6 ms·

> For example, data about a mobile phone’s past location and movement patterns can be used to predict where a person lives, who their employer is, where they at

by imgabe 8y ago

> For example, data about a mobile phone’s past location and movement patterns can be used to predict where a person lives, who their employer is, where they attend religious services and the age range of their children based on where they drop them off for school. Is it me? I don't consider any of these to be particularly sensitive information. Where you live: We used to have these things called "phone books" where they listed the name, address, and phone number of everyone in town. The world didn't collapse. Who their employer is: My name and picture are listed on my employer's public website. Not exactly hard to find. where they attend religious services: I don't, but of the people I know who do, nobody has ever considered it something they need to hide. Many would want to tell you and ask you to join them. age range of their children: So? If somebody knows you have a kid aged 5-10, then they can...what? I mean, I still try to limit how much information I expose online, but if anything this makes me less worried rather than more.

jacquesm 8y ago
That's a rehash of a number of silly 'nothing to hide' pseudo arguments. Phone books were not instantly searchable in bulk all across the globe. Who your employer is is not important, but in bulk to know who your employer employs and to be able to access that information in bulk and within a couple of milliseconds gives a lot of power to outsiders. I should know because I use that power regularly for my work, and trust me, lots of people we read up on would do better to keep a much lower profile online. It does not benefit their employers either. Whether you attend religious services or not has been used to target (and kill) people in the past, and if you are willing to extrapolate a bit, was used for mass murder. The age range of your children may not be so important, the fact that you have children may be, depending on your station in life. The fact that you personally have not been inconvenienced by any of this - yet - is not a datapoint worth recording.
- imgabe 8y ago
  > Whether you attend religious services or not has been used to target (and kill) people in the past, and if you are willing to extrapolate a bit, was used for mass murder. Right, it was, long before the ability to aggregate this information en masse existed. The fundamental problem there is that there are people who want to kill other people because of their religion. Taking away information from them doesn't solve the problem, it just delays it a little. It's a form of security by obscurity. If anything, they can still go and target the actual place of worship itself, which is not hidden. If all they care about is killing people of a certain religion, they don't need to know who they are particularly, just go to the place of worship for that religion. The larger point here, is that if we can't trust the authority figures, the government, the corporations, etc. It doesn't matter how well we hide. The problem of a fascist government can't be solved by hiding. It has to be solved by enacting a government that's not fascist. Edit: This is not a "nothing to hide" argument. The information listed is not the sort that is private information. Your address is not a special secret that only you can know. There are numerous legitimate reasons that the government or a corporation might need to know your address. The government needs to collect taxes and keep property records. Companies need to deliver products that you order. All of that is going to require sharing your address.
  - Profan 8y ago
    That went well for all the dutch jews in WW2 where the government also held detailed records about religious affiliation.. sometimes it is not about what is now, but what will or might be later.
    - _jal 8y ago
      Exactly. People forget the role of IT ("data processing") at all of our peril. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II
    - pdkl95 8y ago
      Using this[1] map created from the Dutch census data (which included religious affiliation), the Nazis were able to very efficiently send about 3/4 of the black dots on that map to be murdered in the camps. Collecting that census data probably seemed reasonable at the time. The new use case that needed a new way of aggre4gating and presenting the data happened later, almost as an emergent property. The only y to prevent problems that haven't been invented yet is to minimize the attack surface: if the records don't exist, they can't be misused. [1] https://www.verzetsmuseum.org/uploads/archive/museum/topstukken/stippenkaart_1633.jpg https://www.verzetsmuseum.org/uploads/archive/museum/topstuk...
