4 ms·

You buy some gay sex toys, search for gay sex info, etc. Maybe you try out gay sex, because you're sort of curious. It's not for you, but oh well. Ten years lat

by swombat 15y ago

You buy some gay sex toys, search for gay sex info, etc. Maybe you try out gay sex, because you're sort of curious. It's not for you, but oh well. Ten years later, homosexuality is made illegal. Five years after that, they make homosexual practices retroactively illegal. They look through your profile and found evidence of gay activity. You go to the internment camp, never to be seen again. If the above scenario sounds unrealistic to you, you haven't studied history well enough. To expand the topic a bit, imagine a government like Nazi Germany or any of the communist dictatorships, but with all this information at their disposal. The Red Khmers mass-murdered people who wore glasses, on the basis that they were intellectuals. Imagine such a regime with the tools to figure out, via mass, automated profiling, exactly who all the potentially subversive elements might be, and execute them all ahead of time, leaving a population consisting mostly of nice obedient types who never read any other book than the Da Vinci Code.

spot 15y ago
as noted by the original article, just using your credit card already gives you that problem.
iand 15y ago
Disregarding the likelihood of this scenario panning out, what is special about the combination of purchase and search history? In your scenario just having purchased some toys or searched for gay sex is enough to incriminate you, they don't have to be pre-linked by Google.
- swombat 15y ago
  I guess the difference is the "one stop shop" nature of it. With everything linked onto one site, all you need is for that future oppressive government to have access to Google's archives to know everything about you - whether it was in the form of a purchase, a search, an email, a calendar item, a shared document subsequently deleted, a visit on a site with doubleclick or google ads, etc. It's a totalitarian regime's wet dream come true. "I don't like X anymore, give me all the dirt on him." "Here you go." Or even, criticising the bundling together of any multiple services: "The town of X is too libertarian. Send everyone a file outlining the illegal things each of them has done over the last 20 years online which would make them liable to immediate internment." Even just the fact that google owns AdSense could be a problem from this point of view: "Round up all those who ever arrived on a google-monitored page via hacker-news links. People from that place are 98% more likely to be subversive. I want them all shot." It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. And history shows that sometimes, they are.
shabda 15y ago
Its probably over the top, but combined with the HTTPS fiasco we have seen, you dont even need Google to be evil, just someone with a compromised HTTPS certs.
revorad 15y ago
Following that line of reasoning, imagine 10 years from now, talking about homosexuality is made retroactively illegal. You'd be in big trouble (and now me!). If the above scenario sounds unrealistic to you, that's right. It is unrealistic, just like the one you painted. I'd rather not tell Google everything about myself but I'm honestly shocked that such extreme examples are being used to argue against the idea. By invoking Nazi analogies to make your point, you're actually doing a disservice to your argument. The instinct of my irrational mind is to think: well if it needs another Hitler to make it really scary, then I can probably ignore it.
- dctoedt 15y ago
  By invoking Nazi analogies to make your point, you're actually doing a disservice to your argument. I just finished reading the NYT best-seller In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler's Berlin [1]. It made me think that, notwithstanding Godwin's Law [2], citizens should continue to be mindful of what can happen in a 'civilized' society. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Garden-Beasts-Terror-American-Hitlers/dp/0307408841 http://www.amazon.com/Garden-Beasts-Terror-American-Hitlers/... (not an affiliate link). [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
- pwenzel 15y ago
  My automatic Godwin's Law Filter allowed me to scan right past that argument.
  - swombat 15y ago
    Government and other nation-wide institutions are one of the few things that should be designed with the worst case scenario in mind, because history has shown with admirable consistency that this worst case comes up again, and again, and again. If you don't want "the next Hitler" you need your political system to be designed to avoid allowing "him" to happen. Communism largely failed as a system because it consistently brought out the worst dictators in each country and put them on top. Having all this data in one place has no historical precedent. It is only smart to at least consider the worst case, given the potential damage. If you don't like the Hitler analogy, then consider something close to home: What would the Taliban have done with all this data on their people? The answer seems pretty obvious.
OoTheNigerian 15y ago
You do not even need to go that far. What happens if another group of people become in charge of Google. The data is already with them. No single entity should be made so powerful, the temptation to abuse it is just too high.

by swombat 15y ago

spot 15y ago

as noted by the original article, just using your credit card already gives you that problem.

iand 15y ago

Disregarding the likelihood of this scenario panning out, what is special about the combination of purchase and search history? In your scenario just having purchased some toys or searched for gay sex is enough to incriminate you, they don't have to be pre-linked by Google.

swombat 15y ago
I guess the difference is the "one stop shop" nature of it. With everything linked onto one site, all you need is for that future oppressive government to have access to Google's archives to know everything about you - whether it was in the form of a purchase, a search, an email, a calendar item, a shared document subsequently deleted, a visit on a site with doubleclick or google ads, etc. It's a totalitarian regime's wet dream come true. "I don't like X anymore, give me all the dirt on him." "Here you go." Or even, criticising the bundling together of any multiple services: "The town of X is too libertarian. Send everyone a file outlining the illegal things each of them has done over the last 20 years online which would make them liable to immediate internment." Even just the fact that google owns AdSense could be a problem from this point of view: "Round up all those who ever arrived on a google-monitored page via hacker-news links. People from that place are 98% more likely to be subversive. I want them all shot." It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. And history shows that sometimes, they are.

shabda 15y ago

Its probably over the top, but combined with the HTTPS fiasco we have seen, you dont even need Google to be evil, just someone with a compromised HTTPS certs.

revorad 15y ago

Following that line of reasoning, imagine 10 years from now, talking about homosexuality is made retroactively illegal. You'd be in big trouble (and now me!). If the above scenario sounds unrealistic to you, that's right. It is unrealistic, just like the one you painted. I'd rather not tell Google everything about myself but I'm honestly shocked that such extreme examples are being used to argue against the idea. By invoking Nazi analogies to make your point, you're actually doing a disservice to your argument. The instinct of my irrational mind is to think: well if it needs another Hitler to make it really scary, then I can probably ignore it.

dctoedt 15y ago
By invoking Nazi analogies to make your point, you're actually doing a disservice to your argument. I just finished reading the NYT best-seller In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler's Berlin [1]. It made me think that, notwithstanding Godwin's Law [2], citizens should continue to be mindful of what can happen in a 'civilized' society. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Garden-Beasts-Terror-American-Hitlers/dp/0307408841 http://www.amazon.com/Garden-Beasts-Terror-American-Hitlers/... (not an affiliate link). [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
pwenzel 15y ago
My automatic Godwin's Law Filter allowed me to scan right past that argument.
- swombat 15y ago
  Government and other nation-wide institutions are one of the few things that should be designed with the worst case scenario in mind, because history has shown with admirable consistency that this worst case comes up again, and again, and again. If you don't want "the next Hitler" you need your political system to be designed to avoid allowing "him" to happen. Communism largely failed as a system because it consistently brought out the worst dictators in each country and put them on top. Having all this data in one place has no historical precedent. It is only smart to at least consider the worst case, given the potential damage. If you don't like the Hitler analogy, then consider something close to home: What would the Taliban have done with all this data on their people? The answer seems pretty obvious.

OoTheNigerian 15y ago

You do not even need to go that far. What happens if another group of people become in charge of Google. The data is already with them. No single entity should be made so powerful, the temptation to abuse it is just too high.