3 ms·

You also don't know that you're not being tailed by a PI, that your neighbors are not focusing a mic on your home, or that your dentist isn't on the lizard-peop

by _jal 8y ago

You also don't know that you're not being tailed by a PI, that your neighbors are not focusing a mic on your home, or that your dentist isn't on the lizard-peoples' payroll. However, we all make certain risk tradeoffs based on numerous things, including proxy signals. For instance, I would be intensely surprised to find out my downstairs neighbor was recoding me, based on multiple years of interactions. Likewise, I find the signal Apple sends ("We need a US-based GDPR") about privacy rather more compelling than the signal Amazon sends ("scour the mic for hints about product we can shift"). I mean, sure, while both $huge_bank and your hypothetical deadbeat relative might both steal your money, I bet I know which one you choose to to leave your money with.

menacingly 8y ago
I'm just saying it boils down to trust either way, not weighing in on which way that trust should lean.
52-6F-62 8y ago
> You also don't know that you're not being tailed by a PI, that your neighbours are not focusing a mic on your home, or that your dentist isn't on the lizard-peoples' payroll. Totally tangential, so feel free to disregard: This statement reminded me of my experience during my brother's TS clearance (Canada). CSIS readily had accurate data (in surprising detail) about my time spent during a short period they must have observed his family members to use during an interview with him. It was pretty fascinating, mildly disconcerting— but in this case didn't bother me (in the context, I understood why. I certainly wasn't interesting at the time). They only could have captured the data they had by a combination of tailing (however brief or otherwise more expensive much more technical means) and bank records. I was of course none the wiser. Advertisers are another matter. I have a Google Home Mini. It remains unplugged 100% of the time we're not using it. My phone can always go in another room. If we decide to turn it on to play with it (search something benign or play trivia) then we'll have it on. It's good for that kind of thing, and those are useful enough we don't mind letting Google have the little data that might produce.

by _jal 8y ago

menacingly 8y ago

I'm just saying it boils down to trust either way, not weighing in on which way that trust should lean.

52-6F-62 8y ago

> You also don't know that you're not being tailed by a PI, that your neighbours are not focusing a mic on your home, or that your dentist isn't on the lizard-peoples' payroll. Totally tangential, so feel free to disregard: This statement reminded me of my experience during my brother's TS clearance (Canada). CSIS readily had accurate data (in surprising detail) about my time spent during a short period they must have observed his family members to use during an interview with him. It was pretty fascinating, mildly disconcerting— but in this case didn't bother me (in the context, I understood why. I certainly wasn't interesting at the time). They only could have captured the data they had by a combination of tailing (however brief or otherwise more expensive much more technical means) and bank records. I was of course none the wiser. Advertisers are another matter. I have a Google Home Mini. It remains unplugged 100% of the time we're not using it. My phone can always go in another room. If we decide to turn it on to play with it (search something benign or play trivia) then we'll have it on. It's good for that kind of thing, and those are useful enough we don't mind letting Google have the little data that might produce.