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    > Right, it was, long before the ability to aggregate this information en masse existed. No, it was not, please educate yourself: https://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/ https://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/ > The fundamental problem there is that there are people who want to kill other people because of their religion. Yes, that is the fundamental problem. And technology makes that much easier to achieve. Of course the religious idiots in Algeria murder people. As do the religious idiots in many other places. But they tend to be a lot less effective than what can be achieved when one harnesses the engines of progress: industrialization and automation. > Taking away information from them doesn't solve the problem, it just delays it a little. It's a form of security by obscurity. That is dangerously naive. No, it does not 'just delay it a little', it is the difference between mass genocide and a slow trickle. > If anything, they can still go and target the actual place of worship itself, which is not hidden. They can and they do, but this is not about any adversary, it is about all adversaries and that includes the ones who would have zero compunction about going after places of worship and everybody who visits them. Now, given a bit of tech and a place of worship you can target all those who ever went there long after the fact even if they decide to stay away from the place of worship because they are on to the would be murderers. > The larger point here, is that if we can't trust the authority figures, the government, the corporations, etc. It doesn't matter how well we hide. If not for the ability of people to hide other people the number of Jews today would be substantially smaller than it is. Really, again, go and educuate yourself. > The problem of a fascist government can't be solved by hiding. No, but individuals can stay alive by hiding. > It has to be solved by enacting a government that's not fascist. Unfortunately Fascist governments will happen every now and then, saying that they shouldn't is denying the fact that they will, several countries are on the path to Fascism today, whether they will get there or not is anybody's guess. But if they do, I guarantee you that all this tech will make the next pogrom a lot more effective than the previous one.
- buboard 8y ago
  This isnt a nothing to hide argument because there is fair trade of information, not compulsory extraction. Also the information is not publicly available And the counter argument is an FUD theory that all information should be banned because it can potentially be misused
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    > This isnt a nothing to hide argument because there is fair trade of information You can have the one with or without the other. > Also the information is not publicly available Until the next hack or subpoena. > And the counter argument is an FUD theory that all information should be banned because it can potentially be misused That is nonsensical and a strawman argument to boot.
    - buboard 8y ago
      > You can have the one with or without the other. then that is not fair trade > Until the next hack or subpoena. here, the FUD again > That is nonsensical and a strawman argument to boot. if something doesnt make sense i can explain. where is the strawman/
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        > here, the FUD again It's only FUD if it does not happen. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/facebook-hack-affected-3-million-in-europe-first-big-test-for-gdpr.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/facebook-hack-affected-3-mil... And tens of thousands of other examples besides that one. > if something doesnt make sense i can explain. where is the strawman/ Nobody said 'all information has to be banned'. You made that up.
        buboard 8y ago
        i believe we disagree on whether state should serve the people or the other way around.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- kodablah 8y ago
  > That's a rehash of a number of silly 'nothing to hide' pseudo arguments. We shouldn't so dismissive of the "so what" attitude that is pervasive in this neverending stream of data collection articles. Many are using their opinion of "great harm" to influence their cries for oversight, I think it's only fair for others to use their opinion of "no harm" to counter it. GP didn't say they had nothing to hide, they said what was collected was harmless and that opinion, especially given the tradeoff in services received, is widely held and it's ok.
- dontbenebby 8y ago
  >Phone books were not instantly searchable in bulk all across the globe. I think this is something that's overlooked. Think back to the 80s. A lot of things that are legal but would be creepy are very time intensive - following someone around takes time. If you photograph them you have to develop film (and you won't know if the photos turned out until then). And while it may have been legal, social norms said don't stalk people - don't expect a social life if you follow people around photographing them. Now what would have been a week long horror montage is accomplished with a single web search and perusal of their Instagram.
ses1984 8y ago
Putting all this info together used to be much more labor intensive, basically infeasible to do at scale. The scale problem is solved, and now companies can mine that data for profit. Maybe it's not that scary in a western society that's generally considered free, but imagine that power in a fascist state.
Broken_Hippo 8y ago
