12 ms·

Tech companies are profiling us from before birth

fxtentacle 6y ago
I'd say in many cases the issue is more that you are socially forced into accepting ToS that you have never read, thereby making data collection legal despite you never intending to do so. That's why the GDPR is so great: It's only legal if the user has willingly and independently given consent to your data processing. So as soon as you force or coax someone into ticking that box, it's invalid and you can be sued for it. Facebook learned that the hard way :)
- dudue3grg 6y ago
  Agreed, before GDPR the largest internet companies were essentially just data collection firms.
  - cortesoft 6y ago
    And they still are?
- jimmaswell 6y ago
  From my point of view GDPR is the real ToS you never read but were forced to accept.
  - novok 6y ago
    Its called law ;)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    It's a feature, not a bug. Similar with strong consumer protection laws. I don't have to ever bother reading any ToS or disclaimers or whatnot when dealing with merchants, because there's an overriding set of laws I can invoke when they screw me over. So I only have to read one ToS - the government-issued one.
- danjc 6y ago
  Ah, the ToS I’ve never read. So you mean, basically all of them ;)
- Terr_ 6y ago
  In the meantime: https://tosdr.org/ https://tosdr.org/
  - amelius 6y ago
    It's asymmetric. Why can't I make them sign my terms for using my data? ToS popups need a textarea field where I can submit my terms.
    - bozzcl 6y ago
      Well, you could probably message them to try to negotiate... though I'd say you wouldn't get far.
      - amelius 6y ago
        I'm starting a consumer union ...
        fsflover 6y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25760750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25760750
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      You can't make anyone sign terms. What you can do is offer and you can also make pre-offer commitments if you feel like it. So they offer and they make the commitment that if you attempt to modify terms, they will instantly reject. At that point, you won't get the service and they won't get the data. From their side, they also offer a well-defined interface to sign up to their service with the standard set of terms. Now, whether you use a tool that conforms to this interface is up to you. You don't have to use a tool that will conform and you won't get the offer. Likewise, you can offer a well-defined interface to sign up to your data and everyone else can just choose not to use it and they won't get your offer.
      - 6y ago
- amelius 6y ago
  > Facebook learned that the hard way They got slapped on the wrist, you mean.
zxcvbn4038 6y ago
Death is no escape either - my grandfather died almost thirty years ago but you can still find his name and last address on all of the people search sites. My grandmother was still getting marketing materials addressed to him when she died about five years ago. I had an uncle who died in the early 80s and there is no trace of him, so 90s seems to be the point at which the data brokers decided that nobody ever dies. Online advertising is already a sham (no really, I am never ever going to download Homescapes but I see ads for it thirty times a day), add on top of that all the dead people’s data being passed around. There really needs to be some regulation and oversight.
- umvi 6y ago
  > I had an uncle who died in the early 80s and there is no trace of him Hmm, I wouldn't be so sure. Ancestry, FamilySearch, and other genealogical databases may yet have him in there, along with tons of information that ancestors literally voluntarily supply, including photos (for posterity). I see that as a good thing though. I can learn about my ancestors and see pictures of them and read stories about them.
  - CaptArmchair 6y ago
    Historian here. What's on those sites is based off source materials. And those are generally disparate: oral witnesses, family members, documents found in private archives,... but also public records found in your city archives. Where I live, different offices kept population records through out time e.g. city hall, the Church,... You can easily walk in, and access records from the 18th century and figure out when someone was born, who they married to and when they died. However, legal provisions prohibit access to those public records pertaining to births, marriages and deaths which are less then 100 years old. Meaning you don't get access to lists of names of all everyone were born in 1936. Why? Privacy for the living. e.g. someone could walk in and assert that your parents aren't your real parents. Moreover, privacy legislation states that you need consent from living people before you can publish personal information regarding their names, addresses and so on. It means that even if someone passes away, you can't just publish that they were married or about their children if any of those are still alive. Publishing pictures is even more fraught. You need consent from the person depicted, and consent from the photographer. That means ascertaining whether they are still alive, or getting consent from their estate in the case of the photographer. In the latter case, it might mean you may have to wait for 70 years after their death before those pictures enter the public domain. Genealogy websites allowing people to simply upload pictures without constraints expose themselves to copyright liability in that regard. ... and then there's the issue of how those legal provisions are upheld on the Internet. For instance, any ancestry/genealogy site who wants to operate in the EU has to comply with EU legislation including GDPR, copyright, right to be forgotten and so on. For sure, being able to dig into your own ancestry and being able to rely on other people's work through digital technology is awesome. But, as with anything digital, it does come with the same challenges that confront any business case leveraging personal information. TL;DR: Genealogy is fraught with legal challenges. You don't just get to publish, let alone scour and use those data without consent.
