9 ms·

Honestly I think the main problem with the privacy debate is that most people have no imagination on how their data can be used against them and the response yo

by gdsdfe 6y ago

Honestly I think the main problem with the privacy debate is that most people have no imagination on how their data can be used against them and the response you often get, even from people with years of experience building software, is the now classic response : "I have nothing to hide".

Retric 6y ago
Yea, it’s not just about privacy. Many companies will charge you more money or refuse service if they find out specific information about you.
- throwaway2048 6y ago
  The entire concept that paying money will make companies not sell your data even harder is magical thinking. What better signal does an advertiser want than somebody that spends money, especially on something relatively frivolous?
  - Retric 6y ago
    Who said anything about paying more? This could all be changed with legislation at effectively zero cost to consumers. That seems like the only real option as I can’t directly stop my electric company etc from selling my information.
    - emiliobumachar 6y ago
      Good point, the need for a legislative solution is a lot more clear cut in the case of government-sanctioned monopolies such as electricity.
  - scarmig 6y ago
    To be honest, my guess is that the consumers who would pay extra money for privacy, although likely in high income brackets, are also likely to be the consumers who are the biggest pain in the ass to support (if we're not talking enterprise).
  - vegetablepotpie 6y ago
    Absolutely true. Although it’s true that users have become the product through advertising, making users pay won’t make them any less susceptible. The magical thinking this idea is based on is that market forces will solve the problem. The theory is that if I, a user, find out that a company is selling my data I will leave the service and go to another one, voting with my wallet and causing the whole system to value privacy. This depends on 3 assumptions: 1. There is symmetry of information in the economy (users will know when their data is being monetized) 2. There are many providers of a service with different offerings 3. The services are commoditized (there is nothing keeping me from interchanging one for the other) None of those assumptions are true for all services and only a few services may meet all 3. #1 is the least true IMO and if you want it, it’s something you’ll have to pass legislation and regulate for. There’s not much you can do for #2 except make it easier for people to make services, sometimes economies of scale and network effects mean that it will only make economic sense for there to be 1 player in a market, in that case there should be heavy oversight on that player, such is the case with public utilities. #3 would require standardization, this can be done by industry, but they have every incentive at this point to silo their users. Public and Gov’t pressure could make this happen similar to the formation of the MPAA as a hedge the movie industry made against gov’t regulation.
    - convolvatron 6y ago
      i think there is a sneaky #4. just because some service you're using meets your privacy criteria today, there is really nothing stopping them or their aquirer from deciding to sell or exploit your information in the future. TOS seems to be kind of a one way street.
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        That's not true though; the fact that some service I'm using meets my privacy criteria today means they don't have any information to sell or exploit in the future.
        IX-103 6y ago
        How many services you use have your email address, telephone number, real name, or street address? All of these have value, but are needed for various aspects of business (sending purchases, receipts, contacting you on case of issues with your account, etc). For that matter the compiled list of actions you take on a site have value. The only way not to provide a service with valuable personal information is not to use it.
unix_fan 6y ago
I could spend hours trying to explain to people why data harvesting is a bad thing, and most of them still wouldn’t care.
- tdrgabi 6y ago
  Add top 5 reasons here. I'm one of the people without imagination. Genuinely curious.
  - craigsmansion 6y ago
    "It's 10 o'clock. Do you know where your children are? ... Google knows."
  - friendly_chap 6y ago
    I will help you out. Let me tell you a story. During communism, my grandmother openly disparaged our great and beloved leader Janos Kadar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1nos_K%C3%A1d%C3%A1r https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1nos_K%C3%A1d%C3%A1r) in our town. She was called in to Budapest, to a police station where it was known that tortures as punishments to political enemies happen. She was asked if she really said X/Y/Z about Kadar. She went on a loud rant about how Kadar is [insert disparaging comments here]. The policeman went pale and ordered the crazy women to be taken away and sent back to her town before anyone even hears such heresy - to their judgement, the woman was obviously crazy to show such defiance in that political climate. If you think that kind of society won't ever happen during the next X thousand years while the elite have unlimited power to surveil, and if it does we will ever have any chance of breaking out of it - well, I would like to advise you to never go near casinos. Edit: corrected genders, no genders in my language.
    - coronadisaster 6y ago
      > If you think that kind of society won't ever happen during the next X thousand years Its happening today...
  - vegetablepotpie 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
14 6y ago
This is where it would be fun to have all the data and start creeping the person out. “Have fun next week on your vacation don’t worry I will drive by your house a couple times while no one is there and check on your place. I know you just bought an expensive computer and were also searching best home security systems so I imagine you don’t have one yet but don’t worry I will watch your place even though you never asked me”. Or “Hey I hear you might have Erectile Dysfunction you okay bro”. Oh you don’t care if the big companies know everything about you but your own friends it’s a secret? What if your friend works for the big company does he get to access all your information? Obviously that seems wrong. Maybe that would get the point across.
- scollet 6y ago
  Yes, it is very innapropriate, but the example is more than effective.
  - 14 6y ago
    I agree very inappropriate and something I would never attempt. Facebook has been doing a very good job of predicting what ads are relevant to me to the point where I am somewhat convinced Facebook can hear my conversations. I don't have the app but access facebook through my webbrowser so not sure if that is even possible but it creeps me out to think what these big companies know about us and all the while many of the people I Know are seemingly clueless or careless to the situation.
almost_usual 6y ago
It’s simple, privacy is strong encryption or no information. Can’t sell nothing, strongly encrypted data is hard to break so also not worth much. Any argument against strong encryption is an argument looking to preserve wealth or power by using someone else’s data. Educating the public about data abuse and how they can protect themselves should also be mandatory education in the world we live in today. Anything less than this can be abused and is likely a bullshit solution.
DevKoala 6y ago
So much this. The common individual doesn't understand the power that data gives to marketing and propaganda machines. Moreover, the ilusion of services being "free" gives these platforms an insane competitive advantage.
- Kiro 6y ago
  I don't like this elitist view inside tech that people are just dumb and unaware. No matter how hard I try to explain the implications to people they easily brush it off. People just don't care.
  - DevKoala 6y ago
    There is nothing elitist about it. I am also not knowledgeable of medicine or law, and I ask friends or family for advice. However, trying to convince people that “free” is not free is a very hard argument to have. I have used this video in the past to help my case, even if it caricaturizases the effects: https://youtu.be/5pFX2P7JLwA https://youtu.be/5pFX2P7JLwA
matheusmoreira 6y ago
> I have nothing to hide Do they live in glass houses?
- Kiro 6y ago
  That argument has sadly never worked. It's too easy to dismiss as an exaggerated analogy. I also think it's wrong to assume everyone outside tech is a clueless sheep. People are often well aware of the implications but think it's "worth" it. They simply don't care and draw the line somewhere between giving their data to Big Tech and live in a glass house.