Now pretend all this is public and someone stalks you. Maybe it is your abusive ex that occasionally sends you creepy messages and harasses anyone you date. It isn't like we have many protections in place to keep the bad folks from the good. And I'll add that phone books didn't have everyone in town - only the person who paid for the line. For many, you had to look up their family member's or roomate's name to get their phone number and address. Your name and picture might be, but most people's are not. You might not want folks in your conservative town to know which brand of religion you follow. You might not want those folks in that conservative town to know you go to a gay bar most Saturday nights either.
- imgabe 8y ago
  If someone is stalking and harassing you, we need the police to arrest them. Hiding your location data from Google isn't going to help that. The problem there is that an individual is breaking the law. I doubt very much they are finding your location because it's stored in an advertising database somewhere. If you can't openly practice your religion or sexuality in a town, that is a failing of the people of the town. Either stand up for yourself or move to a town with better people. Again, this is not a problem that can be solved by hiding, and living your life having to tiptoe around core parts of your identity so that idiots won't be rude? That is a miserable way to live.
  - mrweasel 8y ago
    > Either stand up for yourself or move to a town with better people That is extremely optimistic. You're right that it's a "people" problem, but not one that's easily solved in the near future. You can't just say: This would be a problem if there weren't assholes around. Well some people are assholes, so this is a problem. You should also be able to leave your wallet in the park, without it getting stole, but you can't so you don't. You don't move as a result of it, that would be stupid, the major cities of the world would be empty. Also we shouldn't forget that one of misuses we have seen of these types of information are law enforcement agents tracking (ex-)partners. Location data may not be secret necessarily, but it can be private.
marcinzm 8y ago
In general, when you're in the majority this information doesn't matter much since you're washed out among the crowd. When you're in a minority however it can be used for nefarious purposed by the right group. For example, the KKK may like to know all the black people who live in predominantly white neighborhoods so they can set a few crosses on fire. Or maybe, you live in a fundamentalist Christian town and prefer your neighbors not know you're not actually Christian since they'd harass you (and the cops would help).
- imgabe 8y ago
  Is the KKK going to search through a marketing database to find out where black people live, or are they going to just drive around the neighborhood and see which houses black people go into? The information flows both ways. We could also use location data to see who regularly attends KKK meetings and who was at the house at the time a cross was burned in the yard and then arrest them, which is ultimately going to be more effective in stopping things like that from happening.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    > The information flows both ways. But the willingness to commit crimes and to hurt people does not. If one side is willing to be violent towards the other, but the other is not, then the symmetry in information flow does not result in a power balance.
  - marcinzm 8y ago
    >Is the KKK going to search through a marketing database to find out where black people live, or are they going to just drive around the neighborhood and see which houses black people go into? The intelligent ones will figure out the fastest way to get what they want or maybe some foreign government interested in impacting an election will send them a list of targets. >The information flows both ways. We could also use location data to see who regularly attends KKK meetings and who was at the house at the time a cross was burned in the yard and then arrest them, which is ultimately going to be more effective in stopping things like that from happening. Attending a KKK meeting is not illegal and turning off your cell phone during the crime is easy. Furthermore, the police are not angels but merely people. If you make it easy for the police to get this information then they will abuse it against those they don't like. Like the FBI threatening Martin Luther King.
grawprog 8y ago
> For example, data about a mobile phone’s past location and movement patterns can be used to predict where a person lives, who their employer is, where they attend religious services and the age range of their children based on where they drop them off for school. Well as far as google thinks I warp immediately from Vancouver to Calgary once I switch from wifi to data then back again every day. I'm guessing it has to do with my phone company but they always give me results from Calgary and show my location as being in Calgary based on my internet address.
throw2016 8y ago
This is a narrow and reductionist view that misses the scope and scale of the issue to make it personal when this is not personal. Nobody is interested in the random individual so looking at this the purely personal level is pointless. It's the ability to do this enmasse, 'collect' and 'collate', analyze and drill down to 'people of interest' and the power it gives the data holders that makes it toxic and ominous.

