4 ms·

> For commercial surveillance to be cost effective, it has to socialize all the risks associated with mass surveillance and privatize all the gains. That's the

by mtgx 8y ago

> For commercial surveillance to be cost effective, it has to socialize all the risks associated with mass surveillance and privatize all the gains. That's the biggest insight of the article. That's exactly what the likes of Facebook and Google (and telecoms, and data brokers, etc) are doing.

Jyaif 8y ago
Can somebody help me understand this sentence? What is "commercial surveillance"? What are "risks associated with mass surveillance"?
- droopyEyelids 8y ago
  Throughout history there has never been an organization that lasted forever, let alone one that lasted forever with benign leadership. Any organization with massive surveillance data that lacks beneficent leaders may harm people.
- munificent 8y ago
  > What is "commercial surveillance"? When a for-profit company ("commercial") gathers large, detailed dossiers of millions of people ("surveillance"). For example, if you use Twitter, go to https://twitter.com/settings/your_twitter_data https://twitter.com/settings/your_twitter_data and look at the stuff under "Interests and ads data". That's the tip of the iceberg. > What are "risks associated with mass surveillance"? Like the article says, when a company has access to detailed personal information about lots and lots of people, many bad things can happen: * That information can be stolen by hackers and then used for identity theft or social engineering to gain access to private accounts. Think about how to reset your bank password your bank asks you questions like "where did you meet your first significant other?" Then consider how that event is probably on your Facebook feed. * Companies like Cambridge Analytica can buy "ads" that are precisely targeted using that data to persuade certain groups of people to show up or not show up at polls and influence elections in non-Democratic ways. Etc.
tough_cookies 8y ago
While I want to agree with this, it's hard to argue that Facebook and Google "privatize all the gains." If you added up all of the economic value that google's zero-dollar-cost products provide globally (even ignoring Facebook which IMO has a much more dubious net value), that's going to be a pretty big number.

by mtgx 8y ago

Jyaif 8y ago

Can somebody help me understand this sentence? What is "commercial surveillance"? What are "risks associated with mass surveillance"?

droopyEyelids 8y ago
Throughout history there has never been an organization that lasted forever, let alone one that lasted forever with benign leadership. Any organization with massive surveillance data that lacks beneficent leaders may harm people.
munificent 8y ago
> What is "commercial surveillance"? When a for-profit company ("commercial") gathers large, detailed dossiers of millions of people ("surveillance"). For example, if you use Twitter, go to https://twitter.com/settings/your_twitter_data https://twitter.com/settings/your_twitter_data and look at the stuff under "Interests and ads data". That's the tip of the iceberg. > What are "risks associated with mass surveillance"? Like the article says, when a company has access to detailed personal information about lots and lots of people, many bad things can happen: * That information can be stolen by hackers and then used for identity theft or social engineering to gain access to private accounts. Think about how to reset your bank password your bank asks you questions like "where did you meet your first significant other?" Then consider how that event is probably on your Facebook feed. * Companies like Cambridge Analytica can buy "ads" that are precisely targeted using that data to persuade certain groups of people to show up or not show up at polls and influence elections in non-Democratic ways. Etc.

tough_cookies 8y ago

While I want to agree with this, it's hard to argue that Facebook and Google "privatize all the gains." If you added up all of the economic value that google's zero-dollar-cost products provide globally (even ignoring Facebook which IMO has a much more dubious net value), that's going to be a pretty big number.