6 ms·

>To me, category 3 is the most dangerous. Tech workers have a responsibility not just understand the technologies that they work with, but also educate themselv

>To me, category 3 is the most dangerous. Tech workers have a responsibility not just understand the technologies that they work with, but also educate themselves on the societal implications of those technologies. And as others have pointed out, this extends beyond home speakers to any voice-enabled device in general. Yes I'm frequently amazed how many coworkers I have that are still completely plugged into Google, Facebook, Amazon services/spyware, fill their homes with internet enabled "smart devices", have alexa/google assistance etc, and yet they act like I'm paranoid when I try to discuss security concerns or just flat out don't care. As much as I hate to say it, I think there needs to be a massive breach or abuse of power from one of these organizations/services that has severe real world consequences for those that utilize/support them. Until then nothing will change.

Godel_unicode 7y ago
It sounds like you're hoping for this as evidence that you were right to be concerned; have you considered that you might be wrong? What if your coworkers are right, and the risk is actually extremely low? How would you determine that?
- okmokmz 7y ago
  >It sounds like you're hoping for this as evidence that you were right to be concerned Not at all, if the constant security breaches and lack of response from consumers, regulators, companies, etc. isn't enough evidence for you that there is a serious problem then you fall into the group I'm describing
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    What constant security breaches? There are two major examples of security breaches I can think of that happened recently at amagoofaceoft: mis-stored passwords (fb/insta, and google for a short period earlier this year), and variants of the Cambridge analytics attacks, which steal public information but at scale. While those certainly aren't good, I wouldn't classify either as a security breach. The first was a loss of defense in depth, and the second, like I said, just got public info, but lots of it. Are you saying that breaches at other companies mean we shouldn't trust the big ones to be secure? Like because Equifax has terrible security practice, google by definition must also have bad security? Or...what? (I work at Google).
    - jhayward 7y ago
      > Are you saying that breaches at other companies mean we shouldn't trust the big ones to be secure? Like because Equifax has terrible security practice, google by definition must also have bad security? Or...what? Are you asserting that Google detects 100% of significant breaches, and promptly notifies the public of all of them? My experience tells me that neither assertion is likely to be true.
    - okmokmz 7y ago
      Breaches was probably the wrong term to use in my example, as it brings attention to the wrong issue. The point I am trying to make is not that we shouldn't trust large companies to be secure as you say (although based on my experience with enterprise infosec I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of companies handling/storing personal data don't have appropriate security controls enforced). The point I am making is that many large organizations such as Google and Facebook are performing worldwide, largely unchecked mass surveillance with data collection and analytical capabilities far beyond what is available to the majority of the world, and people simply don't care despite how knowledgeable they are about technology. There's also little to now way to escape it as Google and Facebook technology is so ingrained in the existing internet. While Google may not have poor security practices and may never experience a breach where data is stolen (although again I highly doubt that), as far as I'm concerned Google itself, as well as Facebook, are malicious actors in my own life and personal opsec as a huge portion of their business model is based on collecting and monetizing user data by any means possible with little to no concern for the negative impact on users such as mental health