4 ms·
The only real way to ensure your data isn't being collected and sold in the course of every single transaction you engage in (cash transactions being somewhat l
by photochemsyn 4y ago
The only real way to ensure your data isn't being collected and sold in the course of every single transaction you engage in (cash transactions being somewhat less trackable, however), is to get data privacy laws passed that forbid this activity by retailers, data brokers, and related entities. The EU has the right idea on this.
Ordinary individuals who attempt to use technology to 'go dark' will likely, if they're careful, be able to conceal their online identity from your average stalker type, malicious ex, or seedy credit card fraudster, but certainly not from the likes of Google, Apple, Verizon, or any number of government agencies with access to those outfit's data centers. This is called mass domestic warrantless surveillance and it is illegal under any reasonable interpretation of the US constitution, and certainly shouldn't be allowed by private parties either.
As far as spies, every history of spies I've ever read has one thing in common: they all hide in plain sight, using cover identities of some sort, acting as much like a normal member of society or their organization as possible, and then running off to do their data transfer/nefarious activity in secret only rarely. Notably, mass domestic surveillance isn't a very useful tool for catching such people - it's more about authoritarian snooping on the population, engendering fear of the state as with STASI, as a means of control. That nonsense shouldn't be allowed, and those who promote it are nothing but authoritarian enemies of democratic rule and free expression.
- jodrellblank 4y ago> "cash transactions being somewhat less trackable, however" "Then he said he was going to buy the book with cash, so nobody could trace the purchase to him and exploit his interests for commercial purposes" - Calvin, talking about his Dad, in Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson, December 1993. https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/12/07 https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/12/07
- d883kd8 4y agoZersetsung
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- photochemsyn 4y agoThanks, I was unaware of that concept. Certainly seems relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zersetzung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zersetzung
- sam345 4y ago". This is called mass domestic warrantless surveillance and it is illegal under any reasonable interpretation of the US constitution, and certainly shouldn't be allowed by private parties either." I don't think this is correct. Google etc are private actors so no state action, no constitutional violation plus they get your legal consent whether you like the way they do it or not. Government agencies if they get the info must get a warrant or have exception or info's use is barred from court and can't be used against you. So why the claim it is illegal mass domestic surveillance? Hyperbole. Mass surveillance that IS used against citizens all the time is China in WeChat, mass camera use, etc. where there are no constitutional or other protections.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mLuby 4y agoMass surveillance has been used against citizens in the US too; it's too tempting a tool not to abuse. The legal system loses its credibility when warrants, proceedings, evidence, etc are all secret in the name of national security. And further there are cases where the government circumvents the law's intent by asking companies to do things the government itself must not do. Whether a thing is "legal" when it comes to government (ab)use of power is the thinnest of defenses. As the senator from Naboo said: "I will make it legal."
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago> they get your legal consent whether you like the way they do it or not. Facebook tracks millions of people who never sogned up to a facebook account and has never agreed to anything
- seesaw 4y agoTrue. See the recent news [1] about hospital web sites sending sensitive data to Facebook. We don’t hear about all the others. [1] https://themarkup.org/pixel-hunt/2022/06/16/facebook-is-receiving-sensitive-medical-information-from-hospital-websites https://themarkup.org/pixel-hunt/2022/06/16/facebook-is-rece...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- junofan 4y agoCertainly you can ban the sale, but it’s hard to imagine a law that outright bans the collection—there will be exceptions for law enforcement, and it’s not inconceivable those exceptions will be abused. I think technological and social solutions may be a better bet than laws on the books in this case.
- Nextgrid 4y agoIf you ban non-consensual data collection & processing then there wouldn’t be a business case for building infrastructure for it. Law enforcement would have to build it from scratch (and trick users to fall for it or pass laws to force people/companies to use it) where as right now they can just dip into the data companies already collect. The "attention economy" is the best thing that happened to intelligence agencies worldwide. Where as before they had to build surveillance infrastructure themselves (which requires budget, skills and secrecy, all of which is costly and politically risky), nowadays they get all of that not just for free but much better than anything they could build themselves.
- dredmorbius 4y agoLegislation, regulation, and litigation are the ultimate answer, yes. Technological resistance is, however, a useful form both of social resistance and a means of determining the pervasiveness, nature, and scope of the problem. That said, individual action alone is profoundly insufficient.