by imgabe 8y ago

jacquesm 8y ago

That's a rehash of a number of silly 'nothing to hide' pseudo arguments. Phone books were not instantly searchable in bulk all across the globe. Who your employer is is not important, but in bulk to know who your employer employs and to be able to access that information in bulk and within a couple of milliseconds gives a lot of power to outsiders. I should know because I use that power regularly for my work, and trust me, lots of people we read up on would do better to keep a much lower profile online. It does not benefit their employers either. Whether you attend religious services or not has been used to target (and kill) people in the past, and if you are willing to extrapolate a bit, was used for mass murder. The age range of your children may not be so important, the fact that you have children may be, depending on your station in life. The fact that you personally have not been inconvenienced by any of this - yet - is not a datapoint worth recording.

imgabe 8y ago
> Whether you attend religious services or not has been used to target (and kill) people in the past, and if you are willing to extrapolate a bit, was used for mass murder. Right, it was, long before the ability to aggregate this information en masse existed. The fundamental problem there is that there are people who want to kill other people because of their religion. Taking away information from them doesn't solve the problem, it just delays it a little. It's a form of security by obscurity. If anything, they can still go and target the actual place of worship itself, which is not hidden. If all they care about is killing people of a certain religion, they don't need to know who they are particularly, just go to the place of worship for that religion. The larger point here, is that if we can't trust the authority figures, the government, the corporations, etc. It doesn't matter how well we hide. The problem of a fascist government can't be solved by hiding. It has to be solved by enacting a government that's not fascist. Edit: This is not a "nothing to hide" argument. The information listed is not the sort that is private information. Your address is not a special secret that only you can know. There are numerous legitimate reasons that the government or a corporation might need to know your address. The government needs to collect taxes and keep property records. Companies need to deliver products that you order. All of that is going to require sharing your address.
- Profan 8y ago
  That went well for all the dutch jews in WW2 where the government also held detailed records about religious affiliation.. sometimes it is not about what is now, but what will or might be later.
  - _jal 8y ago
    Exactly. People forget the role of IT ("data processing") at all of our peril. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II
  - pdkl95 8y ago
    Using this[1] map created from the Dutch census data (which included religious affiliation), the Nazis were able to very efficiently send about 3/4 of the black dots on that map to be murdered in the camps. Collecting that census data probably seemed reasonable at the time. The new use case that needed a new way of aggre4gating and presenting the data happened later, almost as an emergent property. The only y to prevent problems that haven't been invented yet is to minimize the attack surface: if the records don't exist, they can't be misused. [1] https://www.verzetsmuseum.org/uploads/archive/museum/topstukken/stippenkaart_1633.jpg https://www.verzetsmuseum.org/uploads/archive/museum/topstuk...
- jacquesm 8y ago
  > Right, it was, long before the ability to aggregate this information en masse existed. No, it was not, please educate yourself: https://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/ https://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/ > The fundamental problem there is that there are people who want to kill other people because of their religion. Yes, that is the fundamental problem. And technology makes that much easier to achieve. Of course the religious idiots in Algeria murder people. As do the religious idiots in many other places. But they tend to be a lot less effective than what can be achieved when one harnesses the engines of progress: industrialization and automation. > Taking away information from them doesn't solve the problem, it just delays it a little. It's a form of security by obscurity. That is dangerously naive. No, it does not 'just delay it a little', it is the difference between mass genocide and a slow trickle. > If anything, they can still go and target the actual place of worship itself, which is not hidden. They can and they do, but this is not about any adversary, it is about all adversaries and that includes the ones who would have zero compunction about going after places of worship and everybody who visits them. Now, given a bit of tech and a place of worship you can target all those who ever went there long after the fact even if they decide to stay away from the place of worship because they are on to the would be murderers. > The larger point here, is that if we can't trust the authority figures, the government, the corporations, etc. It doesn't matter how well we hide. If not for the ability of people to hide other people the number of Jews today would be substantially smaller than it is. Really, again, go and educuate yourself. > The problem of a fascist government can't be solved by hiding. No, but individuals can stay alive by hiding. > It has to be solved by enacting a government that's not fascist. Unfortunately Fascist governments will happen every now and then, saying that they shouldn't is denying the fact that they will, several countries are on the path to Fascism today, whether they will get there or not is anybody's guess. But if they do, I guarantee you that all this tech will make the next pogrom a lot more effective than the previous one.
buboard 8y ago
This isnt a nothing to hide argument because there is fair trade of information, not compulsory extraction. Also the information is not publicly available And the counter argument is an FUD theory that all information should be banned because it can potentially be misused
- jacquesm 8y ago
  > This isnt a nothing to hide argument because there is fair trade of information You can have the one with or without the other. > Also the information is not publicly available Until the next hack or subpoena. > And the counter argument is an FUD theory that all information should be banned because it can potentially be misused That is nonsensical and a strawman argument to boot.
  - buboard 8y ago
    > You can have the one with or without the other. then that is not fair trade > Until the next hack or subpoena. here, the FUD again > That is nonsensical and a strawman argument to boot. if something doesnt make sense i can explain. where is the strawman/
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      > here, the FUD again It's only FUD if it does not happen. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/facebook-hack-affected-3-million-in-europe-first-big-test-for-gdpr.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/facebook-hack-affected-3-mil... And tens of thousands of other examples besides that one. > if something doesnt make sense i can explain. where is the strawman/ Nobody said 'all information has to be banned'. You made that up.
      - buboard 8y ago
        i believe we disagree on whether state should serve the people or the other way around.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kodablah 8y ago
> That's a rehash of a number of silly 'nothing to hide' pseudo arguments. We shouldn't so dismissive of the "so what" attitude that is pervasive in this neverending stream of data collection articles. Many are using their opinion of "great harm" to influence their cries for oversight, I think it's only fair for others to use their opinion of "no harm" to counter it. GP didn't say they had nothing to hide, they said what was collected was harmless and that opinion, especially given the tradeoff in services received, is widely held and it's ok.
dontbenebby 8y ago
>Phone books were not instantly searchable in bulk all across the globe. I think this is something that's overlooked. Think back to the 80s. A lot of things that are legal but would be creepy are very time intensive - following someone around takes time. If you photograph them you have to develop film (and you won't know if the photos turned out until then). And while it may have been legal, social norms said don't stalk people - don't expect a social life if you follow people around photographing them. Now what would have been a week long horror montage is accomplished with a single web search and perusal of their Instagram.