mattlondon 6y ago
From the article they mention a user being angry that they lost their kick data. It felt like they were highlighting this scenario like it was somehow weird or unusual that a pregnant mother was upset that she lost this data. This "fascination" from the author is unhelpful IMHO. I am not surprised that the pregnant mother was upset - in the UK it is now drilled into you that you need to keep track of kick data for your child and that you must - must - call the hospital as soon as you notice any change at all in kicking from your unborn child (1). They are deliberately very vague and unclear about what a "change" constitutes - just that if you feel something has changed at all or in any way then you need to call. From experience, these calls always end with a request that you go into hospital for a check from a midwife. So 55 kicks today, but 60 yesterday? Come in and a midwife will hook you up to keep track of your baby's vitals for an hour just to be sure with lots of reassurance that you did the right thing by coming in and getting it checked. So no shit if you've entrusted this data to an app and they've dropped the ball, no wonder you are angry: this is not just data for data's sake - not having it potentially endangers the life of your unborn child because you don't have your historical data to compare against any more, so you can't know anymore if today's kicks are changed from yesterday's or the day before etc. I am sure many people will scoff and call this an overreaction (including apparently the author of the article) but this is the current recommendation from the NHS here, and not everyone has a totally normal medical history or otherwise-textbook pregnancy where it is all skipping through meadows of wild daisys and baby ducklings quietly nuzzling at your feet followed by the perfect stress and pain free delivery. People can and do have medical circumstances that influence pregnancy. It ain't all plain sailing. People have reason to need to trust that their medical data is stored safely and reliably. To insinuate that is is odd is deeply unhelpful. 1 - https://www.nhs.uk/pregnancy/keeping-well/your-babys-movements/ https://www.nhs.uk/pregnancy/keeping-well/your-babys-movemen...
- top_post 6y ago
  We had a similar experience, where my wife was STRESSED OUT ALL THE TIME at the data in these apps. Everything was tracked and it was fucking awful. The reliance on them meant she had no idea how to feel intuitively about our kid growing inside of her. After some convincing, the apps were ditched, she felt more "in tune" with what was going on, and we even had a ride to hospital to check on things because she felt things had gone quiet movement wise. Our kid moved like clockwork at certain times of the day and after meals, no app needed to figure that out. These apps are a fucking cancer on what should be an enjoyable and natural time.
codingprograms 6y ago
People are too focused on data collection. We get it, surveillance is everywhere. It’s taking up a quarter of the front page at any given time. Anyone have anything intellectually novel to say? Or can I go write a bunch of articles about the same topic?
- SignalNotSecure 6y ago
  Gemini protocol users seem to write a lot of interesting content
- lastgeniusua 6y ago
  stupid 'hackers' being stupid 'hackers' as always. what should concern you if not global commodification of personal data?
a3n 6y ago
If it's an app, you're being commercially surveiled and exploited. Is that where we are now?
- hn3333 6y ago
  Afraid so. That reminds me: IIRC in the Dune universe they eventually abandon all technology. I wonder if we're on that track for real.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    Not quite. It's possible to live in the modern world using only Free and Open Source software. Stallman does this, but I think he's pretty much alone.
    - a3n 6y ago
      I've read that he borrows people's phones.
    - boogies 6y ago
      Wikipedia says there are ~350,665 Old Order Amish (apparently in the New World? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#cite_note-Elizabethtown_College,_the_Young_Center_for_Anabaptist_and_Pietist_Studies-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#cite_note-Elizabethtown_...).
      - est31 6y ago
        This is not an exaggeration. Nowadays basically anything you buy that uses electricity also has chips included for various purposes. Those chips of course run proprietary software.
      - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
        Sure, but I'd meant live in the modern world in the sense of living in tech-enabled society, rather than just living in the current day.
  - 6y ago
jedberg 6y ago
All the more reason we need some laws defining your data as your property, not the company that collects it. We need strong consumer protection of data.
- amelius 6y ago
  We can end the madness simply by banning most types of targeted advertising.
  - AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
    Or... you know, we can just not patronize these services. Nobody is holding a gun to our heads. Many today argue that the internet is largely unusable if we block all the FAANG hostnames, and for many this may be true, but it's becoming less and less of a sacrifice every day to disconnect from these massive centralized blobs. I understand many people feel an unquenchable urge to legislate these kinds of things into being, but we really cannot "will" things like this into existence. It's, actually, much easier to incentivize and promote a practical means towards adoption. In our case, we need to begin promoting technologies that promote decentralizing and owning our own communications protocols.
