4 ms·

I am of the belief, rather an insidious belief that not only do we need to block AdTech and other awful face-recog technologies, etc.; but to actively spread an

I am of the belief, rather an insidious belief that not only do we need to block AdTech and other awful face-recog technologies, etc.; but to actively spread and feed it with fake data in order to completely confuse the algos, rendering them useless.

DarthGhandi 6y ago
The EFF considers data pollution to be fairly useless. They've spoken a bit about it.
n0nc3 6y ago
The practices should be banned. It's a federal felony to wiretap or open someone else's mail. In almost all states, it's a crime to record conversations without consent from at least one party. Earlier generations passed those laws because they viewed mass surveillance as a fundamentally Soviet activity with no place in a free society. According to some footnotes in Shoshana Zuboff's book, the FTC was on the path to ban these practices in 2001 but then 9/11 happened.
- Sephr 6y ago
  You're not being "wiretapped" if the site you visit explicitly included tracking. As an analogy, the sites that you visit are already providing one-party consent (all that is needed with current federal wiretapping laws) by including said intentional tracking. In the case where non-essential sites are required to disclose what they track to the user, the user is arguably also providing consent on their end even if it's mandatory. Nobody is forcing you to visit non-essential sites.
  - n0nc3 6y ago
    If you told an American in 1995 that AT&T was selling their call records, or that Visa was selling their transaction records, they would have gone ballistic. The fact that all this tracking is still hush-hush means that most people would not react kindly if they were aware of the true scope of the tracking, and how widely distributed the data is.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    Browser fingerprinting isn't part of "explicitly including tracking".
- charliesome 6y ago
  Calling mass surveillance a "fundamentally Soviet activity" weakens your argument here. Is mass surveillance something that happened in the Soviet Union? Of course. But it also happens in the US and many other nations, liberal democratic or not, worldwide. So why shouldn't we call mass surveillance fundamentally American, or fundamentally capitalist? Mass surveillance is bad. It is toxic to freedom and democracy. Let's focus on that rather than invoking Red Scare tendencies of old.
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    Not sure how you've taken his comment that way. He used it contextually for framing, I don't think he was calling mass surveillance a "fundamentally Soviet activity" at all.
  - freedomben 6y ago
    > Let's focus on that rather than invoking Red Scare tendencies of old. He's not "invoking Red Scare tendencies of old" to describe modern mass surveillance. He's giving historical context about what earlier generations thought: >> Earlier generations passed those laws because they viewed mass surveillance as a fundamentally Soviet activity with no place in a free society.
    - akiselev 6y ago
      It's particularly confusing since the "earlier generations" were the people who wrote the unreasonable search and seizure clause in the Bill of Rights, almost 150 years before the Soviet Union even existed. The Supreme Court ruled in Katz v US that warrantless wiretaps were unconstitutional so Congress passed laws creating wiretap warrants [1] for law enforcement. Congress didn't ban wiretaps without a warrant, they passed a law to create such warrants in response to a Supreme Court decision that banned what police had been doing for decades, Soviet style. [1] https://it.ojp.gov/PrivacyLiberty/authorities/statutes/1284 https://it.ojp.gov/PrivacyLiberty/authorities/statutes/1284
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- AshWolfy 6y ago
  > Earlier generations passed those laws because they viewed mass surveillance as a fundamentally Soviet activity with no place in a free society Laughs in cointelpro
wormslayer666 6y ago
Relevant: https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/
- eindiran 6y ago
  The book "Obfuscation" shown at the bottom of the page is a very interesting one, definitely worth taking a look at. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/obfuscation https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/obfuscation
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- boogies 6y ago
  +1 for the best WebExtension ad blocker there is, a fork of №2 µblock Origin
- surround 6y ago
  Unfortunately, adnaseam does not improve privacy since it has to load the ad scripts.
  - sixstringtheory 6y ago
    Are there any servers running the software whose maintainers accept donations to continue/augment their operation?
  - boogies 6y ago
    Addressed by the FAQ¹: > Isn't it safer just to use an adblocker? Why engage with ad-networks at all? > While AdNauseam is far safer than using no blocker at all, it is indeed marginally safer for one to simply use a strong adblocker and protect themselves. But it is also safer to stay at home rather than to attend a protest. Using an adblocker does little to change the status quo (especially for those users without the resources to install/configure one, and so remain at risk). AdNauseam, and the obfuscation strategy in general, instead presents a possible avenue for collective resistance; a means of questioning and perhaps eventually, changing the system. But this is not for everyone. If your goal is primarily self-protection, this tool may not be for you... [1]: https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ#isnt-it-safer-just-to-use-an-adblocker-why-engage-with-ad-networks-at-all https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ#isnt-it-safer-ju...
CinchWrench 6y ago
Will not happen. The U.S. military industrial complex views these sorts of algorithms as a vital technology in fighting future wars, and also fears that it's at a disadvantage to China because 4x population means a strategic advantage purely from the size of data sets Chinese ML researchers have access to. What are ya gonna do? MIC gets what it wants.

