10 ms·

We use this term "personal data" so much. But what IS data? If I happen to know that you like cheese sandwiches, is that really data? When did we decide that k

by 0898 7y ago

We use this term "personal data" so much. But what IS data? If I happen to know that you like cheese sandwiches, is that really data? When did we decide that knowing something about somebody else was such a big deal? I feel like this whole brouhaha about data has left me behind.

spencerflem 7y ago
Would you be willing to send me, a stranger, your complete browser history?
- CDSlice 7y ago
  Well, what will you give me in return? If you give me something good like high quality maps and directions then maybe.
  - lostlogin 7y ago
    It’s often not a trade or is a trade for something rubbish.
    - paulcole 7y ago
      What do you mean by “something rubbish”? Can you give an example? As they say, one man’s trash is another’s treasure.
      - hombre_fatal 7y ago
        I am going on a trip with my girlfriend, and while looking at her Google Maps, I saw that it had marked the hotel we were staying at along with the dates we would be there. Right there next to the hotel marker. Impressive, really. I don't like that sort of thing because you can't depend on it. Even if you had the perfect workflow for it, what about any hotel booking you have that doesn't send an email for Gmail to parse, or Gmail can't parse it? Just seems like an annoyingly probabilistic system. Aside from the obvious issues of privacy and creepiness, like how did Google Maps get information that was supposedly just between me and the hotel? But my girlfriend absolutely loved it. She just wished it also showed us our bus route and schedule like it apparently sometimes does for her.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    I'll give you a poem. Roses are red, Violets are blue, The rest of the content is on page 2. Please send me your data now. This is representative of the exchange a regular person gets when browsing mainstream sites without an ad blocker.
sametmax 7y ago
If as an individual I know mentally that, it's most of the time ok. If I start taking notes on paper, the chances it gets weird increase. If I do it systematically for a lot of things in your life, we go into creep territory. Now if instead of an individual, a company does that, and instead of one person, it does that to millions, there is a problem. The problem becomes even bigger depending of the company agenda and the political context.
calgoo 7y ago
No, no one cares about your lunch today. But if I have your history of eating sandwiches every day, and sell it to your insurance company, who now increases your quote because an algorithm says that you have a higher risk for heart attacks or colon cancer; then it might matter.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  They can effectively do the same thing by offering discounts for those who submit their lunch data. Like they already do with excercise data from wearable devices. Insurance is in a funny spot, because the whole premise of insurance is to protect against the unknown, but better and better data is making things known that weren’t before, requiring a change in pricing (lest their competitors beat them to it).
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    But the sick part is the asymmetry: the company(ies) know, and the individuals don't. Would an individual change their practices if they were told that something they were doing was harmful? But, they were never given that choice. Instead, the data is collected, categorized, and sold. Insurance companies can collaborate all the data and extrapolate trends at scale. Now, these insurance companies also have a fiduciary responsibility to lower costs and raise profits to their shareholders. What that amounts is that every insurance company will have to do the same, with slight variations. But we the populace will be worse off with unknown black boxes saying worse things about us (mortality, health, safety) and for us few ways to change things aside gross generalizations our doctors give us.
    - jolfdb 7y ago
      > fiduciary responsibility to lower costs and raise profits to their shareholders. This is a thoroughly debunked lie
      - ta34729384 7y ago
        By definition. Practically, this is precisely what happens in almost all cases.
the_snooze 7y ago
It's easy to dismiss privacy because it's the absence of something: namely the absence of information that can be leveraged against you. It's a preventative measure to avert future harms like discrimination, data leaks to adversaries, and misguided decision-making. It's cheaper and more effective to cut that off at the source rather than trusting companies (who were sneaky in collecting that data in the first place) to be responsible stewards of that information.
the_common_man 7y ago
How we spend our time and money is important personal data. I bet that nobody will part with this information in a totally transparent way to people they personally know.
ljm 7y ago
Knowing something is one thing, but having a perfect memory of everything you've ever desired and liked is completely different. The sheer scale of the intrusion as technology has advanced is the problem. You're not telling someone "I love pizza," they are stalking you across the internet and deciding that you must love pizza, because their mountains of data confirm it. You won't have much luck getting these algorithms to change their mind about you, since they're pulling it from your browser footprint, your IP, your connected networks, social media buttons, cookies, data sold by companies you've shopped with, etc...