rdiddly 6y ago
Edit: If you read the following as "vote with your feet" and not "go live in a tent" you will have better results. It is written: 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝔂 "𝓽𝓻𝓾𝓼𝓽 𝓶𝓮" / 𝓓𝓾𝓶𝓫 𝓯𝓾𝓬𝓴𝓼 [For screen readers: They "trust me" / Dumb fucks] It's a problem, for sure, but I don't think we're totally helpless... yet... and it frustrates me to see this level of learned helplessness, and mistaking convenience for necessity. Being used to using your phone for everything, doesn't mean you cannot do something else. It's inconvenient, and not impossible, to go to a library[0] instead of Google and BabyCenter.com for answers to your questions. It's inconvenient, and not impossible, to momentarily disappoint your kids to protect their data forever (which is the kind of long-term concern that you understand and they don't, because you're the adult, which in turn is why you, and not they, are in charge). [0] RE libraries & books, that's the method most people used up to and past the 80s when PCs started appearing in many homes. That's the method by which enough knowledge was transmitted through millennia to enable the invention of smartphones. You don't even have to borrow the book; you can read it on-premises. But if you need to borrow it, you should still real-quick make sure the library isn't selling you out to anybody either. Most libraries have enough money and are pretty popular when it comes time to levy a tax or issue a bond. But some are just strapped enough that they "could really use the extra cash" that comes from providing borrower data to somebody who has convinced them it will be "anonymized."
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  Please don't use the Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols block of Unicode to make cutesy letters like that, it can prevent the visually disabled from reading HN through their screenreaders.
  - 458aperta 6y ago
    not sure if this genuine or sarcasm.
- zaptheimpaler 6y ago
  Because we don't want a world where we HAVE the technological capability to make life so much more convenient but somehow can't use any of it because of some shitty fixable privacy/social/political problems. For example, if you see a car that tracks your movement and sells it so some third party, you can either say "lets make cars that don't do that" or "lets go back to horses". I'm not excited about going back to horses, we can fix the damn car :/ Turning our back on modern technology is a depressing and limiting action in the long run.
WalterGR 6y ago
an international study that demonstrated that out of 24 mobile health (mHealth) apps, 19 shared user data with parent companies and service providers (third parties). They also showed that third parties shared user data with 216 fourth parties, including multinational technology companies, digital advertising companies, telecommunications corporations, and a consumer credit reporting agency. But what data are they collecting? Things available via JavaScript, tracking pixels, phone characteristics - most definitely. But the raw data about their pregnancies that users enter into tracking apps? While that’s entirely possible, Citation Needed.
- aboringusername 6y ago
  I've seen examples of encrypted payloads being sent to various third parties on the internet, it would be very time consuming to try and determine what that data actually is. In my opinion, the OS should let you deny the "internet" permission on any app, no reason why it should need it if I don't want to risk my data being uploaded without my consent.
  - WalterGR 6y ago
    I've seen examples of encrypted payloads being sent to various third parties on the internet Do you mean sent via https or encrypted in JavaScript before transmission? If the former, that’s pretty par for the course. it would be very time consuming to try and determine what that data actually is. It would be easy for a researcher who wants to answer the question: what data is it? JavaScript debugger + breakpoints.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    You can just use GDPR and CCPA to demand the data they have on you if you want to find out.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nomdep 6y ago
  At least for the Flo set of apps, yes, everything: https://mashable.com/article/flo-period-tracking-app-will-stop-sharing-data-with-facebook/ https://mashable.com/article/flo-period-tracking-app-will-st... https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-give-apps-sensitive-personal-information-then-they-tell-facebook-11550851636 https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-give-apps-sensitive-persona...
aboringusername 6y ago
Although many celebrated the passing and "enforcement" of the GDPR, I consider it to be one of the biggest failures in recent times. I'd argue the situation is worse today, and so far, the GDPR doesn't have any teeth whatsoever. On one website this is the cookie pop-up "consent" message: "We use cookies to provide a great experience. If you're happy with this, continue browsing" Apparently that counts as an "explicit, freely informed, permission given" consent now? I have found countless examples of websites sending data to facebook (including PII), simply by using XHR/fetch and a POST request, sending entire page URLs every time you navigate the website. I've noticed tens of requests to several domains that could be hijacked at any time and peoples information collected by a bad actor is they get the domain "totallynotspyingonyou.com" If the GDPR was serious platform changes would've been implemented - similar to Apple's coming tracking permission - which should be standard on every OS inside the EU. Instead of relying on websites/providers to the right thing, the upstream systems (browsers, OS) should be designed around the laws instead. As it stands, Google allows their OS to collect an individuals entire address book, apparently that data