DarthGhandi 6y ago

The EFF considers data pollution to be fairly useless. They've spoken a bit about it.

n0nc3 6y ago

The practices should be banned. It's a federal felony to wiretap or open someone else's mail. In almost all states, it's a crime to record conversations without consent from at least one party. Earlier generations passed those laws because they viewed mass surveillance as a fundamentally Soviet activity with no place in a free society. According to some footnotes in Shoshana Zuboff's book, the FTC was on the path to ban these practices in 2001 but then 9/11 happened.

Sephr 6y ago
You're not being "wiretapped" if the site you visit explicitly included tracking. As an analogy, the sites that you visit are already providing one-party consent (all that is needed with current federal wiretapping laws) by including said intentional tracking. In the case where non-essential sites are required to disclose what they track to the user, the user is arguably also providing consent on their end even if it's mandatory. Nobody is forcing you to visit non-essential sites.
- n0nc3 6y ago
  If you told an American in 1995 that AT&T was selling their call records, or that Visa was selling their transaction records, they would have gone ballistic. The fact that all this tracking is still hush-hush means that most people would not react kindly if they were aware of the true scope of the tracking, and how widely distributed the data is.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  Browser fingerprinting isn't part of "explicitly including tracking".
charliesome 6y ago
Calling mass surveillance a "fundamentally Soviet activity" weakens your argument here. Is mass surveillance something that happened in the Soviet Union? Of course. But it also happens in the US and many other nations, liberal democratic or not, worldwide. So why shouldn't we call mass surveillance fundamentally American, or fundamentally capitalist? Mass surveillance is bad. It is toxic to freedom and democracy. Let's focus on that rather than invoking Red Scare tendencies of old.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  Not sure how you've taken his comment that way. He used it contextually for framing, I don't think he was calling mass surveillance a "fundamentally Soviet activity" at all.
- freedomben 6y ago
  > Let's focus on that rather than invoking Red Scare tendencies of old. He's not "invoking Red Scare tendencies of old" to describe modern mass surveillance. He's giving historical context about what earlier generations thought: >> Earlier generations passed those laws because they viewed mass surveillance as a fundamentally Soviet activity with no place in a free society.
  - akiselev 6y ago
    It's particularly confusing since the "earlier generations" were the people who wrote the unreasonable search and seizure clause in the Bill of Rights, almost 150 years before the Soviet Union even existed. The Supreme Court ruled in Katz v US that warrantless wiretaps were unconstitutional so Congress passed laws creating wiretap warrants [1] for law enforcement. Congress didn't ban wiretaps without a warrant, they passed a law to create such warrants in response to a Supreme Court decision that banned what police had been doing for decades, Soviet style. [1] https://it.ojp.gov/PrivacyLiberty/authorities/statutes/1284 https://it.ojp.gov/PrivacyLiberty/authorities/statutes/1284
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
AshWolfy 6y ago
> Earlier generations passed those laws because they viewed mass surveillance as a fundamentally Soviet activity with no place in a free society Laughs in cointelpro

wormslayer666 6y ago

Relevant: https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/

eindiran 6y ago
The book "Obfuscation" shown at the bottom of the page is a very interesting one, definitely worth taking a look at. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/obfuscation https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/obfuscation
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
boogies 6y ago
+1 for the best WebExtension ad blocker there is, a fork of №2 µblock Origin
surround 6y ago
Unfortunately, adnaseam does not improve privacy since it has to load the ad scripts.
- sixstringtheory 6y ago
  Are there any servers running the software whose maintainers accept donations to continue/augment their operation?
- boogies 6y ago
  Addressed by the FAQ¹: > Isn't it safer just to use an adblocker? Why engage with ad-networks at all? > While AdNauseam is far safer than using no blocker at all, it is indeed marginally safer for one to simply use a strong adblocker and protect themselves. But it is also safer to stay at home rather than to attend a protest. Using an adblocker does little to change the status quo (especially for those users without the resources to install/configure one, and so remain at risk). AdNauseam, and the obfuscation strategy in general, instead presents a possible avenue for collective resistance; a means of questioning and perhaps eventually, changing the system. But this is not for everyone. If your goal is primarily self-protection, this tool may not be for you... [1]: https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ#isnt-it-safer-just-to-use-an-adblocker-why-engage-with-ad-networks-at-all https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ#isnt-it-safer-ju...

CinchWrench 6y ago

Will not happen. The U.S. military industrial complex views these sorts of algorithms as a vital technology in fighting future wars, and also fears that it's at a disadvantage to China because 4x population means a strategic advantage purely from the size of data sets Chinese ML researchers have access to. What are ya gonna do? MIC gets what it wants.