- username444 7y ago
  I almost wonder if best practices in the future will incorporate "data hygiene" involving 15-20 minutes of random browsing of topics you're completely uninterested in, just to add noise to your profile. Why yes, Pampers, I am in the market for adult diapers. And denture cleaner.
  - jolfdb 7y ago
    That doesn't work at all. Are you going to fill your network with people who aren't really your friend? Visit locations you don't want to visit? Devote more than have your time to this disinformation?
  - greiskul 7y ago
    What for? What is your threat model? Getting ads for things you are actually interested in?
    - lvna 7y ago
      Historically people have not liked other people building and curating dossiers about them.
    - ska 7y ago
      I haven't really resolved my own thinking about all of this, but I think that take is overly simplistic. How about beginning to target dating sites to your partner because they've figured out you are having affair before the partner has? Or divorce attorneys? Or notifying your work recent changes in pattern make you look like a high flight risk? Or your insurance company that you may have an unreported condition? Same basic data sources can feed into that analysis. Those are just obvious ones, and I'm not claiming they are specifically currently being done ... but the basic technology isn't a barrier. This is why it is a bit disingenuous to echo the common refrain "what's so bad about better targeted ads" as if that adequately describes what is at stake.
Barrin92 7y ago
>When did we decide that knowing something about somebody else was such a big deal? When data became a commodity that can be analysed, acted upon, sold and used to make predictions about groups or individuals.
- emiliobumachar 7y ago
  No, it was when the nerds started doing it. Credit reporting agencies were always all about knowing something about somebody else en mass as a commodity that can be analysed, acted upon, sold and used to make predictions about groups or individuals. But these are companies best represented by people who wear proper suits and play proper golf. Nobody batted an eye.
  - csharpminor 7y ago
    It's not about nerds and suits, it's about how frequently we are exposed to data collection. Credit reporting agencies collected a powerful set of data (personal finance information), but you wouldn't really notice it until you applied for a loan, mortgage, or credit card. Contrast that to today's barrage of tracking and advertising. Firefox Focus tells me to date that it has blocked 65k trackers in the past ten months. I mention a specific tool I need for a project to my dad, he searches for it, and then I see advertisements. The "nerds" didn't forget to wear suits and play golf, they expanded the data collection net and feedback loop for advertisements to an unprecedented scale.
    - the_snooze 7y ago
      >The "nerds" didn't forget to wear suits and play golf, they expanded the data collection net and feedback loop for advertisements to an unprecedented scale. Exactly. It's intellectually bankrupt to suggest that tech is just like everything else before, all while conveniently ignoring the change in scale. Scale matters, and scaling up changes a system's implications and risks. It's irresponsible to think otherwise. Just because I'm OK with using party poppers doesn't mean I want a flashbang to blow up next to me.
yifanl 7y ago
Echoing a comment I made a while back, there's a difference between transient (a humorous remark amongst friends) and permanent information (a humorous remark printed in a book). Except that the internet has made all transient data permanent (i.e. my jokes from high school are free to see on Twitter), and our social systems simply can't haven't kept up with this change.
dahart 7y ago
> We use this term "personal data" so much. But what IS data? [...] I feel like this whole brouhaha about data has left me behind. Data and personal data are two different things. "Data" is any information. "Personal data" is information that is about you, connected to you, or identifies you personally. I recommend poking around at how GDPR defines personal data, for example, since it's at the heart of the new emerging global privacy debate. https://www.itgovernance.eu/blog/en/the-gdpr-what-exactly-is-personal-data https://www.itgovernance.eu/blog/en/the-gdpr-what-exactly-is... https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/personal-data/ https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/personal-data/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/key-definitions/what-is-personal-data/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio... > If I happen to know that you like cheese sandwiches, is that really data? Yes. It's both data, and personal data. > When did we decide that knowing something about somebody else was such a big deal? That's not the issue. The issue is companies knowing something about everyone else, and selling that knowledge to people you didn't give it to, and using that knowledge to do things you don't really want, starting with advertising.
o10449366 7y ago
If I told you that I like cheese sandwiches, then no. However, in normal, human interactions there's the reasonable expectation that if I tell you something, you won't go and sell it to the highest bidder who can then in turn do whatever they please with the information and further propagate it. Privacy isn't a huge problem in society because as humans most people have adequate social skills and understand what is and isn't appropriate to disclose and share. The problem is that tech companies don't treat their users as humans and don't follow basic conventions and common sense.