structure can be parsed, uploaded and freely traded once somebody taps "accept", and if my data is included...Well tough shit for me I guess. Asking Google whom has got my phone number saved onto their accounts yields no response, yet if somebody puts my PII onto Google, I have no rights over it. The "rights" the GDPR enshrined are nothing more than a empty, hollow promise - how many have had success trying to get information deleted? All I get told is it's "legal" as there's a "public interest" or for any number of reasons. Regulators simply can't and won't keep up. Reporting Google is a waste of time, a regulator is unlikely to touch them, even if there is data Google won't provide in a SAR and take months to provide a response. We need to embrace and accept data is going to be collected on all humans and kept for as long as the collector wants, and it can be sold, leaked, used and abused without you having any way to control it. We're all just numbers in a database somewhere, your feelings don't matter, how it affects your life on earth is disregarded, ads must be sold, data must be harvested. Welcome to 2021.
1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
"Big data is a resource and a tool. It is meant to inform, rather than explain; it points us toward understanding, but it can still lead to misunderstanding, depending on how well or poorly it is wielded. And however dazzling we find the power of big data to be, we must never let its seductive glimmer blind us to its inherent imperfections. . . . What we are able to collect and process will always be just a tiny fraction of the information that exists in the world. It can only be a simulacrum of reality, like the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave." - from the book "Big Data" mentioned in the article Meant to inform rather than to explain. Words of caution for "data scientists". We get more useful data from our senses each day than we ever will from a company conducting surveillance over the internet.
jtsuken 6y ago
There is a simple defence to this: Change your name and your children's names to John and Marry Smith.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
flowerlad 6y ago
Children can change their names upon reaching adulthood, to escape tracking. (This is a serious suggestion made by Google's then CEO Erich Schmidt, see below). And maybe every 10 years thereafter. Google's Eric Schmidt suggests that young people should change their name upon reaching adulthood: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7951269/Young-will-have-to-change-names-to-escape-cyber-past-warns-Googles-Eric-Schmidt.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7951269/Young-... Of course, a better way may be to introduce new right-to-be-forgotten laws like in the EU.
- ROARosen 6y ago
  This gets me thinking. From a legal perspective, does a parent's consent to tracking pass over to their children even after reaching adulthood? (say for GDPR etc.)
  - acwan93 6y ago
    I think (and this is probably why this is part of the general tech conversation now) that we're on the verge of a massive legal shift with data ownership. A child born since Facebook's inception will be approaching 18 soon, and might have had parents who posted the child's entire life on Facebook from the ultrasound all the way to (maybe?) high school graduation. When that child turns 18 and the child does not consent to tracking, what happens to all those photos, behavior, and YouTube videos that kid has watched? Maybe the kid starts as a clean slate since they've reached an age of majority, but how can you technically even keep track of that?
    - ars 6y ago
      It's not in the future, it's right now: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/09/16/18-year-old-sues-parents-posting-baby-pictures-facebook/90479402/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/09/16/18... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/facebook-fines-woman-son-photos-post-social-media-court-italy-rome-a8155361.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/facebook-fin... Search for: "child suing parents over facebook photos" and you'll find plenty more.
tmpxgdqrcKFuG 6y ago
So, like in Black Mirror?
maximente 6y ago
it's worth remembering that somewhere, someone or a team: - had a whiteboard/design/brainstorming session - decided or was told to develop a feature involving data hoovering, with whatever justification - not enough of the team said "no", or were replaced by those that said "yes", that the feature made it to production - decided to sell/buy/run analyses over said data to increase profits (ostensibly) now, if there were a handful of companies doing this consistently, that'd be one thing. however, if all these apps, web sites, etc. are engaging in this, then it's clear there's just zero fundamental ethical force to stop data hoovering, and we ought to expect that the data collection will increase up to and until government regulation of this stuff. anyway, from where i sit, the engineers, vendors and data scientists involved in surveillance capitalism must share some of the blame, if not a lion's share.
Triv888 6y ago
Reminds me of the Sheriff's office from around here that was trying to fingerprint all kids at a spring festival... (in case they get kidnapped, they said).
Anka33 6y ago
And still there adds are WORTHLESS!
nucleardog 6y ago
Maybe it's just me, but if someone in physical space asks for unnecessarily personal data I have no problem leaving it blank and/or lying through my teeth. You know how some people are just complete fucking assholes, and people let them get away with it to avoid conflict? Yeah, if you say your name is Bog Saget and your email is bob@gmail.com, nobody's gonna raise a stink. They'll know you're full of shit, but if you can deal with their disapproving glare nobody will stop you. The "indoor play area" thing has not been an issue for me, personally.

