6 ms·

At this point it seems like we've lost the "war" against intrusive data collection. Between my google searches, credit score, bank transactions & location data,

At this point it seems like we've lost the "war" against intrusive data collection. Between my google searches, credit score, bank transactions & location data, you could build a really accurate model of my life, probably yours too. The only respite we have is that all this data is discrete and spread among different actors, but we've already seen that the massive data collectors are just getting bigger and bigger, every new product is an avenue to collect another data set.

whatshisface 8y ago
How could we write a law to ban this without putting undue restrictions on legitimate technology? We could just have them stop.
- polskibus 8y ago
  Data tax? Pay 100 USD / month or 0.01 % revenue per one personal record?
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    I think people should have copyright over everything their creative human brains produce, including their purchasing decisions. Copyright can't be transferred away from the author, only licensed. My credit card history happens to be a piece of performance art commenting on consumerism, thank you very much.
    - epicide 8y ago
      > Copyright can't be transferred away from the author, only licensed. I'm not a lawyer, but this statement seems to be false according to this: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html
    - kaybe 8y ago
      Hm.. there must be a way to incorporate purchasing decisions into an art piece that make them very obviously part of copyright for that case..
      - bostik 8y ago
        Something like a map with symbols for brands and bars for aggregate expenditure? Add some way to warp through time to show how your personal spending habits have changed. You could call it Cost of Living.
- root_axis 8y ago
  > We could just have them stop. How? There are no political factions in the U.S. that would support such an agenda. Which party do you imagine taking up this issue?
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    You could have said the same thing about gay marriage or marijuana legalization in 2001. It's not like political change is impossible. In fact this change would be easier because it benefits the majority, unlike gay marriage or legal marijuana which were both minority issues.
    - root_axis 8y ago
      > You could have said the same thing about gay marriage or marijuana legalization in 2001 I take your point, but I don't think it's the same thing. There was no vested commercial interest in maintaining the gay marriage ban and even then marriage equality was fiercely opposed and narrowly achieved and would be impossible to achieve today and into the foreseeable political future. It was also a no-brainer issue for Democrats that earned them a lot of support and did not conflict with Democratic donor interests. Marijuana is more complicated, especially if we are mindful of the fact that it is still a Schedule I drug (while e.g. cocaine, fentanyl and meth are Schedule II), but there was at least the gigantic bales of cash to create a clear incentive to drive legalization forward despite the fact that marijuana businesses are still being hamstrung by the banks and are under explicit threat by the attorney general. Still, marijuana is a very old issue with a clear binary choice that most of the citizenry is educated about... Now, compare all that with a ratcheting up of privacy restrictions wherein the only possible outcome is the loss of billions of dollars in monetizable customer data and personal information, not to mention all the usual suspects that continuously endeavor to magnify the scope and breadth of the surveillance state for their own ends. Additionally, there is no clear binary choice like with marijuana and gay marriage; any viable solution will require an imperfect, nuanced, and somewhat technical approach to being solved and this type of solution is the hardest thing to do in our politics right now. There is no incentive for any faction to tamp down on data collection and the populace has given the signal that it doesn't really care about these issues (e.g. the equifax breach had no legal and minimal financial consequences for the company, and people have already forgotten). Additionally, there is also a sizable libertarian population among the technically literate that will oppose any kind of serious restrictions on data-collection because they are ideologically opposed to regulations. Imagine the furor on this forum if a presidential candidate seriously suggested something within the ballpark of EU style privacy laws - the entire front page would be flagged out of existence. Maybe I am pessimistic, but I just can't see a viable route to privacy restrictions. edit: I just want to add: I'm not saying "no progress is possible forever, give up". I'm responding to the cavalier tone of your suggestion that "we can just make them stop". It's certainly possible, it's just very unlikely within the foreseeable future.
- peteretep 8y ago
  GDPR?
Zelphyr 8y ago
I don't know that there ever really was a war. For nearly fifteen years Zuckerberg has been hoovering up every ounce of personal data he can get on everyone and they give it all to him willingly! Snowden proves to us that our own government is spying on us as much as our enemies, yet the public outcry is more of a mass shrug. Sadly, I feel more and more that we're at a point of no return; it's going to have to get way worse before it gets better. I'm hoping all it'll take to make our elected representative get off their asses and do something is when an indiscretion of a major political candidate is made public because of this level of data gathering. Because the people's interest in caring about their personal privacy ends at the point it hints at becoming an impediment to convenience.
- epicide 8y ago
  > I'm hoping all it'll take to make our elected representative get off their asses and do something is when an indiscretion of a major political candidate is made public As much as I hope this as well, I expect all that would happen as a result of this is further protection for candidates.
paavoova 8y ago
Well, with a defeatist attitude like that, you have. "Google searches"? Don't use Google search. Pay with cash for the little things - you'll still be tracked from point A to M to Z with your CC and purchase history, but maybe not on all levels in-between. Don't carry your phone around with you 24/7, and don't use GPS-enabled services (this means no Google apps if on Android). Don't drive modern cellular-enabled cars that ship with an always-on telemetry (and whatever falls under this broad scope) policy. You just have to be willing to shoot yourself in the foot once or twice if you want to take a stance.