alkonaut 7y ago
Yes absolute that is (personal) data if it's attributable to a person such as myself. It's not "not personal data" because it's trivial. It's not "not personal data" because I voluntarily gave it to someone. I only want sites to store data they necessary to carry out their function and only for as long as they need it to do so (note: keeping lights on with ads does not count as function).
jorvi 7y ago
A big example is Facebook looking at how long people spent on their feed, how much stuff they liked, how much they responded, if those responses were negative or positive, if they spent more time on negative content, etc; Once they had a decent understanding of that they literally A/B tested if people stayed on Facebook longer if they made them sad or if them made them happy. So yeah, if 'data' allows you to do clandestine psychology experiments on a massive scale, that is a big deal.
- stOneskull 7y ago
  > their feed
rhizome 7y ago
We use this term "personal data" so much. But what IS data? If I happen to know that you like cheese sandwiches, is that really data? When did we decide that knowing something about somebody else was such a big deal? It's whatever I want it to be, and I should be able to change my mind about it. It's not hard.
badrabbit 7y ago
It's a huge deal. I didn't tell you I like cheese sandwiches. You found out against my consent. You violated my consent,which is a huge deal for me. I get to decide who knows whether or not I like cheese sandwiches. If I am a free person,equal with you under the law then how is it ok for you to violate my consent and persistently stalk me to find information about me for your own gain?
- jakeogh 7y ago
  You told someone you like cheese sandwiches. You don't get to decide if they remember you telling them that or not.
  - beenBoutIT 7y ago
    You also don't get to decide who they pass the information on to. The sandwich maker analogy isn't that great because IRL robbers off sandwich shop owners daily as a means of keeping their data private.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Is it stalking if you're willingly giving information in the form of search queries?
- creato 7y ago
  If you order cheese sandwiches every time you eat out, and your friends observe that you like cheese sandwiches without you telling them, did they "violate your consent"? If you eat lunch at the same place, and the guy who takes your order notices you like cheese sandwiches, did he "violate your consent"? If the same guy happens to be in line behind you a few days in a row and notices that you always order cheese sandwiches, did he "violate your consent"? I agree the behavior is a bit creepy in the same way I (very) mildly dislike it when the sandwich shop guy knows my order, but it is also unreasonable to expect information you share with others to be kept private. It's not "stalking" for someone to observe things about the world that were made available to them. To change that would necessitate some pretty ugly regulations that would infringe on the rights of everyone (including you).
learnstats2 7y ago
If you're a person and I've never met you, it would be creepy if you knew what kind of cheese sandwiches I particularly like. So, yes, it is personal data.
- cm2012 7y ago
  They have met you. You order sandwiches in their cafe every day, if the metaphor is followed.
  - Thiez 7y ago
    Except that companies like Facebook have an employee at the exit of every shop/cafe/bar/cinema/park you visit. This employee notes the time, place, and your name in a little notebook. Every night the notebooks are shipped to HQ and the data is combined into a profile about you. Somehow this is not creepy.
tejtm 7y ago
Questioning 'what is data' feels disingenuous, hoping the essence is lost in the smoke and noise. What is asymmetrical information permanently captured? Is ignorant coercion the same as consent?
drharby 7y ago
...... Is data really that ephemeral to people? Maybe its bc i worked with intelligence systems in my first career, but the idea of controlled data seems pretty straightforward. What i choose to reveal about myself should be in my hands, and part of that decision is brokering trust that ot isnt shared. What Is Data? Its a record. It isnt handwavy to me or most.
amiga_500 7y ago
When my health insurance goes up because of it?
- cm2012 7y ago
  FB and Google will never share your PII with a 3rd party in the way you're describing (on purpose - and hacks are few and far between). They will sell permission to advertise to you - and even then, only if you're targeted in a bucket of a couple of thousand real matches or more.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    "We want to target all people who have a heart condition" ... so FB/G send that advertising and you harvest the click-data and now have a catalogue of people that FB/G believe have heart problems. You then sell that data, or a company owning that data, or whatever, to insurance companies to use in their premium pricing. If the information is going to be used to select users to show a particular advert to then that information is effectively able to be liberated to benefit the advertiser (the one buying the adverts on FB or G) or their customers (the ones buying the amalgamated data). Then there's all the FB linked surveys, like "When will you die? Answer 10 questions to find out!" and that information just happens to be prime info for insurance people to use that they're not allowed to ask you for directly. Maybe the survey company has to make a new "life metric" and sell that data to avoid the insurance company doing something they're not allowed, but surely this is how it's done?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Given that you can track who clicked on your ad yourself, this essentially turns Google and FB into a query engine on personal data. Placing a highly-targeted ad is like SELECT [what you can track yourself] FROM person WHERE [match against targeting criteria];. The recent voting manipulation scandals were essentially about using Facebook like this.