I'd say in many cases the issue is more that you are socially forced into accepting ToS that you have never read, thereby making data collection legal despite you never intending to do so. That's why the GDPR is so great: It's only legal if the user has willingly and independently given consent to your data processing. So as soon as you force or coax someone into ticking that box, it's invalid and you can be sued for it. Facebook learned that the hard way :)

dudue3grg 6y ago
Agreed, before GDPR the largest internet companies were essentially just data collection firms.
- cortesoft 6y ago
  And they still are?
jimmaswell 6y ago
From my point of view GDPR is the real ToS you never read but were forced to accept.
- novok 6y ago
  Its called law ;)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  It's a feature, not a bug. Similar with strong consumer protection laws. I don't have to ever bother reading any ToS or disclaimers or whatnot when dealing with merchants, because there's an overriding set of laws I can invoke when they screw me over. So I only have to read one ToS - the government-issued one.
danjc 6y ago
Ah, the ToS I’ve never read. So you mean, basically all of them ;)
Terr_ 6y ago
In the meantime: https://tosdr.org/ https://tosdr.org/
- amelius 6y ago
  It's asymmetric. Why can't I make them sign my terms for using my data? ToS popups need a textarea field where I can submit my terms.
  - bozzcl 6y ago
    Well, you could probably message them to try to negotiate... though I'd say you wouldn't get far.
    - amelius 6y ago
      I'm starting a consumer union ...
      - fsflover 6y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25760750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25760750
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    You can't make anyone sign terms. What you can do is offer and you can also make pre-offer commitments if you feel like it. So they offer and they make the commitment that if you attempt to modify terms, they will instantly reject. At that point, you won't get the service and they won't get the data. From their side, they also offer a well-defined interface to sign up to their service with the standard set of terms. Now, whether you use a tool that conforms to this interface is up to you. You don't have to use a tool that will conform and you won't get the offer. Likewise, you can offer a well-defined interface to sign up to your data and everyone else can just choose not to use it and they won't get your offer.
    - 6y ago
amelius 6y ago
> Facebook learned that the hard way They got slapped on the wrist, you mean.

zxcvbn4038 6y ago

Death is no escape either - my grandfather died almost thirty years ago but you can still find his name and last address on all of the people search sites. My grandmother was still getting marketing materials addressed to him when she died about five years ago. I had an uncle who died in the early 80s and there is no trace of him, so 90s seems to be the point at which the data brokers decided that nobody ever dies. Online advertising is already a sham (no really, I am never ever going to download Homescapes but I see ads for it thirty times a day), add on top of that all the dead people’s data being passed around. There really needs to be some regulation and oversight.

umvi 6y ago
> I had an uncle who died in the early 80s and there is no trace of him Hmm, I wouldn't be so sure. Ancestry, FamilySearch, and other genealogical databases may yet have him in there, along with tons of information that ancestors literally voluntarily supply, including photos (for posterity). I see that as a good thing though. I can learn about my ancestors and see pictures of them and read stories about them.
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  Historian here. What's on those sites is based off source materials. And those are generally disparate: oral witnesses, family members, documents found in private archives,... but also public records found in your city archives. Where I live, different offices kept population records through out time e.g. city hall, the Church,... You can easily walk in, and access records from the 18th century and figure out when someone was born, who they married to and when they died. However, legal provisions prohibit access to those public records pertaining to births, marriages and deaths which are less then 100 years old. Meaning you don't get access to lists of names of all everyone were born in 1936. Why? Privacy for the living. e.g. someone could walk in and assert that your parents aren't your real parents. Moreover, privacy legislation states that you need consent from living people before you can publish personal information regarding their names, addresses and so on. It means that even if someone passes away, you can't just publish that they were married or about their children if any of those are still alive. Publishing pictures is even more fraught. You need consent from the person depicted, and consent from the photographer. That means ascertaining whether they are still alive, or getting consent from their estate in the case of the photographer. In the latter case, it might mean you may have to wait for 70 years after their death before those pictures enter the public domain. Genealogy websites allowing people to simply upload pictures without constraints expose themselves to copyright liability in that regard. ... and then there's the issue of how those legal provisions are upheld on the Internet. For instance, any ancestry/genealogy site who wants to operate in the EU has to comply with EU legislation including GDPR, copyright, right to be forgotten and so on. For sure, being able to dig into your own ancestry and being able to rely on other people's work through digital technology is awesome. But, as with anything digital, it does come with the same challenges that confront any business case leveraging personal information. TL;DR: Genealogy is fraught with legal challenges. You don't just get to publish, let alone scour and use those data without consent.

