4 ms·

Congratulations, they beat you into submission. You now have accepted a fundamentally different world where anything you like, anything you say, anyone you are

by titzer 8y ago

Congratulations, they beat you into submission. You now have accepted a fundamentally different world where anything you like, anything you say, anyone you are with or hope to be with, anything you hope to do, have done, didn't do, every mistake or misstep or misstatement or misunderstanding or fuckup, is recorded, analyzed, classified, and mined. You're being constantly thought about, by the machines, who, if you are lucky, are only interested in making a buck off you, and if you are not lucky, have targeted you for increased scrutiny, security checks, auditing, social classification, digitized karma, and eventually, all of this will translate to a significantly different experience through life. How will it manifest? Maybe it'll be something big like being denied a loan for a car or a house. Maybe it'll be a landlord turning you down for an apartment. Maybe it'll be a constant drip of ads trying to trick you into buying something. Or maybe one day beaker53 will say something bad about the government, or get involved with a terror group, or it will accidentally look like you got involved with a terror group. Or maybe they'll just come annoy you while you're sitting down to tune your guitar with an ad on how to make yourself a better guitar player, if only you did this or that or the other thing. Or maybe they'll pester you because your friends did something or didn't do something or should do something, or how you'll look better in relation to them if you did do something. Speak for yourself. I'm sick of being watched and being "thought about" by all these damn machines. FFS leave me alone, like it was just 15 years ago. Just 15 years ago.