whatshisface 8y ago

How could we write a law to ban this without putting undue restrictions on legitimate technology? We could just have them stop.

polskibus 8y ago
Data tax? Pay 100 USD / month or 0.01 % revenue per one personal record?
- whatshisface 8y ago
  I think people should have copyright over everything their creative human brains produce, including their purchasing decisions. Copyright can't be transferred away from the author, only licensed. My credit card history happens to be a piece of performance art commenting on consumerism, thank you very much.
  - epicide 8y ago
    > Copyright can't be transferred away from the author, only licensed. I'm not a lawyer, but this statement seems to be false according to this: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html
  - kaybe 8y ago
    Hm.. there must be a way to incorporate purchasing decisions into an art piece that make them very obviously part of copyright for that case..
    - bostik 8y ago
      Something like a map with symbols for brands and bars for aggregate expenditure? Add some way to warp through time to show how your personal spending habits have changed. You could call it Cost of Living.
root_axis 8y ago
> We could just have them stop. How? There are no political factions in the U.S. that would support such an agenda. Which party do you imagine taking up this issue?
- whatshisface 8y ago
  You could have said the same thing about gay marriage or marijuana legalization in 2001. It's not like political change is impossible. In fact this change would be easier because it benefits the majority, unlike gay marriage or legal marijuana which were both minority issues.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    > You could have said the same thing about gay marriage or marijuana legalization in 2001 I take your point, but I don't think it's the same thing. There was no vested commercial interest in maintaining the gay marriage ban and even then marriage equality was fiercely opposed and narrowly achieved and would be impossible to achieve today and into the foreseeable political future. It was also a no-brainer issue for Democrats that earned them a lot of support and did not conflict with Democratic donor interests. Marijuana is more complicated, especially if we are mindful of the fact that it is still a Schedule I drug (while e.g. cocaine, fentanyl and meth are Schedule II), but there was at least the gigantic bales of cash to create a clear incentive to drive legalization forward despite the fact that marijuana businesses are still being hamstrung by the banks and are under explicit threat by the attorney general. Still, marijuana is a very old issue with a clear binary choice that most of the citizenry is educated about... Now, compare all that with a ratcheting up of privacy restrictions wherein the only possible outcome is the loss of billions of dollars in monetizable customer data and personal information, not to mention all the usual suspects that continuously endeavor to magnify the scope and breadth of the surveillance state for their own ends. Additionally, there is no clear binary choice like with marijuana and gay marriage; any viable solution will require an imperfect, nuanced, and somewhat technical approach to being solved and this type of solution is the hardest thing to do in our politics right now. There is no incentive for any faction to tamp down on data collection and the populace has given the signal that it doesn't really care about these issues (e.g. the equifax breach had no legal and minimal financial consequences for the company, and people have already forgotten). Additionally, there is also a sizable libertarian population among the technically literate that will oppose any kind of serious restrictions on data-collection because they are ideologically opposed to regulations. Imagine the furor on this forum if a presidential candidate seriously suggested something within the ballpark of EU style privacy laws - the entire front page would be flagged out of existence. Maybe I am pessimistic, but I just can't see a viable route to privacy restrictions. edit: I just want to add: I'm not saying "no progress is possible forever, give up". I'm responding to the cavalier tone of your suggestion that "we can just make them stop". It's certainly possible, it's just very unlikely within the foreseeable future.
peteretep 8y ago
GDPR?

Zelphyr 8y ago

I don't know that there ever really was a war. For nearly fifteen years Zuckerberg has been hoovering up every ounce of personal data he can get on everyone and they give it all to him willingly! Snowden proves to us that our own government is spying on us as much as our enemies, yet the public outcry is more of a mass shrug. Sadly, I feel more and more that we're at a point of no return; it's going to have to get way worse before it gets better. I'm hoping all it'll take to make our elected representative get off their asses and do something is when an indiscretion of a major political candidate is made public because of this level of data gathering. Because the people's interest in caring about their personal privacy ends at the point it hints at becoming an impediment to convenience.

epicide 8y ago
> I'm hoping all it'll take to make our elected representative get off their asses and do something is when an indiscretion of a major political candidate is made public As much as I hope this as well, I expect all that would happen as a result of this is further protection for candidates.

paavoova 8y ago

Well, with a defeatist attitude like that, you have. "Google searches"? Don't use Google search. Pay with cash for the little things - you'll still be tracked from point A to M to Z with your CC and purchase history, but maybe not on all levels in-between. Don't carry your phone around with you 24/7, and don't use GPS-enabled services (this means no Google apps if on Android). Don't drive modern cellular-enabled cars that ship with an always-on telemetry (and whatever falls under this broad scope) policy. You just have to be willing to shoot yourself in the foot once or twice if you want to take a stance.