ses1984 8y ago

Putting all this info together used to be much more labor intensive, basically infeasible to do at scale. The scale problem is solved, and now companies can mine that data for profit. Maybe it's not that scary in a western society that's generally considered free, but imagine that power in a fascist state.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago

Now pretend all this is public and someone stalks you. Maybe it is your abusive ex that occasionally sends you creepy messages and harasses anyone you date. It isn't like we have many protections in place to keep the bad folks from the good. And I'll add that phone books didn't have everyone in town - only the person who paid for the line. For many, you had to look up their family member's or roomate's name to get their phone number and address. Your name and picture might be, but most people's are not. You might not want folks in your conservative town to know which brand of religion you follow. You might not want those folks in that conservative town to know you go to a gay bar most Saturday nights either.

imgabe 8y ago
If someone is stalking and harassing you, we need the police to arrest them. Hiding your location data from Google isn't going to help that. The problem there is that an individual is breaking the law. I doubt very much they are finding your location because it's stored in an advertising database somewhere. If you can't openly practice your religion or sexuality in a town, that is a failing of the people of the town. Either stand up for yourself or move to a town with better people. Again, this is not a problem that can be solved by hiding, and living your life having to tiptoe around core parts of your identity so that idiots won't be rude? That is a miserable way to live.
- mrweasel 8y ago
  > Either stand up for yourself or move to a town with better people That is extremely optimistic. You're right that it's a "people" problem, but not one that's easily solved in the near future. You can't just say: This would be a problem if there weren't assholes around. Well some people are assholes, so this is a problem. You should also be able to leave your wallet in the park, without it getting stole, but you can't so you don't. You don't move as a result of it, that would be stupid, the major cities of the world would be empty. Also we shouldn't forget that one of misuses we have seen of these types of information are law enforcement agents tracking (ex-)partners. Location data may not be secret necessarily, but it can be private.

marcinzm 8y ago

In general, when you're in the majority this information doesn't matter much since you're washed out among the crowd. When you're in a minority however it can be used for nefarious purposed by the right group. For example, the KKK may like to know all the black people who live in predominantly white neighborhoods so they can set a few crosses on fire. Or maybe, you live in a fundamentalist Christian town and prefer your neighbors not know you're not actually Christian since they'd harass you (and the cops would help).

imgabe 8y ago
Is the KKK going to search through a marketing database to find out where black people live, or are they going to just drive around the neighborhood and see which houses black people go into? The information flows both ways. We could also use location data to see who regularly attends KKK meetings and who was at the house at the time a cross was burned in the yard and then arrest them, which is ultimately going to be more effective in stopping things like that from happening.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > The information flows both ways. But the willingness to commit crimes and to hurt people does not. If one side is willing to be violent towards the other, but the other is not, then the symmetry in information flow does not result in a power balance.
- marcinzm 8y ago
  >Is the KKK going to search through a marketing database to find out where black people live, or are they going to just drive around the neighborhood and see which houses black people go into? The intelligent ones will figure out the fastest way to get what they want or maybe some foreign government interested in impacting an election will send them a list of targets. >The information flows both ways. We could also use location data to see who regularly attends KKK meetings and who was at the house at the time a cross was burned in the yard and then arrest them, which is ultimately going to be more effective in stopping things like that from happening. Attending a KKK meeting is not illegal and turning off your cell phone during the crime is easy. Furthermore, the police are not angels but merely people. If you make it easy for the police to get this information then they will abuse it against those they don't like. Like the FBI threatening Martin Luther King.

grawprog 8y ago

throw2016 8y ago

This is a narrow and reductionist view that misses the scope and scale of the issue to make it personal when this is not personal. Nobody is interested in the random individual so looking at this the purely personal level is pointless. It's the ability to do this enmasse, 'collect' and 'collate', analyze and drill down to 'people of interest' and the power it gives the data holders that makes it toxic and ominous.