks. I'm in similar circumstances to jake_the_third and have been wondering for some time about how to find a decent television that's not full of this. Indeed, I would never buy a Samsung smart TV (or phone).

AngryData 8y ago

I agree with all of that. Personally I don't even use a smart phone because of the lack of controls over knowing what or who is tracking whatever crazy shit. I either carry a laptop or a netbook when I go places, which isn't perfect still, but with proper precautions is fairly secure. I don't do anything im worried about people finding out, but that doesn't mean I want to let them listen in either. Maybe if someone was upfront about it from the beginning or showed us what they were truly doing, but seeing how shady it all seems to be makes me assume they are doing shady shit with it.