5 ms·

"I am not important enough to be spied on" Such a familiar phrase. I'm so tired of hearing it from people I know. This is exactly like saying "I'm too broke fo

"I am not important enough to be spied on" Such a familiar phrase. I'm so tired of hearing it from people I know. This is exactly like saying "I'm too broke for anyone to steal my credit card". What you think of your own importance has zero bearing on how some unknown third party perceives you. Neither can you predict how they will use your information or how it will affect you. It's insane that people spend time and energy on keeping secrets from their relatives and friends (which everyone does) and yet can't see that a third party that actively seeks your information is more likely to cause you harm than people you know. This is a trivial deduction, yet so many people can't comprehend it. They think that because they can't imagine how someone else could screw them up using their personal info, no one could possibly screw them up using their personal info. Apparently, I'm not eloquent enough to convey this in a verbal conversation. I've tried. Funny thought: maybe I should print the paragraph above on a card and hand it out when someone says the key phrase.

pdimitar 8y ago
Same, but I gave up. You can't make people care if they genuinely don't. I noticed that Americans and part of Europeans (mostly Germans I believe but probably others as well) perceive leaks of personally identifiable information as outrageous but everybody I know here in Eastern Europe are indifferent. Unless they lose money or their company gets a negative PR, they could not care less.
- jsgo 8y ago
  I'd say some Americans. Social Security Numbers and Credit Cards kind of get people going, but basically anything else elicits a "meh." Shocking and sad that the Equifax hack and bungling didn't get more people going than it did.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    Because most people really aren't affected. I've experienced no negative consequences of the Equifax hack, nor several other major leaks that I was included in (OMB to name one). I'm not happy about the situation, but it's also not affected me directly, yet.
    - jsgo 8y ago
      I think my hope, with the massive amount of SSN data that Equifax has, was that we'd see the SSN system being looked at to convert to something almost like a private/public key type of system where if someone obtains someone's SSN, another one can be generated pretty painlessly with the old revoked and can be linked back to the owner. I know the primary issue is that the SSN wasn't intended for the use case it is used in, but we're at the point now that it is so probably best to protect it in a manner that protects the user/owner.
- paganel 8y ago
  > but everybody I know here in Eastern Europe are indifferent. Fellow Eastern European here, I remember I was made fun of by my former colleagues back in 2005-2006 when I was saying that the United States requiring bio data in order to get a traveling visa (I think fingerprints became mandatory for US visa applicants back around that time) was very not ok, I received the same responses that you mention. Nowadays that the bio thing has started reaching and directly affecting people more to the West the subject is fortunately debated on websites like this one and also in some parts of the Western mainstream media, but back in EE the subject is still ignored or at best is made fun of. I remember attending a street march/protest against bio ID cards/passports a couple of years ago, and the majority of participants were religious people that believed things like "666 the number of the Devil" and all that + a couple of tech people like myself which are still seen as paranoid by our friends and work colleagues. Unfortunately the civil society from this part of the world is totally mute on this type of subjects.
  - pdimitar 8y ago
    To be fair to all sides, it's really hard to care about societal problems that might morph into personally dangerous leaks -- especially when many people struggle to make ends meet and have food on the table. I get that part. But most people in EE are also way too cynical and demeaning by default and yeah, that's a real problem when issues like these arise. Nobody takes them seriously until something monumental happens.