by gdsdfe 6y ago

Retric 6y ago

Yea, it’s not just about privacy. Many companies will charge you more money or refuse service if they find out specific information about you.

throwaway2048 6y ago
The entire concept that paying money will make companies not sell your data even harder is magical thinking. What better signal does an advertiser want than somebody that spends money, especially on something relatively frivolous?
- Retric 6y ago
  Who said anything about paying more? This could all be changed with legislation at effectively zero cost to consumers. That seems like the only real option as I can’t directly stop my electric company etc from selling my information.
  - emiliobumachar 6y ago
    Good point, the need for a legislative solution is a lot more clear cut in the case of government-sanctioned monopolies such as electricity.
- scarmig 6y ago
  To be honest, my guess is that the consumers who would pay extra money for privacy, although likely in high income brackets, are also likely to be the consumers who are the biggest pain in the ass to support (if we're not talking enterprise).
- vegetablepotpie 6y ago
  Absolutely true. Although it’s true that users have become the product through advertising, making users pay won’t make them any less susceptible. The magical thinking this idea is based on is that market forces will solve the problem. The theory is that if I, a user, find out that a company is selling my data I will leave the service and go to another one, voting with my wallet and causing the whole system to value privacy. This depends on 3 assumptions: 1. There is symmetry of information in the economy (users will know when their data is being monetized) 2. There are many providers of a service with different offerings 3. The services are commoditized (there is nothing keeping me from interchanging one for the other) None of those assumptions are true for all services and only a few services may meet all 3. #1 is the least true IMO and if you want it, it’s something you’ll have to pass legislation and regulate for. There’s not much you can do for #2 except make it easier for people to make services, sometimes economies of scale and network effects mean that it will only make economic sense for there to be 1 player in a market, in that case there should be heavy oversight on that player, such is the case with public utilities. #3 would require standardization, this can be done by industry, but they have every incentive at this point to silo their users. Public and Gov’t pressure could make this happen similar to the formation of the MPAA as a hedge the movie industry made against gov’t regulation.
  - convolvatron 6y ago
    i think there is a sneaky #4. just because some service you're using meets your privacy criteria today, there is really nothing stopping them or their aquirer from deciding to sell or exploit your information in the future. TOS seems to be kind of a one way street.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      That's not true though; the fact that some service I'm using meets my privacy criteria today means they don't have any information to sell or exploit in the future.
      - IX-103 6y ago
        How many services you use have your email address, telephone number, real name, or street address? All of these have value, but are needed for various aspects of business (sending purchases, receipts, contacting you on case of issues with your account, etc). For that matter the compiled list of actions you take on a site have value. The only way not to provide a service with valuable personal information is not to use it.

