5 ms·

Can we really continue to claim that we're unaware Google, Facebook, and other web companies are monitoring everything they can and sharing the information they

Can we really continue to claim that we're unaware Google, Facebook, and other web companies are monitoring everything they can and sharing the information they collect, sometimes for profit, sometimes accidentally, and sometimes compelled by legal orders? This isn't merely a legal technicality hidden in the terms of service. We know they're doing it, and by continuing to use the service we are consenting, however unhappily.

394549 8y ago
> Can we really continue to claim that we're unaware Google, Facebook, and other web companies are monitoring everything they can and sharing the information they collect, sometimes for profit, sometimes accidentally, and sometimes compelled by legal orders? Yes, we can. 1. Some people (mostly technologists) are aware, but many people aren't. 2. Much of the awareness that does exist was not the result of those companies being transparent about their practices. It's the result of inferences based on scraps of information and speculation.
- leereeves 8y ago
  Surely the author, editor, and publisher of this article, and anyone likely to read it, are aware. "We" are aware.
  - 394549 8y ago
    > Surely the author, editor, and publisher of this article, and anyone likely to read it, are aware. We are aware. That's a really weird statement. Articles are published so that readers can be informed of things that the author and editors have become aware of. Often many articles are published on the same subject because 1) many people missed previous articles, 2) there a new update that people aren't aware of, 3) people forgot and it's a good time to remind them, 4) it's not news-facts article but a persuasive piece, 5) etc. >> 2. Much of the awareness that does exist was not the result of those companies being transparent about their practices. It's the result of inferences based on scraps of information and speculation. This means that "we" aren't as aware as you make us out to be.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      > Articles are published so that readers can be informed of things that the author and editors have become aware of. This is an opinion piece. It's written to persuade, not to inform, but its argument is founded on shaky ground.
      - tivert 8y ago
        >> Articles are published so that readers can be informed of things that the author and editors have become aware of. > This is an opinion piece. Opinions and ideas are things that one can be informed of.
        leereeves 8y ago
        Ok, but is this article intended to inform us that "this opinion exists" or convince us that "this opinion is right"?
JDWolf 8y ago
I'd like to know the extent/methods of the tracking and whether I can avoid it by not using their services and cleaning out my browsers and not using gmail.
harryf 8y ago
If I count the number of times recently I've read and heard people say "Well switch to Instagram or WhatsApp" in reaction to hearing about Facebook's privacy track record, then the answer to your question is No - the public is largely clueless. (In case you weren't aware, Facebook owns Instagram and WhatsApp)
- maemilius 8y ago
  I feel like the group of people that know Facebook owns Instagram and WhatsApp are not mutually inclusive of the group that knows that Facebook will collect literally everything it possibly can about you. My impression of the issue is that most people simply don't care.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    > My impression of the issue is that most people simply don't care. This is my impression as well, and I find it a bit of elitist arrogance to tell them they should. Different people value their data at different levels and we shouldn't be so quick to make it harder for them to give it away if they choose. A simple question one should ask while picking up their pitchfork is whether their perceived righteousness is based on perceived stupidity by the masses (and whether the perception is based on some anecdotal evidence). And if you really believe stupidity is that rampant, you can set your law-making pitchfork down and advocate education.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Nobody is saying that they shouldn't be able to, rather that they should be informed as to what they're doing so they can actually make that decision. Without knowing what is happening, they cannot make an informed decision.
      - kodablah 8y ago
        >> we shouldn't be so quick to make it harder > that they should be informed as to what they're doing so they can actually make that decision These two items are at odds with one another in an opt-in situation.
petermcneeley 8y ago
"We know they're doing it, and by continuing to use the service we are consenting" This is a very narrow notion of consent. Sounds very libertarian.
- leereeves 8y ago
  Legally, we're consenting when we agree to the terms of service. If we didn't know they were doing this we might have a legitimate objection that the ToS are abusive, but that argument is far less compelling if we know they're doing this and agree to the ToS anyway.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  Even libertarians would have issue with that definition when you try to say that you consent to the government's laws by continuing to live under the government.
fx32s 8y ago
I'd argue that the risk of such vulnerabilities with smaller companies is way higher but they are just not disclosed. Many people are also fine with the data for free services trade.
geodel 8y ago
We can continue in sense things that benefit us we claim ignorance about that is made possible and provided for 'free'. But deep down I think people will know that something gotta give even if technical/legal/marketing copy says it is all free. It is same thing that people here consider those half million salaries normal in valley without honestly thinking how this is made possible in first place. For them its cutting edge machine learning work etc, is a good enough answer.
specialist 8y ago
Every thing about every person (living or dead) is being tracked in near real-time. I've commented here many times about Seisent (bought by Lexis/Nexus). In the mid 2000s they had uniquely identified everyone in North America, Caribbean, and making in roads into Central & South America. Just from public records. One of their customers was the NSA, which also tied in money and phone. (My employer was prototyping using Seisent to help uniquely identify patients across heterogenous orgs. It worked great, but cost too much for our use case.) Seisent was (is) just one of many "independents" (third party). Today, FAANG and all the little dragons are doing the same. -- The ridiculous part of the controversy is pretending we don't know who everyone is. Our voter registration database could trivially be near perfect in real-time. Every immigrant. Every homeless person. Every missing person (not yet dead). Etc. "dropping off the grid" is not possible.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Didn't say no" is a very, very bad standard for consent.
fartcannon 8y ago
Probably makes sense to through Microsoft in there. Also Amazon and Apple, too.
noja 8y ago
> Can we really continue to claim that we're unaware Yes, I can. Why? Because I only have a vague abstract notion that they collect data and do something with it before turning that into cash. How am I meant to explain this to my friends and family, beyond "they are bad"? I've never seen a fully worked through example of exactly what they are doing with all this data. Please point me at an article or video or something that everyone else has already seen a hundred times, because I still haven't found that one thing that will convince other people.