    - cm2012 7y ago
      The data is too messy for that to work in practice.
sys_64738 7y ago
Ultimately your fondness for cheese sandwiches ends up in an aggregated dossier of all information about you. The type of bread you like. Your SSN. Your income. If you don't think that's a big deal then you need to get to a point that it IS a big deal for you.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tnolet 7y ago
> When did we decide that knowing something about somebody else was such a big deal? With the risk of pulling a semi-Godwin, you should visit the Stasi museum here in Berlin. It gives you a good insight into how powerful “knowing something about somebody” can be.
asark 7y ago
OTOH I'm not sure why stalking is legal, provided you do it in bulk.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Someone [1] might instead ask "why is stalking illegal if you're not doing anything that causes an [deleterious] effect on the person". I mean MI5 might be tracking me right now, but it doesn't make any difference whatsoever until the point at which they take action. [1] but not me!
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    And then, you may ask "why bulk stalking is legal given that it has deleterious effect on people". Deleterious by means of ads, where the point of most of them is to distract you from what you were doing and convince you to make a purchase against your best interest.
gaze 7y ago
Suppose someone has collected data on my groceries. They now know I buy a lot of red meat, and may then figure I must be eating a lot of red meat. Suppose my insurance rates now go up. Okay I hear you saying “well maybe your rates should go up if you eat a lot of red meat. You’re costing everyone else a lot of money.” I’d say you have some highly misguided morals, and I’d say that such a scheme would never lead to savings for people who don’t eat red meat, but almost surely additional costs for those who do. The thing to remember is these schemes never, ever benefit you. They make other people money, generally at your expense.
- matz1 7y ago
  So you are saying that insurance company should just have to accept higher loss from you?
  - gaze 7y ago
    I’d say that for-profit insurance as a concept is unethical, but also yes.
- ultrarunner 7y ago
  > They make other people money, generally at your expense. Sure, sometimes (as a matter of probability). But are you really claiming that all data collection is a zero-sum game wherein only the collectors can possibly win?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Not sometimes, almost always. Data collection isn't a zero-sum game. Between you and collectors, it's positive-sum game with you almost always having negative gains. At the society level, this game is embedded in the negative-sum game of advertising.
SquishyPanda23 7y ago
The whole reason for having this amount of surveillance is to control behavior. People generally prefer freedom over being controlled and manipulated.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  I honestly don't understand how we're supposed to operate being monitored 24/7. The idea that any information that contains a personal, social or corporate advantage is likely going to go through an electronic device attached to FAANG, is 1984 on steroids. FAANG + MS has the information to out-compete, out-advantage anybody at anytime. The only reality left is radical vulnerability. If google knows I was caught DUI one night 6 months ago because I was a couple percent over the limit driving home from a nice party, then everybody has to know. I have no choice but to tell the truth all the time, lest exposure be my downfall. This applies to every single bit of data gathered and every bit of information gathered from the analysis of that data. There is a defcon talk that describes a German judge that jacked off to porn in chambers nearly every day and during times he really shouldn't be. No-one in his social or work life knew or was negatively effected. But these defcon engineers were able to deanonymize his data and reveal his behaviour. This applies to everybody now. Radical vulnerability is the only thing we have left to maintain social order. It's hell for those that want to minimize vulnerability for the sake of extreme competence. People in positions of power or capital can access that information and I gain no social security or social safety from having secrets anymore.
kabacha 7y ago
I've been hammering this into people's heads for over a decade now. Anything you put public is not "personal data". If you go to town square and yell that you like cheese cake do you then expect everyone to forget it upoin request. Should the local cake shop forget that you just said you like cheese cake? As privacy and floss advocate "personal data" just makes absolutely zero sense. There's private data and public data. Private data is your passwords and stuff not exposed to public internet - everything else is public data and it's no longer "yours" unless it's copyrightable content.