mattlondon 6y ago

From the article they mention a user being angry that they lost their kick data. It felt like they were highlighting this scenario like it was somehow weird or unusual that a pregnant mother was upset that she lost this data. This "fascination" from the author is unhelpful IMHO. I am not surprised that the pregnant mother was upset - in the UK it is now drilled into you that you need to keep track of kick data for your child and that you must - must - call the hospital as soon as you notice any change at all in kicking from your unborn child (1). They are deliberately very vague and unclear about what a "change" constitutes - just that if you feel something has changed at all or in any way then you need to call. From experience, these calls always end with a request that you go into hospital for a check from a midwife. So 55 kicks today, but 60 yesterday? Come in and a midwife will hook you up to keep track of your baby's vitals for an hour just to be sure with lots of reassurance that you did the right thing by coming in and getting it checked. So no shit if you've entrusted this data to an app and they've dropped the ball, no wonder you are angry: this is not just data for data's sake - not having it potentially endangers the life of your unborn child because you don't have your historical data to compare against any more, so you can't know anymore if today's kicks are changed from yesterday's or the day before etc. I am sure many people will scoff and call this an overreaction (including apparently the author of the article) but this is the current recommendation from the NHS here, and not everyone has a totally normal medical history or otherwise-textbook pregnancy where it is all skipping through meadows of wild daisys and baby ducklings quietly nuzzling at your feet followed by the perfect stress and pain free delivery. People can and do have medical circumstances that influence pregnancy. It ain't all plain sailing. People have reason to need to trust that their medical data is stored safely and reliably. To insinuate that is is odd is deeply unhelpful. 1 - https://www.nhs.uk/pregnancy/keeping-well/your-babys-movements/ https://www.nhs.uk/pregnancy/keeping-well/your-babys-movemen...

top_post 6y ago
We had a similar experience, where my wife was STRESSED OUT ALL THE TIME at the data in these apps. Everything was tracked and it was fucking awful. The reliance on them meant she had no idea how to feel intuitively about our kid growing inside of her. After some convincing, the apps were ditched, she felt more "in tune" with what was going on, and we even had a ride to hospital to check on things because she felt things had gone quiet movement wise. Our kid moved like clockwork at certain times of the day and after meals, no app needed to figure that out. These apps are a fucking cancer on what should be an enjoyable and natural time.

codingprograms 6y ago

People are too focused on data collection. We get it, surveillance is everywhere. It’s taking up a quarter of the front page at any given time. Anyone have anything intellectually novel to say? Or can I go write a bunch of articles about the same topic?

SignalNotSecure 6y ago
Gemini protocol users seem to write a lot of interesting content
lastgeniusua 6y ago
stupid 'hackers' being stupid 'hackers' as always. what should concern you if not global commodification of personal data?

a3n 6y ago

If it's an app, you're being commercially surveiled and exploited. Is that where we are now?

hn3333 6y ago
Afraid so. That reminds me: IIRC in the Dune universe they eventually abandon all technology. I wonder if we're on that track for real.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  Not quite. It's possible to live in the modern world using only Free and Open Source software. Stallman does this, but I think he's pretty much alone.
  - a3n 6y ago
    I've read that he borrows people's phones.
  - boogies 6y ago
    Wikipedia says there are ~350,665 Old Order Amish (apparently in the New World? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#cite_note-Elizabethtown_College,_the_Young_Center_for_Anabaptist_and_Pietist_Studies-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#cite_note-Elizabethtown_...).
    - est31 6y ago
      This is not an exaggeration. Nowadays basically anything you buy that uses electricity also has chips included for various purposes. Those chips of course run proprietary software.
    - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
      Sure, but I'd meant live in the modern world in the sense of living in tech-enabled society, rather than just living in the current day.
- 6y ago

jedberg 6y ago

All the more reason we need some laws defining your data as your property, not the company that collects it. We need strong consumer protection of data.

amelius 6y ago
We can end the madness simply by banning most types of targeted advertising.
- AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
  Or... you know, we can just not patronize these services. Nobody is holding a gun to our heads. Many today argue that the internet is largely unusable if we block all the FAANG hostnames, and for many this may be true, but it's becoming less and less of a sacrifice every day to disconnect from these massive centralized blobs. I understand many people feel an unquenchable urge to legislate these kinds of things into being, but we really cannot "will" things like this into existence. It's, actually, much easier to incentivize and promote a practical means towards adoption. In our case, we need to begin promoting technologies that promote decentralizing and owning our own communications protocols.