394549 8y ago

> Can we really continue to claim that we're unaware Google, Facebook, and other web companies are monitoring everything they can and sharing the information they collect, sometimes for profit, sometimes accidentally, and sometimes compelled by legal orders? Yes, we can. 1. Some people (mostly technologists) are aware, but many people aren't. 2. Much of the awareness that does exist was not the result of those companies being transparent about their practices. It's the result of inferences based on scraps of information and speculation.

leereeves 8y ago
Surely the author, editor, and publisher of this article, and anyone likely to read it, are aware. "We" are aware.
- 394549 8y ago
  > Surely the author, editor, and publisher of this article, and anyone likely to read it, are aware. We are aware. That's a really weird statement. Articles are published so that readers can be informed of things that the author and editors have become aware of. Often many articles are published on the same subject because 1) many people missed previous articles, 2) there a new update that people aren't aware of, 3) people forgot and it's a good time to remind them, 4) it's not news-facts article but a persuasive piece, 5) etc. >> 2. Much of the awareness that does exist was not the result of those companies being transparent about their practices. It's the result of inferences based on scraps of information and speculation. This means that "we" aren't as aware as you make us out to be.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    > Articles are published so that readers can be informed of things that the author and editors have become aware of. This is an opinion piece. It's written to persuade, not to inform, but its argument is founded on shaky ground.
    - tivert 8y ago
      >> Articles are published so that readers can be informed of things that the author and editors have become aware of. > This is an opinion piece. Opinions and ideas are things that one can be informed of.
      - leereeves 8y ago
        Ok, but is this article intended to inform us that "this opinion exists" or convince us that "this opinion is right"?

JDWolf 8y ago

I'd like to know the extent/methods of the tracking and whether I can avoid it by not using their services and cleaning out my browsers and not using gmail.

harryf 8y ago

If I count the number of times recently I've read and heard people say "Well switch to Instagram or WhatsApp" in reaction to hearing about Facebook's privacy track record, then the answer to your question is No - the public is largely clueless. (In case you weren't aware, Facebook owns Instagram and WhatsApp)

maemilius 8y ago
I feel like the group of people that know Facebook owns Instagram and WhatsApp are not mutually inclusive of the group that knows that Facebook will collect literally everything it possibly can about you. My impression of the issue is that most people simply don't care.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > My impression of the issue is that most people simply don't care. This is my impression as well, and I find it a bit of elitist arrogance to tell them they should. Different people value their data at different levels and we shouldn't be so quick to make it harder for them to give it away if they choose. A simple question one should ask while picking up their pitchfork is whether their perceived righteousness is based on perceived stupidity by the masses (and whether the perception is based on some anecdotal evidence). And if you really believe stupidity is that rampant, you can set your law-making pitchfork down and advocate education.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Nobody is saying that they shouldn't be able to, rather that they should be informed as to what they're doing so they can actually make that decision. Without knowing what is happening, they cannot make an informed decision.
    - kodablah 8y ago
      >> we shouldn't be so quick to make it harder > that they should be informed as to what they're doing so they can actually make that decision These two items are at odds with one another in an opt-in situation.

petermcneeley 8y ago

"We know they're doing it, and by continuing to use the service we are consenting" This is a very narrow notion of consent. Sounds very libertarian.

leereeves 8y ago
Legally, we're consenting when we agree to the terms of service. If we didn't know they were doing this we might have a legitimate objection that the ToS are abusive, but that argument is far less compelling if we know they're doing this and agree to the ToS anyway.
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
Even libertarians would have issue with that definition when you try to say that you consent to the government's laws by continuing to live under the government.

fx32s 8y ago

I'd argue that the risk of such vulnerabilities with smaller companies is way higher but they are just not disclosed. Many people are also fine with the data for free services trade.

geodel 8y ago

We can continue in sense things that benefit us we claim ignorance about that is made possible and provided for 'free'. But deep down I think people will know that something gotta give even if technical/legal/marketing copy says it is all free. It is same thing that people here consider those half million salaries normal in valley without honestly thinking how this is made possible in first place. For them its cutting edge machine learning work etc, is a good enough answer.

specialist 8y ago

Every thing about every person (living or dead) is being tracked in near real-time. I've commented here many times about Seisent (bought by Lexis/Nexus). In the mid 2000s they had uniquely identified everyone in North America, Caribbean, and making in roads into Central & South America. Just from public records. One of their customers was the NSA, which also tied in money and phone. (My employer was prototyping using Seisent to help uniquely identify patients across heterogenous orgs. It worked great, but cost too much for our use case.) Seisent was (is) just one of many "independents" (third party). Today, FAANG and all the little dragons are doing the same. -- The ridiculous part of the controversy is pretending we don't know who everyone is. Our voter registration database could trivially be near perfect in real-time. Every immigrant. Every homeless person. Every missing person (not yet dead). Etc. "dropping off the grid" is not possible.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"Didn't say no" is a very, very bad standard for consent.

fartcannon 8y ago

Probably makes sense to through Microsoft in there. Also Amazon and Apple, too.

noja 8y ago

> Can we really continue to claim that we're unaware Yes, I can. Why? Because I only have a vague abstract notion that they collect data and do something with it before turning that into cash. How am I meant to explain this to my friends and family, beyond "they are bad"? I've never seen a fully worked through example of exactly what they are doing with all this data. Please point me at an article or video or something that everyone else has already seen a hundred times, because I still haven't found that one thing that will convince other people.