by 0898 7y ago

spencerflem 7y ago

Would you be willing to send me, a stranger, your complete browser history?

CDSlice 7y ago
Well, what will you give me in return? If you give me something good like high quality maps and directions then maybe.
- lostlogin 7y ago
  It’s often not a trade or is a trade for something rubbish.
  - paulcole 7y ago
    What do you mean by “something rubbish”? Can you give an example? As they say, one man’s trash is another’s treasure.
    - hombre_fatal 7y ago
      I am going on a trip with my girlfriend, and while looking at her Google Maps, I saw that it had marked the hotel we were staying at along with the dates we would be there. Right there next to the hotel marker. Impressive, really. I don't like that sort of thing because you can't depend on it. Even if you had the perfect workflow for it, what about any hotel booking you have that doesn't send an email for Gmail to parse, or Gmail can't parse it? Just seems like an annoyingly probabilistic system. Aside from the obvious issues of privacy and creepiness, like how did Google Maps get information that was supposedly just between me and the hotel? But my girlfriend absolutely loved it. She just wished it also showed us our bus route and schedule like it apparently sometimes does for her.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  I'll give you a poem. Roses are red, Violets are blue, The rest of the content is on page 2. Please send me your data now. This is representative of the exchange a regular person gets when browsing mainstream sites without an ad blocker.

sametmax 7y ago

If as an individual I know mentally that, it's most of the time ok. If I start taking notes on paper, the chances it gets weird increase. If I do it systematically for a lot of things in your life, we go into creep territory. Now if instead of an individual, a company does that, and instead of one person, it does that to millions, there is a problem. The problem becomes even bigger depending of the company agenda and the political context.

calgoo 7y ago

No, no one cares about your lunch today. But if I have your history of eating sandwiches every day, and sell it to your insurance company, who now increases your quote because an algorithm says that you have a higher risk for heart attacks or colon cancer; then it might matter.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
They can effectively do the same thing by offering discounts for those who submit their lunch data. Like they already do with excercise data from wearable devices. Insurance is in a funny spot, because the whole premise of insurance is to protect against the unknown, but better and better data is making things known that weren’t before, requiring a change in pricing (lest their competitors beat them to it).
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  But the sick part is the asymmetry: the company(ies) know, and the individuals don't. Would an individual change their practices if they were told that something they were doing was harmful? But, they were never given that choice. Instead, the data is collected, categorized, and sold. Insurance companies can collaborate all the data and extrapolate trends at scale. Now, these insurance companies also have a fiduciary responsibility to lower costs and raise profits to their shareholders. What that amounts is that every insurance company will have to do the same, with slight variations. But we the populace will be worse off with unknown black boxes saying worse things about us (mortality, health, safety) and for us few ways to change things aside gross generalizations our doctors give us.
  - jolfdb 7y ago
    > fiduciary responsibility to lower costs and raise profits to their shareholders. This is a thoroughly debunked lie
    - ta34729384 7y ago
      By definition. Practically, this is precisely what happens in almost all cases.

the_snooze 7y ago

It's easy to dismiss privacy because it's the absence of something: namely the absence of information that can be leveraged against you. It's a preventative measure to avert future harms like discrimination, data leaks to adversaries, and misguided decision-making. It's cheaper and more effective to cut that off at the source rather than trusting companies (who were sneaky in collecting that data in the first place) to be responsible stewards of that information.

the_common_man 7y ago

How we spend our time and money is important personal data. I bet that nobody will part with this information in a totally transparent way to people they personally know.

ljm 7y ago

Knowing something is one thing, but having a perfect memory of everything you've ever desired and liked is completely different. The sheer scale of the intrusion as technology has advanced is the problem. You're not telling someone "I love pizza," they are stalking you across the internet and deciding that you must love pizza, because their mountains of data confirm it. You won't have much luck getting these algorithms to change their mind about you, since they're pulling it from your browser footprint, your IP, your connected networks, social media buttons, cookies, data sold by companies you've shopped with, etc...