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> It's insane that people spend time and energy on keeping secrets from their relatives and friends (which everyone does) and yet can't see that a third party that actively seeks your information is more likely to cause you harm than people you know. This is a trivial deduction, yet so many people can't comprehend it. I think this deduction is actually wrong. Ask yourself why you hide some things from your relatives and friends. Could it be because quite a lot of people are really bigoted, and the immediate social costs of them learning more about you would be dire? Whereas data collection currently has only one visible consequence on the individual level: what kind of ads & spam you get, and how much. People correctly recognize this as mostly harmless. People do react to things that affect them directly. In my country it is widely known that people trying to cheat our IRS or social insurance got busted over Facebook photos, so they know not to present a lifestyle that's different than the one they report to the government. (E.g. if you're consistently reporting low income, don't post photos of your two limos. If you're on a (paid by social insurance) medical leave that restricts you to bed, you'd better not get tagged on a photo placing you in a restaurant.) EDIT: I don't mean to imply that the government has a backdoor access to this data; it's just there were cases of people dumb enough to share incriminating evidence of fraud that found its way to government investigators, by e.g. being posted publicly.
- darkerside 8y ago
  Wow! Can I ask what country you live in? There are definitely some parallels here to the way people now often friend their bosses on Facebook, leading to uncomfortable knowledge sharing.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Poland.
- rchaud 8y ago
  Customizing the ads and spam is the first step, because that's what technologically feasible and makes business sense. Before long, they'll start "customizing" your search results even when you're not logged in, because your IP and search history gives the gatekeeper enough to decide what you should and shouldn't see. Net Neutrality in the US was obviously gamed in favour of ISPs, telecoms and large corporations, and the population didn't lift a finger behind posting sanctimoniously on Reddit/HN, and arguing with each other about the semantics of free/un-free markets.
smichel17 8y ago
Reminds me of a great quote, from Ender's Shadow: "If he's this good at making people love him, why didn't he do it before? Because these fools always look up for power. People above you, they never want to share power with you. Why you look to them? People below you, you give them hope, you give them respect, they give you power, 'cause they don't think they have any, so they don't mind giving it up."
Kiro 8y ago
Not saying you're wrong but I guess saying how it could harm you would be a good argument. Do you have any examples?
jayd16 8y ago
>a third party that actively seeks your information is more likely to cause you harm than people you know. Says who? That's not deduction at all. As an example, if you get broken into its far more likely it was someone you know than completely random.
dmurray 8y ago
>It's insane that people spend time and energy on keeping secrets from their relatives and friends (which everyone does) and yet can't see that a third party that actively seeks your information is more likely to cause you harm than people you know. You're more likely to get murdered by your spouse than by a stranger. Your kid is more likely to get kidnapped by its parent than a stranger. Statistically speaking, it's the people who fear the unknown bogeyman who are irrational, not those who fear their friend, relative or neighbour.
- gambler 8y ago
  This reasoning works when you want to determine whether it's safe to interact with a (single) random person on the street. It does not work when reasoning about privacy, because: 1) Issues resulting from privacy loss mostly have nothing to do with murder and kidnapping statistics. Far more relevant would be the note that as of 2019 identity theft affected 23% of all US internet users [1]. And that's just one way to misuse your information. There are countless others. 2) Loss of privacy means loss of control over who interacts with your data and when that happens. I don't understand why this simple fact is so hard to grasp. If your information ends up on sale or in a public data dump, anyone who wants to misuse it will have an opportunity to do so, probably forever. It's up to them to decide whether your info is "worth it" or how to use it. Something you consider trivial today can be used in an elaborate scam tomorrow. Or it could be used for a social media stink campaign by your unhappy ex. Or something else. The point is, "I am not important enough to be spied on" is a stupid statement, because whether you are important is determined by context. When you loose your privacy, you lose control over that context. -- [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/763130/internet-identity-theft-usa/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/763130/internet-identity...

