16 ms·
Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse
- bearjaws 4y ago"Tech industry tries to make up for regressive politics" Hate to say it, but there may not be a technical solution to the failings of the USA.
- micromacrofoot 4y agoI'd go a little further and say that tech has exacerbated the failings of the USA.
- fny 4y agoI'd be a little more accurate and say extreme neoliberalism has exacerbated the failings of the USA.
- hahaitsfunny 4y agoNeoconservatism too. Let's not forget about Bush, Blair, Powell and Iraq...
- fny 4y agoNeoliberalism is an economic philosophy. It's not tied to "progressivism" or "conservatism". In short, it promotes free-market economics without borders.
- hahaitsfunny 4y agoWhere did I mention progressivism or conservativism? Neoliberalism is intrinsically tied to politics because you can't affect economic policy without getting involved in the political system... Regardless, your implications surrounding my comment, and my intent by making it, are incorrect. Both movements have been disastrous for the United States.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoThe confusion stems from the introduction of "neoconservatism" into a thread which just before was topic-centered around neoliberalism. To a reader it looks as if it's trying to establish that neoliberalism and neoconservatism belong to the same category and together form a unity of opposing forces. It reads as if neoconservatism is a conservative form of neoliberalism (or vice versa).
- fny 4y agoNeoliberalism is entirely unrelated to neoconservatism. The "liberal" part refers entirely to free-market economics. The two philosophies are similar only in name. It is possible to be both a neoliberal and a neoconservative. For example, every Republican president from the 1980s up to Trump was a neoliberal. This includes Bush who you mention as a counterexample. Trump was the first anti-neoliberal president we have had in decades as he, unlike his predecessors, promoted tariffs.
- XorNot 4y ago
- hahaitsfunny 4y ago[flagged]
- epakai 4y agoWhat's now? This is just the same red scare hokum of the 50s.
- hahaitsfunny 4y ago[flagged]
- epakai 4y agoNeither could. Critical race theory isn't prescriptive. Black Lives Matter is, but advocates for equal outcomes (primarily in policing). This isn't Marxism, but just regular justice. The only thing Marxist about them is that the right has tried to tie them in with Marxism as part of the FUD, and some 'leaders' in the movements also advocate for Marxist solutions. Christopher Rufo was explicit in his intent to do so for Critical Race Theory. It's precisely the same red scare tactics used to punish people with different ideology in the 50s as enemies of the state.
- micromacrofoot 4y agocan you cite some examples? generally it seems like people are exercising their first amendment rights against people they don't like, which has at times been misdirected, but to my knowledge hasn't destroyed anyone
- hahaitsfunny 4y ago[flagged]
- 4y ago
- micromacrofoot 4y agoI'm not so sure. There are other neoliberal countries that aren't experiencing some of the same issues.
- ironmagma 4y agoExacerbated, or just exposed?
- hahaitsfunny 4y agoI'd go even further and say that tech is fundamental in the destruction of the fabric of American society.
- MobileVet 4y agoThis. Social Media has advanced the fiefdoms at an alarming rate. No matter how strange or out of touch your ideas, you can find similar people to reinforce them. When your only connection is with people that agree with you it becomes 'us vs them' and extremely insular. Throw in 'click bait' news and you have a growing level of fear and uncertainty that adds to the comfort of staying within your tribe. Civil society takes work and we aren't doing that work in the US right now. No one wants to discuss things, they just want to yell down the other person. We need to get out on the front porch and talk instead of posting from our basements.
- odessacubbage 4y agoi mean, if that is the case then it happened in the 18th century when the industrial revolution caused the undoing of the jeffersonian ideal and the supremacy of the yeoman farmer. i tend to gather that most of this site's users are not planters, candlestick makers or slave owners. if anything destroyed the fabric of communities in post-new-deal-industrial-world-superpower-america, it was financialization and trade agreements.
- hahaitsfunny 4y agoWe might as well go back to the social contract then. My comment written to open up some historical debate about when the downfall of America started, but to point out that big tech is a fundamental contributor to the destruction of the fabric of America. I never claimed there were no other contributors or that it started with the advent of big tech.
- testbjjl 4y agoNot all tech. There are specific actors and business models.
- adamc 4y agoThat comment needs expansion and amplification.
- micromacrofoot 4y agoUnfortunately the tech with the most power.
- zaptheimpaler 4y agoYeah its getting tiring watching the increasingly convoluted mental gymnastics to make companies and individuals responsible for completely failed lawmaking and rabid dog enforcement agencies. Literally in the article: “Be smart: Congress won't save us, or these companies, from this battle. … But long efforts by legislators to pass a national privacy law — an effort many companies support — remain stalemated this summer, as they have been for years.” No, your fucking government is unable or unwilling to act in the interests of its people. What is a government that is unaccountable to its citizens (whether due to gridlock or malice) called? National privacy laws would apply to all companies, present and future and to all cases of overreach. Instead, we are all supposed to fight the current big tech cos and fiddle with Google settings to delete location data and buy pinephones and gmail alternatives and drop facebook and use Signal and don’t buy a smart TV and don’t use Github and on and on? Maybe we need to invest more energy into fixing a dead government instead of tech.