username444 7y ago
I almost wonder if best practices in the future will incorporate "data hygiene" involving 15-20 minutes of random browsing of topics you're completely uninterested in, just to add noise to your profile. Why yes, Pampers, I am in the market for adult diapers. And denture cleaner.
- jolfdb 7y ago
  That doesn't work at all. Are you going to fill your network with people who aren't really your friend? Visit locations you don't want to visit? Devote more than have your time to this disinformation?
- greiskul 7y ago
  What for? What is your threat model? Getting ads for things you are actually interested in?
  - lvna 7y ago
    Historically people have not liked other people building and curating dossiers about them.
  - ska 7y ago
    I haven't really resolved my own thinking about all of this, but I think that take is overly simplistic. How about beginning to target dating sites to your partner because they've figured out you are having affair before the partner has? Or divorce attorneys? Or notifying your work recent changes in pattern make you look like a high flight risk? Or your insurance company that you may have an unreported condition? Same basic data sources can feed into that analysis. Those are just obvious ones, and I'm not claiming they are specifically currently being done ... but the basic technology isn't a barrier. This is why it is a bit disingenuous to echo the common refrain "what's so bad about better targeted ads" as if that adequately describes what is at stake.

Barrin92 7y ago

>When did we decide that knowing something about somebody else was such a big deal? When data became a commodity that can be analysed, acted upon, sold and used to make predictions about groups or individuals.

emiliobumachar 7y ago
No, it was when the nerds started doing it. Credit reporting agencies were always all about knowing something about somebody else en mass as a commodity that can be analysed, acted upon, sold and used to make predictions about groups or individuals. But these are companies best represented by people who wear proper suits and play proper golf. Nobody batted an eye.
- csharpminor 7y ago
  It's not about nerds and suits, it's about how frequently we are exposed to data collection. Credit reporting agencies collected a powerful set of data (personal finance information), but you wouldn't really notice it until you applied for a loan, mortgage, or credit card. Contrast that to today's barrage of tracking and advertising. Firefox Focus tells me to date that it has blocked 65k trackers in the past ten months. I mention a specific tool I need for a project to my dad, he searches for it, and then I see advertisements. The "nerds" didn't forget to wear suits and play golf, they expanded the data collection net and feedback loop for advertisements to an unprecedented scale.
  - the_snooze 7y ago
    >The "nerds" didn't forget to wear suits and play golf, they expanded the data collection net and feedback loop for advertisements to an unprecedented scale. Exactly. It's intellectually bankrupt to suggest that tech is just like everything else before, all while conveniently ignoring the change in scale. Scale matters, and scaling up changes a system's implications and risks. It's irresponsible to think otherwise. Just because I'm OK with using party poppers doesn't mean I want a flashbang to blow up next to me.

yifanl 7y ago

Echoing a comment I made a while back, there's a difference between transient (a humorous remark amongst friends) and permanent information (a humorous remark printed in a book). Except that the internet has made all transient data permanent (i.e. my jokes from high school are free to see on Twitter), and our social systems simply can't haven't kept up with this change.

dahart 7y ago

> We use this term "personal data" so much. But what IS data? [...] I feel like this whole brouhaha about data has left me behind. Data and personal data are two different things. "Data" is any information. "Personal data" is information that is about you, connected to you, or identifies you personally. I recommend poking around at how GDPR defines personal data, for example, since it's at the heart of the new emerging global privacy debate. https://www.itgovernance.eu/blog/en/the-gdpr-what-exactly-is-personal-data https://www.itgovernance.eu/blog/en/the-gdpr-what-exactly-is... https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/personal-data/ https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/personal-data/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/key-definitions/what-is-personal-data/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio... > If I happen to know that you like cheese sandwiches, is that really data? Yes. It's both data, and personal data. > When did we decide that knowing something about somebody else was such a big deal? That's not the issue. The issue is companies knowing something about everyone else, and selling that knowledge to people you didn't give it to, and using that knowledge to do things you don't really want, starting with advertising.

o10449366 7y ago

If I told you that I like cheese sandwiches, then no. However, in normal, human interactions there's the reasonable expectation that if I tell you something, you won't go and sell it to the highest bidder who can then in turn do whatever they please with the information and further propagate it. Privacy isn't a huge problem in society because as humans most people have adequate social skills and understand what is and isn't appropriate to disclose and share. The problem is that tech companies don't treat their users as humans and don't follow basic conventions and common sense.