Jmcdd 8y ago
I'm going to bookmark this comment for when people throw the "I have nothing to hide argument" at me
- superflyguy 8y ago
  If that's your angle, remember that that nonsense included explicitly the suggestion that one problem with tracking might be when you "get involved with a terror group", along with other drivel about "digitized karma" and unwanted ads. If you don't want ads, run an adblocker. That's literally what they're for.
  - minitech 8y ago
    > remember that that nonsense included explicitly the suggestion that one problem with tracking might be when you "get involved with a terror group" No, it was about someone (“beaker53”) who could be confused for a known person (“beaker52”).
titzer 8y ago
P.S. I reject the assertion that being concerned about privacy is some kind of "weird obsession/hobby". It is, or was rather, the default state of life to not be watched constantly not long ago. This new thing of having to fight for basic privacy is the alien thing. You aren't obligated to think about it 24/7, and kudos to you (or something) for going and having fun while not worrying about it. But make no mistake, society has been radically altered while you were sleeping.
- superflyguy 8y ago
  You're quite the rebel prophet, huh? "Wake up, sheeple! Listen to me - I'll open your eyes to the truth". I understand there's a compound in Texas going cheap. One previous owner; slight fire damage.
  - tomhoward 8y ago
    I watched the new mini-series about that just last week. Horrific. Not a cool thing to joke about.
    - superflyguy 8y ago
      Please provide me with a list of topics I'm not allowed to joke about.
  - dang 8y ago
    Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: you've done this before as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18392730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18392730. That was already a bannable offense on HN, so please don't do this again.
- mduncs 8y ago
  I think there is room for nuance between 'concern' about privacy and 'absolute dedication' to privacy, and the tone of your opinion ignores it. You make good points, but I would hope for some critical reading of the original poster's argument. Data never being completely deleted, and the unending tracking being a slow sort of death of personal freedom is a good point, but I read the point of the poster you responded to as this: We can only do so much to secure our privacy, do effective and easy to implement solutions. If we want absolute privacy, its probably never possible until you cut out massive parts the digital world for yourself, and diminishing returns for your efforts most likely aren't worth it.
ams6110 8y ago
> Just 15 years ago Yeah you were still being tracked. It's just a lot easier and more specific now. But everything about you that's public record, or even semi-public, including your credit reports, housing history, leins/judgments, voter registration, bio/demo data from any product registration card you ever sent in, purchase history from credit cards, etc. was in marketing databases and bought, sold, and traded. This has been going on since the 1970s at least. But you're right, it's MUCH more pervasive now. However, if you really yearn for what it was like 15 - 20 years ago, there's an easy solution: Don't be online. At all. Just like it was then.
kodablah 8y ago
> Congratulations, they beat you into submission. This is not really an acceptable attitude towards this opinion. You can not mind the current state of tracking, acknowledge benefits, etc and should not be demonized or told your opinion was beat into you. And then congratulate them some rude way? I used to wonder why so many people were surprised at recent presidential election results, assumed propaganda must be the cause, assumed ignorance of those they don't understand, take elitist attitudes towards others' preferences, etc. But now I'm starting to understand this cognitive dissonance. It's ok that they don't see tracking as a big deal, it's ok they don't want governments to step in, they aren't just dumb victims beat into submission.
- titzer 8y ago
  I hope I wasn't rude, I didn't downvote the OP or anything, so I don't think I crossed any lines. Generally speaking opinions that are "meh, status quo seems fine to me" are poorly informed. I don't want to personally attack the OP but they literally stated that they don't want to think about this and would rather spend time doing something more fun. Fine, go ahead, but the rest of us who actually think about the implications of this recognize that a very gradual but very profound shift in society has already occurred. We're not discussing it, frankly, because people are generally passive and some, like the poster, express a pretty dangerous lack of concern. Not only that, but the OP literally said it was a "weird obsession" to be concerned with privacy. That is actually demonization, and it raised my hackles.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    > "meh, status quo seems fine to me" are poorly informed Personally, I feel the status quo is preferred over alternatives, but to each their own. Whether someone is poorly informed on a subject or not is hard to gauge and not always something that has to be fixed. The problem here is that ignorance is used as a reason to protect people from themselves forcefully thereby silencing the informed-yet-disagreeing (emphasis on "here" in this situation at this time, can't make generic absolute statements about consumer protection in general). > We're not discussing it, frankly, because people are generally passive and some, like the poster, express a pretty dangerous lack of concern. I see quite the opposite. Can't open any newspaper or obtain any general news without the ills of big-web-tech shoved in your face. The harms are explained as extreme but to many, regardless of what the pitchfork bearers shout, the harms are not that extreme. What's dangerous is over concern and the results of that fervor. But all of that is personal opinion, the good part is the freedom to hold that opinion and act on it personally without imposing.
claar 8y ago
Your comment aligns closely with this excellent dystopian Alexa/Google Home parody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfqM63CAC8g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfqM63CAC8g The video portrays a future advanced home speaker which terrorizes its family through ads, AI, and "helpfulness" through data mining and the occasional benign hacking of remote systems.

by titzer 8y ago

Jmcdd 8y ago

I'm going to bookmark this comment for when people throw the "I have nothing to hide argument" at me

superflyguy 8y ago
If that's your angle, remember that that nonsense included explicitly the suggestion that one problem with tracking might be when you "get involved with a terror group", along with other drivel about "digitized karma" and unwanted ads. If you don't want ads, run an adblocker. That's literally what they're for.
- minitech 8y ago
  > remember that that nonsense included explicitly the suggestion that one problem with tracking might be when you "get involved with a terror group" No, it was about someone (“beaker53”) who could be confused for a known person (“beaker52”).

titzer 8y ago

P.S. I reject the assertion that being concerned about privacy is some kind of "weird obsession/hobby". It is, or was rather, the default state of life to not be watched constantly not long ago. This new thing of having to fight for basic privacy is the alien thing. You aren't obligated to think about it 24/7, and kudos to you (or something) for going and having fun while not worrying about it. But make no mistake, society has been radically altered while you were sleeping.