- tablespoon 4y agoWe can only hope it this will drive some general improvements in privacy protection/data collection. However, I think it's far more likely that we get some hyper-specific protections tailored to avoid a general improvement (e.g. like we have for video tape rental information).
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoEh, this is the one thing I hoped would push non-tech people like my wife into a more active stance. I showed her one of the related articles discussing apps tracking menstrual cycles and poor HIPAA protections in today's world, but the result was sadly the opposite to what I hoped for. In that particular case, addiction to her favorite games clearly outweighed espoused concern of Roe vs Wade impact. It is odd. I was sure it would make more of an impact. Maybe habits are stronger than proclaimed views.
- haswell 4y ago> addiction to her favorite games clearly outweighed espoused concern of Roe vs Wade impact I’m curious, how are the two related?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoAhh, sorry, I assumed the connection is clear. Addiction to a set of casual games is preventing her from even considering dropping Facebook or, should we went that route, downgrading to a feature phone. Separately, she is unwilling to log into FB from PC, where there would be more control over what is done that machine. In this case, games are holding her hostage from adopting healthier privacy habits. Now, privacy habits are related to Roe vs Wade in a more nuanced way. Some of the recent articles indicated that some data that could be used to identify women one way or another and puts tech sector in its sights as a result. Hope it makes is a little more clear. I am a little sick so odds are my thoughts are not clearly expressed.
- haswell 4y agoThanks for the clarification, this does make things a lot more clear. This makes me wonder if there's a good way to help others wake up to the risk. When I chat with friends about Facebook, they acknowledge that they have too much data, and do seem concerned / occasionally disturbed by how much these platforms know about them, but it seems difficult for them to synthesize an understanding of actual risk / potential negative outcome. For awhile, I thought that someone should create a tool/portal/app that would use data from social networks / data brokers / etc. to scare the shit out of people and help them realize how vulnerable they are. But the existence of such a tool would also seem to make the problem worse, especially if it did not have the intended effect (to get people off of these networks). I'm now starting to think that someone needs to create a "Dieting App" for social media users. Something that would help explain and demonstrate the scary state of privacy when using these apps. Not unlike the "Noom" (have not used this before, not an endorsement) approach to dieting. I don't see a way to break these addictions without somehow terrifying the user. That can either happen voluntarily, by willingly exploring the downsides (and this is where some kind of curriculum would be beneficial), or unwillingly, after real people are impacted by real overreach after it's too late.
- verisimi 4y ago> Driving the news: Google announced Friday a new program to automatically delete the location data of users who visit "particularly personal" locations like "counseling centers, domestic violence shelters, abortion clinics, fertility centers, addiction treatment facilities, weight loss clinics, cosmetic surgery clinics, and others." Yay google! Giving a touch of privacy back to those causes it deems acceptable!!
- GRBLDeveloped 4y agoWonder if Google deleting this information is technically tampering with evidence
- aceazzameen 4y agoDon't give politicians any ideas.
- origin_path 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- fallingknife 4y agoAs much as I don't like laws against abortion, I like tech companies picking and choosing which laws they help the government enforce even less. What we really need is a blanket ban on law enforcement access to private mass collected databases in general.
- adamc 4y agoThat won't happen. There are too many cases where it helps law enforcement in reasonable ways. I'm OK with tech companies choosing data retention practices that make them unable to answer certain kinds of questions, and, in fact, suspect this will be mandated in some locales. Until there is some law that prevents it, anyway.
- a2800276 4y agoOr laws against private mass collected databases in general?
- core-utility 4y agoIs this anything more than just fear-mongering? I don't see how this is related to the Roe reversal at all. Not a single state has given any inkling of ruling/law aimed at prosecuting the receiver of the abortion, only doctors/person who performs them. Privacy is good and these issues should be evaluated, but to talk about them in the context of the recent Supreme Court decision is dishonest.
- defterGoose 4y agoYou've got the de facto situation in Texas though. Anyone being allowed to sue you for getting an abortion effectively means that the "state" can come after you. Make no mistake, these laws aim to harm anyone involved. The entire context of this discussion stems from the decision. You're wrong, and frankly, a little churlish.
- core-utility 4y agoTexas' situation is specifically worded for the state not to come after you. It's a citizen's matter. "this statute does not limit who can bring suit, so long as it is a private citizen" Additionally, in the Texas case you can't sue the mother, only those who aid in performing the abortion.
- Teknoman117 4y agoIt's hard to say the state isn't coming after you in this case though. Why the hell does my neighbor get to care if a specific doctor performed an abortion? Why can they launch a civil case against and be compensated financially for something that doesn't affect them in any way?
- core-utility 4y agoSo legally speaking, the person in a civil suit typically has to be the one harmed, or have some major interest in the harming of someone their connected to (if that person can't bring a suit themselves). Texas' working of this is that the baby/fetus/whatever you choose to call it was killed and can't bring suit itself, and they're explicitly allowing the society to bring suit on behalf of that.