alkonaut 7y ago

Yes absolute that is (personal) data if it's attributable to a person such as myself. It's not "not personal data" because it's trivial. It's not "not personal data" because I voluntarily gave it to someone. I only want sites to store data they necessary to carry out their function and only for as long as they need it to do so (note: keeping lights on with ads does not count as function).

jorvi 7y ago

A big example is Facebook looking at how long people spent on their feed, how much stuff they liked, how much they responded, if those responses were negative or positive, if they spent more time on negative content, etc; Once they had a decent understanding of that they literally A/B tested if people stayed on Facebook longer if they made them sad or if them made them happy. So yeah, if 'data' allows you to do clandestine psychology experiments on a massive scale, that is a big deal.

stOneskull 7y ago
> their feed

rhizome 7y ago

We use this term "personal data" so much. But what IS data? If I happen to know that you like cheese sandwiches, is that really data? When did we decide that knowing something about somebody else was such a big deal? It's whatever I want it to be, and I should be able to change my mind about it. It's not hard.

badrabbit 7y ago

It's a huge deal. I didn't tell you I like cheese sandwiches. You found out against my consent. You violated my consent,which is a huge deal for me. I get to decide who knows whether or not I like cheese sandwiches. If I am a free person,equal with you under the law then how is it ok for you to violate my consent and persistently stalk me to find information about me for your own gain?

jakeogh 7y ago
You told someone you like cheese sandwiches. You don't get to decide if they remember you telling them that or not.
- beenBoutIT 7y ago
  You also don't get to decide who they pass the information on to. The sandwich maker analogy isn't that great because IRL robbers off sandwich shop owners daily as a means of keeping their data private.
cameronbrown 7y ago
Is it stalking if you're willingly giving information in the form of search queries?
creato 7y ago
If you order cheese sandwiches every time you eat out, and your friends observe that you like cheese sandwiches without you telling them, did they "violate your consent"? If you eat lunch at the same place, and the guy who takes your order notices you like cheese sandwiches, did he "violate your consent"? If the same guy happens to be in line behind you a few days in a row and notices that you always order cheese sandwiches, did he "violate your consent"? I agree the behavior is a bit creepy in the same way I (very) mildly dislike it when the sandwich shop guy knows my order, but it is also unreasonable to expect information you share with others to be kept private. It's not "stalking" for someone to observe things about the world that were made available to them. To change that would necessitate some pretty ugly regulations that would infringe on the rights of everyone (including you).

learnstats2 7y ago

If you're a person and I've never met you, it would be creepy if you knew what kind of cheese sandwiches I particularly like. So, yes, it is personal data.

cm2012 7y ago
They have met you. You order sandwiches in their cafe every day, if the metaphor is followed.
- Thiez 7y ago
  Except that companies like Facebook have an employee at the exit of every shop/cafe/bar/cinema/park you visit. This employee notes the time, place, and your name in a little notebook. Every night the notebooks are shipped to HQ and the data is combined into a profile about you. Somehow this is not creepy.

tejtm 7y ago

Questioning 'what is data' feels disingenuous, hoping the essence is lost in the smoke and noise. What is asymmetrical information permanently captured? Is ignorant coercion the same as consent?

drharby 7y ago

...... Is data really that ephemeral to people? Maybe its bc i worked with intelligence systems in my first career, but the idea of controlled data seems pretty straightforward. What i choose to reveal about myself should be in my hands, and part of that decision is brokering trust that ot isnt shared. What Is Data? Its a record. It isnt handwavy to me or most.

amiga_500 7y ago

When my health insurance goes up because of it?

cm2012 7y ago
FB and Google will never share your PII with a 3rd party in the way you're describing (on purpose - and hacks are few and far between). They will sell permission to advertise to you - and even then, only if you're targeted in a bucket of a couple of thousand real matches or more.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  "We want to target all people who have a heart condition" ... so FB/G send that advertising and you harvest the click-data and now have a catalogue of people that FB/G believe have heart problems. You then sell that data, or a company owning that data, or whatever, to insurance companies to use in their premium pricing. If the information is going to be used to select users to show a particular advert to then that information is effectively able to be liberated to benefit the advertiser (the one buying the adverts on FB or G) or their customers (the ones buying the amalgamated data). Then there's all the FB linked surveys, like "When will you die? Answer 10 questions to find out!" and that information just happens to be prime info for insurance people to use that they're not allowed to ask you for directly. Maybe the survey company has to make a new "life metric" and sell that data to avoid the insurance company doing something they're not allowed, but surely this is how it's done?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Given that you can track who clicked on your ad yourself, this essentially turns Google and FB into a query engine on personal data. Placing a highly-targeted ad is like SELECT [what you can track yourself] FROM person WHERE [match against targeting criteria];. The recent voting manipulation scandals were essentially about using Facebook like this.
  - cm2012 7y ago
    The data is too messy for that to work in practice.