rdiddly 6y ago

Edit: If you read the following as "vote with your feet" and not "go live in a tent" you will have better results. It is written: 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝔂 "𝓽𝓻𝓾𝓼𝓽 𝓶𝓮" / 𝓓𝓾𝓶𝓫 𝓯𝓾𝓬𝓴𝓼 [For screen readers: They "trust me" / Dumb fucks] It's a problem, for sure, but I don't think we're totally helpless... yet... and it frustrates me to see this level of learned helplessness, and mistaking convenience for necessity. Being used to using your phone for everything, doesn't mean you cannot do something else. It's inconvenient, and not impossible, to go to a library[0] instead of Google and BabyCenter.com for answers to your questions. It's inconvenient, and not impossible, to momentarily disappoint your kids to protect their data forever (which is the kind of long-term concern that you understand and they don't, because you're the adult, which in turn is why you, and not they, are in charge). [0] RE libraries & books, that's the method most people used up to and past the 80s when PCs started appearing in many homes. That's the method by which enough knowledge was transmitted through millennia to enable the invention of smartphones. You don't even have to borrow the book; you can read it on-premises. But if you need to borrow it, you should still real-quick make sure the library isn't selling you out to anybody either. Most libraries have enough money and are pretty popular when it comes time to levy a tax or issue a bond. But some are just strapped enough that they "could really use the extra cash" that comes from providing borrower data to somebody who has convinced them it will be "anonymized."

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Please don't use the Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols block of Unicode to make cutesy letters like that, it can prevent the visually disabled from reading HN through their screenreaders.
- 458aperta 6y ago
  not sure if this genuine or sarcasm.
zaptheimpaler 6y ago
Because we don't want a world where we HAVE the technological capability to make life so much more convenient but somehow can't use any of it because of some shitty fixable privacy/social/political problems. For example, if you see a car that tracks your movement and sells it so some third party, you can either say "lets make cars that don't do that" or "lets go back to horses". I'm not excited about going back to horses, we can fix the damn car :/ Turning our back on modern technology is a depressing and limiting action in the long run.

WalterGR 6y ago

an international study that demonstrated that out of 24 mobile health (mHealth) apps, 19 shared user data with parent companies and service providers (third parties). They also showed that third parties shared user data with 216 fourth parties, including multinational technology companies, digital advertising companies, telecommunications corporations, and a consumer credit reporting agency. But what data are they collecting? Things available via JavaScript, tracking pixels, phone characteristics - most definitely. But the raw data about their pregnancies that users enter into tracking apps? While that’s entirely possible, Citation Needed.

aboringusername 6y ago
I've seen examples of encrypted payloads being sent to various third parties on the internet, it would be very time consuming to try and determine what that data actually is. In my opinion, the OS should let you deny the "internet" permission on any app, no reason why it should need it if I don't want to risk my data being uploaded without my consent.
- WalterGR 6y ago
  I've seen examples of encrypted payloads being sent to various third parties on the internet Do you mean sent via https or encrypted in JavaScript before transmission? If the former, that’s pretty par for the course. it would be very time consuming to try and determine what that data actually is. It would be easy for a researcher who wants to answer the question: what data is it? JavaScript debugger + breakpoints.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  You can just use GDPR and CCPA to demand the data they have on you if you want to find out.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nomdep 6y ago
At least for the Flo set of apps, yes, everything: https://mashable.com/article/flo-period-tracking-app-will-stop-sharing-data-with-facebook/ https://mashable.com/article/flo-period-tracking-app-will-st... https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-give-apps-sensitive-personal-information-then-they-tell-facebook-11550851636 https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-give-apps-sensitive-persona...

aboringusername 6y ago

Although many celebrated the passing and "enforcement" of the GDPR, I consider it to be one of the biggest failures in recent times. I'd argue the situation is worse today, and so far, the GDPR doesn't have any teeth whatsoever. On one website this is the cookie pop-up "consent" message: "We use cookies to provide a great experience. If you're happy with this, continue browsing" Apparently that counts as an "explicit, freely informed, permission given" consent now? I have found countless examples of websites sending data to facebook (including PII), simply by using XHR/fetch and a POST request, sending entire page URLs every time you navigate the website. I've noticed tens of requests to several domains that could be hijacked at any time and peoples information collected by a bad actor is they get the domain "totallynotspyingonyou.com" If the GDPR was serious platform changes would've been implemented - similar to Apple's coming tracking permission - which should be standard on every OS inside the EU. Instead of relying on websites/providers to the right thing, the upstream systems (browsers, OS) should be designed around the laws instead. As it stands, Google allows their OS to collect an individuals entire address book, apparently that data structure can be parsed, uploaded and freely traded once somebody taps "accept", and if my data is included...Well tough shit for me I guess. Asking Google whom has got my phone number saved onto their accounts yields no response, yet if somebody puts my PII onto Google, I have no rights over it. The "rights" the GDPR enshrined are nothing more than a empty, hollow promise - how many have had success trying to get information deleted? All I get told is it's "legal" as there's a "public interest" or for any number of reasons. Regulators simply can't and won't keep up. Reporting Google is a waste of time, a regulator is unlikely to touch them, even if there is data Google won't provide in a SAR and take months to provide a response. We need to embrace and accept data is going to be collected on all humans and kept for as long as the collector wants, and it can be sold, leaked, used and abused without you having any way to control it. We're all just numbers in a database somewhere, your feelings don't matter, how it affects your life on earth is disregarded, ads must be sold, data must be harvested. Welcome to 2021.