pdimitar 8y ago

Same, but I gave up. You can't make people care if they genuinely don't. I noticed that Americans and part of Europeans (mostly Germans I believe but probably others as well) perceive leaks of personally identifiable information as outrageous but everybody I know here in Eastern Europe are indifferent. Unless they lose money or their company gets a negative PR, they could not care less.

jsgo 8y ago
I'd say some Americans. Social Security Numbers and Credit Cards kind of get people going, but basically anything else elicits a "meh." Shocking and sad that the Equifax hack and bungling didn't get more people going than it did.
- ams6110 8y ago
  Because most people really aren't affected. I've experienced no negative consequences of the Equifax hack, nor several other major leaks that I was included in (OMB to name one). I'm not happy about the situation, but it's also not affected me directly, yet.
  - jsgo 8y ago
    I think my hope, with the massive amount of SSN data that Equifax has, was that we'd see the SSN system being looked at to convert to something almost like a private/public key type of system where if someone obtains someone's SSN, another one can be generated pretty painlessly with the old revoked and can be linked back to the owner. I know the primary issue is that the SSN wasn't intended for the use case it is used in, but we're at the point now that it is so probably best to protect it in a manner that protects the user/owner.
paganel 8y ago
> but everybody I know here in Eastern Europe are indifferent. Fellow Eastern European here, I remember I was made fun of by my former colleagues back in 2005-2006 when I was saying that the United States requiring bio data in order to get a traveling visa (I think fingerprints became mandatory for US visa applicants back around that time) was very not ok, I received the same responses that you mention. Nowadays that the bio thing has started reaching and directly affecting people more to the West the subject is fortunately debated on websites like this one and also in some parts of the Western mainstream media, but back in EE the subject is still ignored or at best is made fun of. I remember attending a street march/protest against bio ID cards/passports a couple of years ago, and the majority of participants were religious people that believed things like "666 the number of the Devil" and all that + a couple of tech people like myself which are still seen as paranoid by our friends and work colleagues. Unfortunately the civil society from this part of the world is totally mute on this type of subjects.
- pdimitar 8y ago
  To be fair to all sides, it's really hard to care about societal problems that might morph into personally dangerous leaks -- especially when many people struggle to make ends meet and have food on the table. I get that part. But most people in EE are also way too cynical and demeaning by default and yeah, that's a real problem when issues like these arise. Nobody takes them seriously until something monumental happens.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> It's insane that people spend time and energy on keeping secrets from their relatives and friends (which everyone does) and yet can't see that a third party that actively seeks your information is more likely to cause you harm than people you know. This is a trivial deduction, yet so many people can't comprehend it. I think this deduction is actually wrong. Ask yourself why you hide some things from your relatives and friends. Could it be because quite a lot of people are really bigoted, and the immediate social costs of them learning more about you would be dire? Whereas data collection currently has only one visible consequence on the individual level: what kind of ads & spam you get, and how much. People correctly recognize this as mostly harmless. People do react to things that affect them directly. In my country it is widely known that people trying to cheat our IRS or social insurance got busted over Facebook photos, so they know not to present a lifestyle that's different than the one they report to the government. (E.g. if you're consistently reporting low income, don't post photos of your two limos. If you're on a (paid by social insurance) medical leave that restricts you to bed, you'd better not get tagged on a photo placing you in a restaurant.) EDIT: I don't mean to imply that the government has a backdoor access to this data; it's just there were cases of people dumb enough to share incriminating evidence of fraud that found its way to government investigators, by e.g. being posted publicly.

darkerside 8y ago
Wow! Can I ask what country you live in? There are definitely some parallels here to the way people now often friend their bosses on Facebook, leading to uncomfortable knowledge sharing.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Poland.
rchaud 8y ago
Customizing the ads and spam is the first step, because that's what technologically feasible and makes business sense. Before long, they'll start "customizing" your search results even when you're not logged in, because your IP and search history gives the gatekeeper enough to decide what you should and shouldn't see. Net Neutrality in the US was obviously gamed in favour of ISPs, telecoms and large corporations, and the population didn't lift a finger behind posting sanctimoniously on Reddit/HN, and arguing with each other about the semantics of free/un-free markets.

smichel17 8y ago

Reminds me of a great quote, from Ender's Shadow: "If he's this good at making people love him, why didn't he do it before? Because these fools always look up for power. People above you, they never want to share power with you. Why you look to them? People below you, you give them hope, you give them respect, they give you power, 'cause they don't think they have any, so they don't mind giving it up."

Kiro 8y ago

Not saying you're wrong but I guess saying how it could harm you would be a good argument. Do you have any examples?

jayd16 8y ago

>a third party that actively seeks your information is more likely to cause you harm than people you know. Says who? That's not deduction at all. As an example, if you get broken into its far more likely it was someone you know than completely random.

dmurray 8y ago

>It's insane that people spend time and energy on keeping secrets from their relatives and friends (which everyone does) and yet can't see that a third party that actively seeks your information is more likely to cause you harm than people you know. You're more likely to get murdered by your spouse than by a stranger. Your kid is more likely to get kidnapped by its parent than a stranger. Statistically speaking, it's the people who fear the unknown bogeyman who are irrational, not those who fear their friend, relative or neighbour.

gambler 8y ago
This reasoning works when you want to determine whether it's safe to interact with a (single) random person on the street. It does not work when reasoning about privacy, because: 1) Issues resulting from privacy loss mostly have nothing to do with murder and kidnapping statistics. Far more relevant would be the note that as of 2019 identity theft affected 23% of all US internet users [1]. And that's just one way to misuse your information. There are countless others. 2) Loss of privacy means loss of control over who interacts with your data and when that happens. I don't understand why this simple fact is so hard to grasp. If your information ends up on sale or in a public data dump, anyone who wants to misuse it will have an opportunity to do so, probably forever. It's up to them to decide whether your info is "worth it" or how to use it. Something you consider trivial today can be used in an elaborate scam tomorrow. Or it could be used for a social media stink campaign by your unhappy ex. Or something else. The point is, "I am not important enough to be spied on" is a stupid statement, because whether you are important is determined by context. When you loose your privacy, you lose control over that context. -- [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/763130/internet-identity-theft-usa/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/763130/internet-identity...