16 ms·

Invisible Manipulation: ways our data is being used against us

• pq0ak2nnd 8y ago
  I wish this article had actual substance and not just a listicle of off-the-cuff one-liners.
  • dotdi 8y ago
    Most of the very, very short content is true. Being one-liners lessens it's credibility considerably, in my opinion. It's almost like just writing "chemtrails" on a wall.
  • ex3xu 8y ago
    You can click into the links to see the full case-study length explanation.
  • sankalpbihani 8y ago
    It does have links to articles for more details (click on title)
• mario0b1 8y ago
  >Soon the default will shift from us interacting directly with our devices to interacting with devices we have no control over and no knowledge that we are generating data. That's already the case. The big problem is that no one cares about it, because it seems like everything just work fine. I don't know and I can't tell if bad things will happen to us with our data everywhere, but it's possible. But how could we possibly convince "normal" people that giving your data out for free is bad?
  • toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    I’ve tried and failed more often than not. Most of the time the very subject matter is so “boring” that I never get very far. I’m not sure what to do either, most people don’t see the problem and find the topic too obscure to inform themselves.
    • isodude 8y ago
      It takes a special mind to delve into such topics. This will and has been the case. Those that understands it becomes responsible to inform other of which settings they should have. While not needing to explaining why. That should apply to most (scientists, networking, philosophy). I think the above mindset at least helps me out to really dumb it down/skip to the real effects when speaking to others. Well, I try ;) But there's always a shimmer of hope that someone will pick something up and go deeper, but that does not happen regularly. So what to do? Start an online group with people with the same focus and do the battle. Nobody else will care until it's changed and it starts to affect their daily life.
  • candiodari 8y ago
    The issue with that is that it's not "your" data. Not because you owe it to the internet companies, or because you give it to the government, which then uses it both for commercial purposes and directly against you (pervasive in China). Your data is not yours because you aren't unique enough to have unique data. So there are tens of thousands of humans alive that are essentially direct copies of you, at least in terms of behavior. They might have a different address, but they can be influenced in exactly the same way. So this is not a battle that can be won.
    • Individualist 8y ago
      Depends on what you mean by won. Is your data used to make you a better consumer or prosumer? Is data collected without your knowledge actually useful? Twitter data jumps to mind, a lot of junk.
      • candiodari 8y ago
        Meaning that keeping data away from people who would use it for their own purposes, from selling you something to impounding your car if you're behind on payments cannot realistically be accompolished. For each use, judge for yourself if that's good or bad, effective or ineffective, but the purpose doesn't change whether the data is available or not.
        • Individualist 8y ago
          Bad data is bad data. It's true it gets averaged out due to the masses. Still it does provide a somewhat accurate picture, but has a degree of error. Best means I can argue this are colleagues in plant life and marine biology using the same tools are still attempting to get concrete predictive data for the environment. It's simply not there yet.
          • candiodari 8y ago
            Nope. What I'm saying is that YOU're average (and me, and everyone). Which means that given a few facts about you, the rest can be correctly inferred. Which means that you cannot prevent systems from inferring how you can, say, be induced to buy something, because you cannot keep those few trivial facts it needs for that from the system.
  • diminoten 8y ago
    Because everything is fine. The big conceit from privacy advocates is they think people don't know their data is being collected and used, but the reality is, they do know. They just don't care. Show me a concrete negative impact on my life as a result of the passive data collection perpetrated by Google, Facebook, et. al., and you might change my mind, depending on how negative it is. I get a lot out of the products I pay for with my data. It feels like a bargain, honestly.
    • sveme 8y ago
      If a company uses the tracking data to personalize prizes of stuff that you are interested in, you suddenly might pay much more than you think without ever being aware of it.
      • diminoten 8y ago
        I doubt that a) companies would do that in general and b) the few that do are charging low enough of a premium that they're still competitive.
        • skummetmaelk 8y ago
          You doubt that companies would do this? Amazon already does it. Airline companies use location heuristics.
          • diminoten 8y ago
            > Amazon already does it. No they don't.
    • hahahihi 8y ago
      As we dont know what the future will bring ethnic clensing is a realistic cenario. It wont happen or it wont happen to me lacks optimism about how long the future lasts.
      • 8y ago
• noja 8y ago
  A short video would reach the non-choir audience better.
  • nukleosome 8y ago
    they've already done that here: https://privacyinternational.org/campaigns/uncovering-hidden-data-ecosystem https://privacyinternational.org/campaigns/uncovering-hidden... as part of their campaign
• ex3xu 8y ago
  I get annoyed even by the purported advantages of data collection, like Youtube or Amazon recommendations. Just because I curiously clicked on a stream of data points six weeks ago does not mean I suddenly want to be inundated with more of that random tangent today. So I hate logical positivism. From logical positivism we get the philosophical foundation of modern tracking and advertising, that every data point obtained about a subject is necessarily meaningful and actionable, and that which cannot be measured does not exist. From there we get the unhealthy Nielsen-style reductionist tendencies in marketing that believes all it needs to know about you is your age, race, gender, sexuality, and income bracket. I think Frankl's discussion on dimensional ontology is the most complete picture I've found of why this is a flawed point of view, though I think any person who has been discriminated against based solely on one of those criteria should be able to understand the limitations of that model. I hope we can start to understand better as a tech culture that, unfortunately, human beings are decidedly unscientific in the sense that past data collected will not always provide accurate conclusions about future behavior. People grow and change, and collecting data silently in the background and trying to draw actionable conclusions without active user input and feedback is a fundamentally inefficient process, with harms that can be quite difficult to measure, though this article articulates some of them quite well. I suppose I can imagine that if we lived in a society free from the incentives generating the kind of abuses this article lists, and someone has generated an algorithm that could help you find meaning and success and fulfillment and loving relationships based on all the tracking data you provide, I can imagine this to be the dream of big data for which the sacrifice of privacy might be a necessary one. But given that we still live in a society that prefers exploitation to altruism, what we can salvage of our privacy is still probably the best option until we can reach that next stage of our evolution.