problems. Frankly, I don't like companies that make money spying on people, particularly those that abuse psychological techniques that make it more difficult for people to make informed decisions or choices about the technology they're using. Beyond that, these technologies are sold/rented or otherwise provided to governments, law enforcement and intelligence agencies, dictators, authoritarian regimes, and others that can and are being for personal gain. So no, I don't believe we should trust Google, but not because other companies have experienced data breaches. That is just one of the many reasons I believe people should value their data and personal privacy far more than most do
      - okmokmz 7y ago
- roenxi 7y ago
  > It sounds like you're hoping for this as evidence that you were right to be concerned; have you considered that you might be wrong? An alternate interpretation is that if a massive breach of trust is intentional then it would be better if it happened sooner rather than later. > What if your coworkers are right...? How would you determine that? That is a pretty classic appeal to popularity; what most co-workers believe is not evidence of anything in this case. If they are right, they are right. If they are wrong, they might be a self-selected group of the people who don't see a risk for what it is. At any rate 'the risk' is a bit vague, but moral panics and witch hunts are things that happen. When the tech companies get involved in one, which will happen, it could be very nasty. There is clearly some sort of new risk here making it easier to quickly and accurately identify minorities. Even ignoring rogue employees finding creative ways to use data to enrich themselves.
inetknght 7y ago
> there needs to be a massive breach or abuse of power from one of these organizations/services that has severe real world consequences for those that utilize/support them. Until then nothing will change. I think even more darkly: that the consequences of something severe enough to cause that change would be so much as to effectively destroy modern civilization. Consider that much of the modern economy is driven by tech companies not only ignoring privacy but often actively violating it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
"... I think there needs to be a massive breach or abuse of power from one of these organizations/services that has severe real world consequences for those that utilize/support them..." One of my greater fears is the knowledge that, should this happen, there's a nonzero chance that no one would care.
- jgroszko 7y ago
  I suppose it hasn't had mass real world consequences for folks yet, but the Equifax breach pretty much proves this?
  - okmokmz 7y ago
    Yes, the Equifax breach is one of the reasons I included "severe" as a qualifier. It has been demonstrated that even fairly serious breaches will be ignored by the general public. It needs to be something that makes people genuinely fear for the safety of their finances, possessions, and/or health
deepgrave4 7y ago
The very "experts" who are plugged in and implementing/promoting the IoT are themselves under a form of mass hypnosis. Look how hard they work! For what? Progress! Money! They are taught to obey. If they do not, there will be consequences. We are entering an age of mass disinformation propagated by the controllers to obscure their agenda and remap people's minds. The only difference is that now our propaganda is 24/7 broadcasting from our pants pocket. They wish to destroy our ability to discern right from wrong, and they seem to be succeeding. One can only hope that as a human species we can muster some shred of critical thought amidst this onslaught. Perhaps one day we can stand up and see things for what they are, because unfortunately, we are running out of time. Words have power though. They can change minds and foment revolutions. Disaster is not the only way (and disasters almost always benefit the controllers). We can elevate ourselves through language; most everything we've ever known is codified in language. Never stop speaking your mind, especially to the blind, narrow-minded yes-men that surround you. They, too, can change.