unix_fan 6y ago

I could spend hours trying to explain to people why data harvesting is a bad thing, and most of them still wouldn’t care.

tdrgabi 6y ago
Add top 5 reasons here. I'm one of the people without imagination. Genuinely curious.
- craigsmansion 6y ago
  "It's 10 o'clock. Do you know where your children are? ... Google knows."
- friendly_chap 6y ago
  I will help you out. Let me tell you a story. During communism, my grandmother openly disparaged our great and beloved leader Janos Kadar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1nos_K%C3%A1d%C3%A1r https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1nos_K%C3%A1d%C3%A1r) in our town. She was called in to Budapest, to a police station where it was known that tortures as punishments to political enemies happen. She was asked if she really said X/Y/Z about Kadar. She went on a loud rant about how Kadar is [insert disparaging comments here]. The policeman went pale and ordered the crazy women to be taken away and sent back to her town before anyone even hears such heresy - to their judgement, the woman was obviously crazy to show such defiance in that political climate. If you think that kind of society won't ever happen during the next X thousand years while the elite have unlimited power to surveil, and if it does we will ever have any chance of breaking out of it - well, I would like to advise you to never go near casinos. Edit: corrected genders, no genders in my language.
  - coronadisaster 6y ago
    > If you think that kind of society won't ever happen during the next X thousand years Its happening today...
- vegetablepotpie 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

14 6y ago

This is where it would be fun to have all the data and start creeping the person out. “Have fun next week on your vacation don’t worry I will drive by your house a couple times while no one is there and check on your place. I know you just bought an expensive computer and were also searching best home security systems so I imagine you don’t have one yet but don’t worry I will watch your place even though you never asked me”. Or “Hey I hear you might have Erectile Dysfunction you okay bro”. Oh you don’t care if the big companies know everything about you but your own friends it’s a secret? What if your friend works for the big company does he get to access all your information? Obviously that seems wrong. Maybe that would get the point across.

scollet 6y ago
Yes, it is very innapropriate, but the example is more than effective.
- 14 6y ago
  I agree very inappropriate and something I would never attempt. Facebook has been doing a very good job of predicting what ads are relevant to me to the point where I am somewhat convinced Facebook can hear my conversations. I don't have the app but access facebook through my webbrowser so not sure if that is even possible but it creeps me out to think what these big companies know about us and all the while many of the people I Know are seemingly clueless or careless to the situation.

almost_usual 6y ago

It’s simple, privacy is strong encryption or no information. Can’t sell nothing, strongly encrypted data is hard to break so also not worth much. Any argument against strong encryption is an argument looking to preserve wealth or power by using someone else’s data. Educating the public about data abuse and how they can protect themselves should also be mandatory education in the world we live in today. Anything less than this can be abused and is likely a bullshit solution.

DevKoala 6y ago

So much this. The common individual doesn't understand the power that data gives to marketing and propaganda machines. Moreover, the ilusion of services being "free" gives these platforms an insane competitive advantage.

Kiro 6y ago
I don't like this elitist view inside tech that people are just dumb and unaware. No matter how hard I try to explain the implications to people they easily brush it off. People just don't care.
- DevKoala 6y ago
  There is nothing elitist about it. I am also not knowledgeable of medicine or law, and I ask friends or family for advice. However, trying to convince people that “free” is not free is a very hard argument to have. I have used this video in the past to help my case, even if it caricaturizases the effects: https://youtu.be/5pFX2P7JLwA https://youtu.be/5pFX2P7JLwA

matheusmoreira 6y ago

> I have nothing to hide Do they live in glass houses?

Kiro 6y ago
That argument has sadly never worked. It's too easy to dismiss as an exaggerated analogy. I also think it's wrong to assume everyone outside tech is a clueless sheep. People are often well aware of the implications but think it's "worth" it. They simply don't care and draw the line somewhere between giving their data to Big Tech and live in a glass house.