sys_64738 7y ago

Ultimately your fondness for cheese sandwiches ends up in an aggregated dossier of all information about you. The type of bread you like. Your SSN. Your income. If you don't think that's a big deal then you need to get to a point that it IS a big deal for you.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tnolet 7y ago

> When did we decide that knowing something about somebody else was such a big deal? With the risk of pulling a semi-Godwin, you should visit the Stasi museum here in Berlin. It gives you a good insight into how powerful “knowing something about somebody” can be.

asark 7y ago

OTOH I'm not sure why stalking is legal, provided you do it in bulk.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Someone [1] might instead ask "why is stalking illegal if you're not doing anything that causes an [deleterious] effect on the person". I mean MI5 might be tracking me right now, but it doesn't make any difference whatsoever until the point at which they take action. [1] but not me!
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  And then, you may ask "why bulk stalking is legal given that it has deleterious effect on people". Deleterious by means of ads, where the point of most of them is to distract you from what you were doing and convince you to make a purchase against your best interest.

gaze 7y ago

Suppose someone has collected data on my groceries. They now know I buy a lot of red meat, and may then figure I must be eating a lot of red meat. Suppose my insurance rates now go up. Okay I hear you saying “well maybe your rates should go up if you eat a lot of red meat. You’re costing everyone else a lot of money.” I’d say you have some highly misguided morals, and I’d say that such a scheme would never lead to savings for people who don’t eat red meat, but almost surely additional costs for those who do. The thing to remember is these schemes never, ever benefit you. They make other people money, generally at your expense.

matz1 7y ago
So you are saying that insurance company should just have to accept higher loss from you?
- gaze 7y ago
  I’d say that for-profit insurance as a concept is unethical, but also yes.
ultrarunner 7y ago
> They make other people money, generally at your expense. Sure, sometimes (as a matter of probability). But are you really claiming that all data collection is a zero-sum game wherein only the collectors can possibly win?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Not sometimes, almost always. Data collection isn't a zero-sum game. Between you and collectors, it's positive-sum game with you almost always having negative gains. At the society level, this game is embedded in the negative-sum game of advertising.

SquishyPanda23 7y ago

The whole reason for having this amount of surveillance is to control behavior. People generally prefer freedom over being controlled and manipulated.

friendlybus 7y ago
I honestly don't understand how we're supposed to operate being monitored 24/7. The idea that any information that contains a personal, social or corporate advantage is likely going to go through an electronic device attached to FAANG, is 1984 on steroids. FAANG + MS has the information to out-compete, out-advantage anybody at anytime. The only reality left is radical vulnerability. If google knows I was caught DUI one night 6 months ago because I was a couple percent over the limit driving home from a nice party, then everybody has to know. I have no choice but to tell the truth all the time, lest exposure be my downfall. This applies to every single bit of data gathered and every bit of information gathered from the analysis of that data. There is a defcon talk that describes a German judge that jacked off to porn in chambers nearly every day and during times he really shouldn't be. No-one in his social or work life knew or was negatively effected. But these defcon engineers were able to deanonymize his data and reveal his behaviour. This applies to everybody now. Radical vulnerability is the only thing we have left to maintain social order. It's hell for those that want to minimize vulnerability for the sake of extreme competence. People in positions of power or capital can access that information and I gain no social security or social safety from having secrets anymore.

kabacha 7y ago

I've been hammering this into people's heads for over a decade now. Anything you put public is not "personal data". If you go to town square and yell that you like cheese cake do you then expect everyone to forget it upoin request. Should the local cake shop forget that you just said you like cheese cake? As privacy and floss advocate "personal data" just makes absolutely zero sense. There's private data and public data. Private data is your passwords and stuff not exposed to public internet - everything else is public data and it's no longer "yours" unless it's copyrightable content.