Godel_unicode 7y ago

It sounds like you're hoping for this as evidence that you were right to be concerned; have you considered that you might be wrong? What if your coworkers are right, and the risk is actually extremely low? How would you determine that?

okmokmz 7y ago
>It sounds like you're hoping for this as evidence that you were right to be concerned Not at all, if the constant security breaches and lack of response from consumers, regulators, companies, etc. isn't enough evidence for you that there is a serious problem then you fall into the group I'm describing
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  What constant security breaches? There are two major examples of security breaches I can think of that happened recently at amagoofaceoft: mis-stored passwords (fb/insta, and google for a short period earlier this year), and variants of the Cambridge analytics attacks, which steal public information but at scale. While those certainly aren't good, I wouldn't classify either as a security breach. The first was a loss of defense in depth, and the second, like I said, just got public info, but lots of it. Are you saying that breaches at other companies mean we shouldn't trust the big ones to be secure? Like because Equifax has terrible security practice, google by definition must also have bad security? Or...what? (I work at Google).
  - jhayward 7y ago
    > Are you saying that breaches at other companies mean we shouldn't trust the big ones to be secure? Like because Equifax has terrible security practice, google by definition must also have bad security? Or...what? Are you asserting that Google detects 100% of significant breaches, and promptly notifies the public of all of them? My experience tells me that neither assertion is likely to be true.
  - okmokmz 7y ago
    Breaches was probably the wrong term to use in my example, as it brings attention to the wrong issue. The point I am trying to make is not that we shouldn't trust large companies to be secure as you say (although based on my experience with enterprise infosec I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of companies handling/storing personal data don't have appropriate security controls enforced). The point I am making is that many large organizations such as Google and Facebook are performing worldwide, largely unchecked mass surveillance with data collection and analytical capabilities far beyond what is available to the majority of the world, and people simply don't care despite how knowledgeable they are about technology. There's also little to now way to escape it as Google and Facebook technology is so ingrained in the existing internet. While Google may not have poor security practices and may never experience a breach where data is stolen (although again I highly doubt that), as far as I'm concerned Google itself, as well as Facebook, are malicious actors in my own life and personal opsec as a huge portion of their business model is based on collecting and monetizing user data by any means possible with little to no concern for the negative impact on users such as mental health problems. Frankly, I don't like companies that make money spying on people, particularly those that abuse psychological techniques that make it more difficult for people to make informed decisions or choices about the technology they're using. Beyond that, these technologies are sold/rented or otherwise provided to governments, law enforcement and intelligence agencies, dictators, authoritarian regimes, and others that can and are being for personal gain. So no, I don't believe we should trust Google, but not because other companies have experienced data breaches. That is just one of the many reasons I believe people should value their data and personal privacy far more than most do
    - okmokmz 7y ago
roenxi 7y ago
> It sounds like you're hoping for this as evidence that you were right to be concerned; have you considered that you might be wrong? An alternate interpretation is that if a massive breach of trust is intentional then it would be better if it happened sooner rather than later. > What if your coworkers are right...? How would you determine that? That is a pretty classic appeal to popularity; what most co-workers believe is not evidence of anything in this case. If they are right, they are right. If they are wrong, they might be a self-selected group of the people who don't see a risk for what it is. At any rate 'the risk' is a bit vague, but moral panics and witch hunts are things that happen. When the tech companies get involved in one, which will happen, it could be very nasty. There is clearly some sort of new risk here making it easier to quickly and accurately identify minorities. Even ignoring rogue employees finding creative ways to use data to enrich themselves.

inetknght 7y ago

> there needs to be a massive breach or abuse of power from one of these organizations/services that has severe real world consequences for those that utilize/support them. Until then nothing will change. I think even more darkly: that the consequences of something severe enough to cause that change would be so much as to effectively destroy modern civilization. Consider that much of the modern economy is driven by tech companies not only ignoring privacy but often actively violating it.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

"... I think there needs to be a massive breach or abuse of power from one of these organizations/services that has severe real world consequences for those that utilize/support them..." One of my greater fears is the knowledge that, should this happen, there's a nonzero chance that no one would care.

jgroszko 7y ago
I suppose it hasn't had mass real world consequences for folks yet, but the Equifax breach pretty much proves this?
- okmokmz 7y ago
  Yes, the Equifax breach is one of the reasons I included "severe" as a qualifier. It has been demonstrated that even fairly serious breaches will be ignored by the general public. It needs to be something that makes people genuinely fear for the safety of their finances, possessions, and/or health

deepgrave4 7y ago

The very "experts" who are plugged in and implementing/promoting the IoT are themselves under a form of mass hypnosis. Look how hard they work! For what? Progress! Money! They are taught to obey. If they do not, there will be consequences. We are entering an age of mass disinformation propagated by the controllers to obscure their agenda and remap people's minds. The only difference is that now our propaganda is 24/7 broadcasting from our pants pocket. They wish to destroy our ability to discern right from wrong, and they seem to be succeeding. One can only hope that as a human species we can muster some shred of critical thought amidst this onslaught. Perhaps one day we can stand up and see things for what they are, because unfortunately, we are running out of time. Words have power though. They can change minds and foment revolutions. Disaster is not the only way (and disasters almost always benefit the controllers). We can elevate ourselves through language; most everything we've ever known is codified in language. Never stop speaking your mind, especially to the blind, narrow-minded yes-men that surround you. They, too, can change.