superflyguy 8y ago
You're quite the rebel prophet, huh? "Wake up, sheeple! Listen to me - I'll open your eyes to the truth". I understand there's a compound in Texas going cheap. One previous owner; slight fire damage.
- tomhoward 8y ago
  I watched the new mini-series about that just last week. Horrific. Not a cool thing to joke about.
  - superflyguy 8y ago
    Please provide me with a list of topics I'm not allowed to joke about.
- dang 8y ago
  Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: you've done this before as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18392730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18392730. That was already a bannable offense on HN, so please don't do this again.
mduncs 8y ago
I think there is room for nuance between 'concern' about privacy and 'absolute dedication' to privacy, and the tone of your opinion ignores it. You make good points, but I would hope for some critical reading of the original poster's argument. Data never being completely deleted, and the unending tracking being a slow sort of death of personal freedom is a good point, but I read the point of the poster you responded to as this: We can only do so much to secure our privacy, do effective and easy to implement solutions. If we want absolute privacy, its probably never possible until you cut out massive parts the digital world for yourself, and diminishing returns for your efforts most likely aren't worth it.

ams6110 8y ago

> Just 15 years ago Yeah you were still being tracked. It's just a lot easier and more specific now. But everything about you that's public record, or even semi-public, including your credit reports, housing history, leins/judgments, voter registration, bio/demo data from any product registration card you ever sent in, purchase history from credit cards, etc. was in marketing databases and bought, sold, and traded. This has been going on since the 1970s at least. But you're right, it's MUCH more pervasive now. However, if you really yearn for what it was like 15 - 20 years ago, there's an easy solution: Don't be online. At all. Just like it was then.

kodablah 8y ago

> Congratulations, they beat you into submission. This is not really an acceptable attitude towards this opinion. You can not mind the current state of tracking, acknowledge benefits, etc and should not be demonized or told your opinion was beat into you. And then congratulate them some rude way? I used to wonder why so many people were surprised at recent presidential election results, assumed propaganda must be the cause, assumed ignorance of those they don't understand, take elitist attitudes towards others' preferences, etc. But now I'm starting to understand this cognitive dissonance. It's ok that they don't see tracking as a big deal, it's ok they don't want governments to step in, they aren't just dumb victims beat into submission.

titzer 8y ago
I hope I wasn't rude, I didn't downvote the OP or anything, so I don't think I crossed any lines. Generally speaking opinions that are "meh, status quo seems fine to me" are poorly informed. I don't want to personally attack the OP but they literally stated that they don't want to think about this and would rather spend time doing something more fun. Fine, go ahead, but the rest of us who actually think about the implications of this recognize that a very gradual but very profound shift in society has already occurred. We're not discussing it, frankly, because people are generally passive and some, like the poster, express a pretty dangerous lack of concern. Not only that, but the OP literally said it was a "weird obsession" to be concerned with privacy. That is actually demonization, and it raised my hackles.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > "meh, status quo seems fine to me" are poorly informed Personally, I feel the status quo is preferred over alternatives, but to each their own. Whether someone is poorly informed on a subject or not is hard to gauge and not always something that has to be fixed. The problem here is that ignorance is used as a reason to protect people from themselves forcefully thereby silencing the informed-yet-disagreeing (emphasis on "here" in this situation at this time, can't make generic absolute statements about consumer protection in general). > We're not discussing it, frankly, because people are generally passive and some, like the poster, express a pretty dangerous lack of concern. I see quite the opposite. Can't open any newspaper or obtain any general news without the ills of big-web-tech shoved in your face. The harms are explained as extreme but to many, regardless of what the pitchfork bearers shout, the harms are not that extreme. What's dangerous is over concern and the results of that fervor. But all of that is personal opinion, the good part is the freedom to hold that opinion and act on it personally without imposing.

claar 8y ago

Your comment aligns closely with this excellent dystopian Alexa/Google Home parody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfqM63CAC8g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfqM63CAC8g The video portrays a future advanced home speaker which terrorizes its family through ads, AI, and "helpfulness" through data mining and the occasional benign hacking of remote systems.