11 ms·

> Tracking everything people do isn't a "business model"—it's a crime. Could you point me to a law that codifies this as crime? I have yet to see convincing p

> Tracking everything people do isn't a "business model"—it's a crime. Could you point me to a law that codifies this as crime? I have yet to see convincing proof of widespread or significant harm caused by tracking/retargeting. These arguments always seem to rely on hyperbole and redefining terms and norms. No, I don’t work at FB. No, I don’t work in digital advertising.

cacois 5y ago
I think you are misreading the parent comments. The authors are saying they believe it should be a crime, that the action is bad enough that it should be criminal.
infamouscow 5y ago
Congress can, and should, make it a crime.
- teawrecks 5y ago
  It would be very difficult to make this a crime, because a lot of customers WANT companies to be able to track everything about them. What they don't want is for their information to then be sold and passed around willy-nilly.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > customers WANT companies to be able to track everything about them Customers want free shit. American culture remains prickly to being tracked.
    - teawrecks 5y ago
      Right, the "free shit" part is when they profit from the data behind your back. THAT is the part that should be illegal. But it should be a perfectly valid business model for me to pay someone to (for example) watch everything I do and everything my body does, and give me personalized health advice, as long as they keep my data under lock and key for only my and their proprietary analysis algorithm's "eyes" to ever see. It's not the "tracking all your info" that is bad, it's that they legitimately believe that it's their info to do with as they please.
    - handrous 5y ago
      Notably, it's not even clear how much less "free shit" we'd get without spying-funded "free" services ruling the Web landscape. Those services don't just compete with paid alternatives, they compete with actually free. I think it's likely open protocols and open source software would see a surge of interests from users and developers working on them if they didn't have hundreds-of-developers paid teams with advertising budgets competing with them and giving their work away "for free" (with spying). Now, I hesitate to guess how much this factor would make up for the loss, but the amount of free shit we'd lose by outlawing spying-based advertising is surely less, by some amount, than 100% of what it currently funds.
  - ratww 5y ago
    Then just ask customers if they want or not, like Apple is forcing FB to do. The ones who want to be tracked will just say yes.
- stevespang 5y ago
  ABSOLUTELY, the Europeans already have..
flavius29663 5y ago
Everything was legal until the lawmakers made it a crime, even stalking from bushes. As the society evolves, we introduce more and more laws to govern it, just as some laws are retired.
- teawrecks 5y ago
  So the original claim should have been "nothing is a business model, everything is a crime"?
  - the_af 5y ago
    Do you think that's the most charitable interpretation of the original claim?
    - teawrecks 5y ago
      The original claim wasn't coherent, that's my point.
  - flavius29663 5y ago
    he didn't say "nothing" or "everything", he said "tracking" is a crime. To which you responded "it's not a crime in our laws" to which I said "YET". I am not sure where you drew this conclusion from? I introduced "everything" in the sense that everything "could" become a crime at some point, like mass private surveillance should.
streamofdigits 5y ago
What would be convincing proof according to your standards? The complete implosion of democracy? The visible persecution of some minority? Tracing everything back via a proper legalistic paper trail to the actions of a single corporate entity? That's not how the road to hell is usually paved. Who redefined "Terms and norms"? Who declared that privacy is dead? The problem really is that people have normalized a practice (surveillance, compilation of human behavioral profiles, classification, trading of such profiles, material impact on people's life based on such data and their algorithmic interpretation) that is historically the hallmark of oppression. This is not normal, not if we live in democratic, well functioning societies as we are led to believe. The cambridge-analytica episode is just the tip of the iceberg of what will happen if politicians and markets keep legitimizing this business model. Why place this bomb under society? Is there any service being offered that is not reproducible otherwise? Its just some freaking databases and servers and messages after all. What the world is waiting for is for the gargantuan mea-culpa of silicon valley and the amoral capital that financed this. This is a litmus test of whether there is anything left of the "Western" project, because of oppressive and unaccountable regimes there are plenty.
- quotemstr 5y ago
  Yes, FB or anyone else should be punished only after violating a law written down for everyone to see in advance of the action that supposedly violated that law. The road to hell is built by ignoring the rule of law to go after whoever is "bad" in the moment. There's an ancient legal principle called "nulla poena sina legal", which means "no punishment without a law". It's the foundation of all justice. Here's a classic quote from A Man for all Seasons that helps explain: Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law? More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
handrous 5y ago
> Could you point me to a law that codifies this as crime? The other posts that I meant "should be" aren't entirely wrong, but "crime", like most words, has more than one meaning, so that interpretation isn't necessary for my use to be correct (and isn't what I intended). From Webster's 1913 for "Crime (n)": 2. Gross violation of human law, in distinction from a misdemeanor or trespass, or other slight offense. Hence, also, any aggravated offense against morality or the public welfare; any outrage or great wrong. "To part error from crime." Tennyson. [emphasis mine] 3. Any great wickedness or sin; iniquity.
- oarabbus_ 5y ago
  >The other posts that I meant "should be" aren't entirely wrong, but "crime", like most words, has more than one meaning, Crime has a very specific meaning when we're talking about a legislative body conducting a hearing. It's not open to interpretation. A crime is something that violates existing statutes of law, period.
  - handrous 5y ago
    > A crime is something that violates existing statutes of law, period What are you trying to communicate here? You're really stretching to defend your poor reading. [EDIT] rather, you're really digging in—"my poor reading is the only correct reading, because I say it is, therefore the post is what's wrong, not my reading".
handrous 5y ago
> redefining terms and norms. AKA rhetoric and persuasive language. Likening something that looks an awful lot like a literally-against-the-law crime, to that same crime, is about as mild as that sort of thing can possibly be, and I don't think my post was particularly tricky or deceptive. Your position also assumes terms and norms weren't already redefined to make this stuff not seem awful. I know in the 90s my co-workers would have been shocked by the suggestion we do a small fraction of what a place like FB does, to track people. It would have been considered, obviously, incredibly unethical. Some may even have assumed it was illegal under some law or another, in fact. Accepting that terms and norms as currently defined are correct is just accepting the worldview of, and supporting the interests of, whoever redefined and shifted those last. This is not the same as saying that "nothing actually means anything", mind you, but rather a call to consider things on their own terms, not to accept another's framing. When I do that, well shit, it sure looks like a bunch of modern tech's business model is "being a gross, creepy stalker, at scale". Why would that be OK? It's not even close to the border of OK.
- xibalba 5y ago
  > redefining terms and norms. > AKA rhetoric and persuasive language. I think you've just engaged in it. While norms and language are a little mushy, they're not meaningless. Human culture has long held traditions around basic mores that really don't change over time and culture. For example, most instances of homicide are bad and are codified as such. Yes, there is some wiggle room for rhetoric, but words have durable meaning, and when people take the time to think critically about their usage, they can spot dishonesty, weasel wording, and hyperbole. > something that looks an awful lot like a literally-against-the-law crime > modern tech's business model is "being a gross, creepy stalker, at scale" You're equivocating a sample of a person's internet behavior with an actual person. These are not the same thing. You're using that equivocation to draw your analogy of tracking and retargeting as being nearly indistinguishable from real world stalking, which is absolutely hyperbolic and disingenuous. People who are being stalked are in actual, mortal danger. It is incredibly difficult for them to terminate the observation and following of their real, physical person. They experience intense (and very rational) psychological and emotional distress as a result. I'll again note that I haven't seen convincing evidence of the demonstrable, widespread, or significant harms resulting from tracking/retargeting. Instead your argument seems to rely almost entirely on a fundamentally flawed analogy.