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago

"Big data is a resource and a tool. It is meant to inform, rather than explain; it points us toward understanding, but it can still lead to misunderstanding, depending on how well or poorly it is wielded. And however dazzling we find the power of big data to be, we must never let its seductive glimmer blind us to its inherent imperfections. . . . What we are able to collect and process will always be just a tiny fraction of the information that exists in the world. It can only be a simulacrum of reality, like the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave." - from the book "Big Data" mentioned in the article Meant to inform rather than to explain. Words of caution for "data scientists". We get more useful data from our senses each day than we ever will from a company conducting surveillance over the internet.

jtsuken 6y ago

There is a simple defence to this: Change your name and your children's names to John and Marry Smith.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

flowerlad 6y ago

Children can change their names upon reaching adulthood, to escape tracking. (This is a serious suggestion made by Google's then CEO Erich Schmidt, see below). And maybe every 10 years thereafter. Google's Eric Schmidt suggests that young people should change their name upon reaching adulthood: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7951269/Young-will-have-to-change-names-to-escape-cyber-past-warns-Googles-Eric-Schmidt.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7951269/Young-... Of course, a better way may be to introduce new right-to-be-forgotten laws like in the EU.

ROARosen 6y ago
This gets me thinking. From a legal perspective, does a parent's consent to tracking pass over to their children even after reaching adulthood? (say for GDPR etc.)
- acwan93 6y ago
  I think (and this is probably why this is part of the general tech conversation now) that we're on the verge of a massive legal shift with data ownership. A child born since Facebook's inception will be approaching 18 soon, and might have had parents who posted the child's entire life on Facebook from the ultrasound all the way to (maybe?) high school graduation. When that child turns 18 and the child does not consent to tracking, what happens to all those photos, behavior, and YouTube videos that kid has watched? Maybe the kid starts as a clean slate since they've reached an age of majority, but how can you technically even keep track of that?
  - ars 6y ago
    It's not in the future, it's right now: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/09/16/18-year-old-sues-parents-posting-baby-pictures-facebook/90479402/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/09/16/18... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/facebook-fines-woman-son-photos-post-social-media-court-italy-rome-a8155361.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/facebook-fin... Search for: "child suing parents over facebook photos" and you'll find plenty more.

tmpxgdqrcKFuG 6y ago

So, like in Black Mirror?

maximente 6y ago

it's worth remembering that somewhere, someone or a team: - had a whiteboard/design/brainstorming session - decided or was told to develop a feature involving data hoovering, with whatever justification - not enough of the team said "no", or were replaced by those that said "yes", that the feature made it to production - decided to sell/buy/run analyses over said data to increase profits (ostensibly) now, if there were a handful of companies doing this consistently, that'd be one thing. however, if all these apps, web sites, etc. are engaging in this, then it's clear there's just zero fundamental ethical force to stop data hoovering, and we ought to expect that the data collection will increase up to and until government regulation of this stuff. anyway, from where i sit, the engineers, vendors and data scientists involved in surveillance capitalism must share some of the blame, if not a lion's share.

Triv888 6y ago

Reminds me of the Sheriff's office from around here that was trying to fingerprint all kids at a spring festival... (in case they get kidnapped, they said).

Anka33 6y ago

And still there adds are WORTHLESS!

nucleardog 6y ago

Maybe it's just me, but if someone in physical space asks for unnecessarily personal data I have no problem leaving it blank and/or lying through my teeth. You know how some people are just complete fucking assholes, and people let them get away with it to avoid conflict? Yeah, if you say your name is Bog Saget and your email is bob@gmail.com, nobody's gonna raise a stink. They'll know you're full of shit, but if you can deal with their disapproving glare nobody will stop you. The "indoor play area" thing has not been an issue for me, personally.