  • candiodari 8y ago
    You realize that you're just complaining "they" are not using your data well enough. You certainly can't realistically sort through youtube yourself, nor can you realistically find what you need on Amazon. Fact is you cannot use these sites realistically without these algorithms. It just can't be done. Or at least one can say, you can use Amazon and Youtube better when guided by these algorithms. I do think that it is the difference between not being able to use them at all and using them, but maybe you think it's just a bit less than that. (also logical positivism and inferring things through statistics are pretty much diametrically opposite things. No logical positivist is ever going to accept statistical evidence about anything, but no matter) > I suppose I can imagine that if we lived in a society free from exploitation, and someone has generated an algorithm that could help you find meaning and success and fulfillment based on all the tracking data. That's exactly what these algorithms do. They try to find what YOU would find meaningful and fulfilling and they really do try to give it to you. When that means money will be exchanged they prefer one vendor (that has paid them) over another (which hasn't, or paid less), but does that really change anything ?
• crunchiebones 8y ago
  why did '10' just disappear from the title? pretty sure I didn't edit it by accident ._.
  • pault 8y ago
    HN has an explicit rule against "$N reasons why..." headlines, AKA listicles.
• mattbierner 8y ago
  Instead of trying to prevent data collection, what if we made simple tools that let anyone make their data less useful: data pollution or telemetry vandalism if you will. Either generate a bunch of noise or try exploiting analysis such that a machine would not be able to tell real from fake. Simple example: instead of an ad blocker, everyone runs a script that “clicks” on every single ad they see
  • jstanley 8y ago
    Here you go: https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/
  • Nasrudith 8y ago
    I suspect they wouldn't notice the difference. There are already plenty of click-farming frauds for advertisements one. The targeting seems more like it is a conceit that individual tracking is more useful than responding to what they are currently looking for. I personally find aggregate based data far more useful with suggestions than anything personalized. Like if I am searching for a novel it links to similar ones liked by other people. If someone is searching for cat toys on Amazon they already know what they want and you can target relevant ads to them.
• pasbesoin 8y ago
  Just look at the asymmetry. These organizations push to collect as much data as possible on every aspect of our lives. But when it comes to information on what they are doing -- and the truth of their internal world? No, that's proprietary, a trade secret, etc., etc., and they slap non-disclosure and non-disparagement strictures on everything and everyone they can. In other words, look at their actions, not their words. That should tell you something about the value of all this data. And about their self-serving hypocrisy.
• ddebernardy 8y ago
  > Cities around the world are deploying collecting increasing amounts of data and the public is not part of deciding if and how such systems are deployed. Really now? Aren't city officials elected in North America and Europe - and most other places nowadays? Go vote if you mind it.
• louprado 8y ago
  How is calculation of health insurance premiums not #1 on this list ? Recently I purchased a DIY mole removal product from Amazon. An expansive actuary table would show a "concern about moles" has a slight positive correlation with "skin cancer". Arguably my premium should go up because of this. It also blows my mind that Amazon won't allow you to delete a purchase from your Amazon order history. It is there forever and there is no reason that data can't be sold even if the account is closed. To be fair I am making assumptions without having read the privacy policy in Amazon's EULA.
  • lightswitch05 8y ago
    I agree that this is a glaring omission. Car insurance companies already have monitoring devices you can plug into your ODBII connector that monitors all your driving behavior. OnStar also has the ability to report driving behaviors to insurance companies. Or how about companies that claim your credit worthiness can be judged by your Facebook friends and posts. How long until these extremely invasive practices become so profitable that companies make it required? I worked for a company whose Heath insurance offered $50 to employees that got a heath screening through them. The next year it was no longer a discount, but a fee if you did not participate.
    • lotsofpulp 8y ago
      Insurance makes sense for random events, especially not under the insured’s control. Ignoring healthcare, since it’s not even an insurancable risk, people who drive safely are subsidizing people who drive in more risky ways, but only because in the past, the technology wasn’t there (or cheap enough) to provide all of the data to accurately price them. Now that it is possible, I don’t see why people who take more risks on the road should be subsidized by those who don’t.
      • lightswitch05 8y ago
        My comment is on the loss of privacy. I am not an aggressive driver and I suspect that I might get a discount if I joined one of these programs, but I value my privacy too much for that. I do not want my every move monitored by my insurance. OnStar would even have the ability to report GPS location. How much longer then until the locations you visit are also factored in- or perhaps that info is used to ‘enrich’ other insurance types. What if your car insurance shared with your health insurance that you visit fast food restaurants twice a week? That’s hypothetical right now, but my point is that the data is so valuable that companies will become more and more invasive to get it- especially insurance. At some point these optional privacy violating practices will become required unless we have legislation protecting us.