cacois 5y ago

I think you are misreading the parent comments. The authors are saying they believe it should be a crime, that the action is bad enough that it should be criminal.

infamouscow 5y ago

Congress can, and should, make it a crime.

teawrecks 5y ago
It would be very difficult to make this a crime, because a lot of customers WANT companies to be able to track everything about them. What they don't want is for their information to then be sold and passed around willy-nilly.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > customers WANT companies to be able to track everything about them Customers want free shit. American culture remains prickly to being tracked.
  - teawrecks 5y ago
    Right, the "free shit" part is when they profit from the data behind your back. THAT is the part that should be illegal. But it should be a perfectly valid business model for me to pay someone to (for example) watch everything I do and everything my body does, and give me personalized health advice, as long as they keep my data under lock and key for only my and their proprietary analysis algorithm's "eyes" to ever see. It's not the "tracking all your info" that is bad, it's that they legitimately believe that it's their info to do with as they please.
  - handrous 5y ago
    Notably, it's not even clear how much less "free shit" we'd get without spying-funded "free" services ruling the Web landscape. Those services don't just compete with paid alternatives, they compete with actually free. I think it's likely open protocols and open source software would see a surge of interests from users and developers working on them if they didn't have hundreds-of-developers paid teams with advertising budgets competing with them and giving their work away "for free" (with spying). Now, I hesitate to guess how much this factor would make up for the loss, but the amount of free shit we'd lose by outlawing spying-based advertising is surely less, by some amount, than 100% of what it currently funds.
- ratww 5y ago
  Then just ask customers if they want or not, like Apple is forcing FB to do. The ones who want to be tracked will just say yes.
stevespang 5y ago
ABSOLUTELY, the Europeans already have..

flavius29663 5y ago

Everything was legal until the lawmakers made it a crime, even stalking from bushes. As the society evolves, we introduce more and more laws to govern it, just as some laws are retired.

teawrecks 5y ago
So the original claim should have been "nothing is a business model, everything is a crime"?
- the_af 5y ago
  Do you think that's the most charitable interpretation of the original claim?
  - teawrecks 5y ago
    The original claim wasn't coherent, that's my point.
- flavius29663 5y ago
  he didn't say "nothing" or "everything", he said "tracking" is a crime. To which you responded "it's not a crime in our laws" to which I said "YET". I am not sure where you drew this conclusion from? I introduced "everything" in the sense that everything "could" become a crime at some point, like mass private surveillance should.

streamofdigits 5y ago

What would be convincing proof according to your standards? The complete implosion of democracy? The visible persecution of some minority? Tracing everything back via a proper legalistic paper trail to the actions of a single corporate entity? That's not how the road to hell is usually paved. Who redefined "Terms and norms"? Who declared that privacy is dead? The problem really is that people have normalized a practice (surveillance, compilation of human behavioral profiles, classification, trading of such profiles, material impact on people's life based on such data and their algorithmic interpretation) that is historically the hallmark of oppression. This is not normal, not if we live in democratic, well functioning societies as we are led to believe. The cambridge-analytica episode is just the tip of the iceberg of what will happen if politicians and markets keep legitimizing this business model. Why place this bomb under society? Is there any service being offered that is not reproducible otherwise? Its just some freaking databases and servers and messages after all. What the world is waiting for is for the gargantuan mea-culpa of silicon valley and the amoral capital that financed this. This is a litmus test of whether there is anything left of the "Western" project, because of oppressive and unaccountable regimes there are plenty.

quotemstr 5y ago
Yes, FB or anyone else should be punished only after violating a law written down for everyone to see in advance of the action that supposedly violated that law. The road to hell is built by ignoring the rule of law to go after whoever is "bad" in the moment. There's an ancient legal principle called "nulla poena sina legal", which means "no punishment without a law". It's the foundation of all justice. Here's a classic quote from A Man for all Seasons that helps explain: Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law? More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

handrous 5y ago

> Could you point me to a law that codifies this as crime? The other posts that I meant "should be" aren't entirely wrong, but "crime", like most words, has more than one meaning, so that interpretation isn't necessary for my use to be correct (and isn't what I intended). From Webster's 1913 for "Crime (n)": 2. Gross violation of human law, in distinction from a misdemeanor or trespass, or other slight offense. Hence, also, any aggravated offense against morality or the public welfare; any outrage or great wrong. "To part error from crime." Tennyson. [emphasis mine] 3. Any great wickedness or sin; iniquity.

oarabbus_ 5y ago
>The other posts that I meant "should be" aren't entirely wrong, but "crime", like most words, has more than one meaning, Crime has a very specific meaning when we're talking about a legislative body conducting a hearing. It's not open to interpretation. A crime is something that violates existing statutes of law, period.
- handrous 5y ago
  > A crime is something that violates existing statutes of law, period What are you trying to communicate here? You're really stretching to defend your poor reading. [EDIT] rather, you're really digging in—"my poor reading is the only correct reading, because I say it is, therefore the post is what's wrong, not my reading".

handrous 5y ago

> redefining terms and norms. AKA rhetoric and persuasive language. Likening something that looks an awful lot like a literally-against-the-law crime, to that same crime, is about as mild as that sort of thing can possibly be, and I don't think my post was particularly tricky or deceptive. Your position also assumes terms and norms weren't already redefined to make this stuff not seem awful. I know in the 90s my co-workers would have been shocked by the suggestion we do a small fraction of what a place like FB does, to track people. It would have been considered, obviously, incredibly unethical. Some may even have assumed it was illegal under some law or another, in fact. Accepting that terms and norms as currently defined are correct is just accepting the worldview of, and supporting the interests of, whoever redefined and shifted those last. This is not the same as saying that "nothing actually means anything", mind you, but rather a call to consider things on their own terms, not to accept another's framing. When I do that, well shit, it sure looks like a bunch of modern tech's business model is "being a gross, creepy stalker, at scale". Why would that be OK? It's not even close to the border of OK.

xibalba 5y ago
> redefining terms and norms. > AKA rhetoric and persuasive language. I think you've just engaged in it. While norms and language are a little mushy, they're not meaningless. Human culture has long held traditions around basic mores that really don't change over time and culture. For example, most instances of homicide are bad and are codified as such. Yes, there is some wiggle room for rhetoric, but words have durable meaning, and when people take the time to think critically about their usage, they can spot dishonesty, weasel wording, and hyperbole. > something that looks an awful lot like a literally-against-the-law crime > modern tech's business model is "being a gross, creepy stalker, at scale" You're equivocating a sample of a person's internet behavior with an actual person. These are not the same thing. You're using that equivocation to draw your analogy of tracking and retargeting as being nearly indistinguishable from real world stalking, which is absolutely hyperbolic and disingenuous. People who are being stalked are in actual, mortal danger. It is incredibly difficult for them to terminate the observation and following of their real, physical person. They experience intense (and very rational) psychological and emotional distress as a result. I'll again note that I haven't seen convincing evidence of the demonstrable, widespread, or significant harms resulting from tracking/retargeting. Instead your argument seems to rely almost entirely on a fundamentally flawed analogy.