- cato_the_elder 4y agoGoogle clearly thinks it is above the law.
- maxerickson 4y agoWhich law in this case? Be specific, what law requires them to not treat particular healthcare facilities differently with regards to data collection?
- cato_the_elder 4y agoNot tampering with evidence? [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence
- maxerickson 4y agoA blanket rule on data collection isn't tampering with evidence. They are not examining the particular information they are deleting in order to determine whether it is potentially evidence.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago> They are not examining the particular information they are deleting in order to determine whether it is potentially evidence. Of course they are, unless I am misunderstanding what they are doing. It seems that they are specifically deleting location data with regards to visits to abortion clinics. [1] [1]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/google-data-abortion-clinics-1.6508856 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/google-data-abortion-clinics-1...
- maxerickson 4y agoThere is no such thing as an abortion clinic, there are facilities that provide a range of healthcare services, potentially including abortions.
- johndhi 4y agoEverybody acts like tech companies get tremendous value from analyzing PII. Almost all of tech (perhaps excluding fb) mostly just collects pii because it's easier to do so than not, and because everybody else is. If it were banned in a clear sensible way worldwide I don't think the tech would suffer much.
- titzer 4y agoThe revenue difference I have heard, ballpark, for targeted advertising (based on tracking) on the web, en masse is 2x. So the gajillion dollar online ad industry would only be set back by 4 or 5 years. So, 2018? Not bad. I say, do it. Ban targeted advertising on the web.
- cwp 4y agoIt's not the ad industry that would suffer, but small businesses that buy ads. Targeted advertising is how new products and services can bootstrap themselves into existence. As scale increases, targeting accuracy declines, so larger companies don't benefit as much. But if you want to put your product in front of 1000 people who will be highly likely to try it, targeted advertising is superb. If that goes away, it's the startup ecosystem that will be hardest hit.
- titzer 4y agoTargeting doesn't have to be done via tracking. It can be done by content, you know, the way it's been done since the magazine era.
- origin_path 4y ago
- toss1 4y agoYup - and we can go even further - the tech companies (& all companies) should by their own volition treat personalized data at what it is - highly toxic waste. While it is mildly interesting, I've never read any articles, studies,or other info that the highly touted promise of PII to increase sales, effectiveness of advert spending, or ad relevancy for consumers is anything but a complete flop. Decades of effort by the top tech firms and investors, and contextual ads are still more relevant -just show ads quasi-related to what I'm reading/viewing right now. Highly likely that Google could this afternoon vaporize every byte of PII they hold and be just fine. FB might suffer, but more because surveillance tech is their core worldview then that they couldn't survive. If they are smart ,they'll vaporize it this week, without any legislation. But I'm not counting on it.
- kesava 4y agoIsn't Roe‘s sense of privacy different from tech‘s sense of privacy?
- karaterobot 4y ago> A sudden gap in location data could itself be used as evidence in court. Google should drop visits to particularly personal locations, but they should also just ignore everything except the 10-15 places you visit the most. I have to believe they care much more about the fact that I go to the same Trader Joe's every week than that I went to a plumbing supply warehouse one time last year. This would provide a good screen for those sudden gaps in location data, and wouldn't noticeably affect the marketing applications of their precious, precious user profiles.
- yummypaint 4y agoHow would you implement this in a way that doesn't require google to retain your full location history?
- human_person 4y agoStore a hash of the location and a counter. On the xth visit save the location info unhashed? Decrement the counter once a month then delete the saved info and switch back to a hash if the counter drops below x
- notinfuriated 4y agoI still don't understand how the Roe = privacy take has been legitimate when the US has completely ignored the privacy of its citizens in many other contexts, including decades of the NSA and other alphabet agencies spying on us. Granted, I would love there to be an explicitly stated right to privacy from government (up to some limitations determined by the courts, e.g. when government needs to investigate, say, an actual murder (and not one of a fetus, just my opinion)). But obviously there is no such right when looking at the actual actions of the government which are de facto 'legal' as nothing is being done about it, no one is being punished.
- XorNot 4y agoThe constitutional right to privacy is, specifically, a right to government non-interference in matters considered to be private. That the surveillance apparatus might know you visited a doctor, and what you discussed, does not grant the government the ability to prosecute you based on that information - because it is considered to be a matter of the private activities of a citizen. i.e. who or how you have sex is between you and your partner(s) provided everyone consents - the matter remains private, even if in the course of doing so someone tapes it or something.
- adolph 4y ago> That the surveillance apparatus might know you visited a doctor, and what you discussed, does not grant the government the ability to prosecute you based on that information - because it is considered to be a matter of the private activities of a citizen. I'd be swayed by this except that post-Snowden we know that the surveillance apparatus can be used for "parallel construction" where the evidence to charge/try/convict a person may be based on evidence that hides the fact of illegal surveillance. The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. https://web.archive.org/web/20151204025156/http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 https://web.archive.org/web/20151204025156/http://www.reuter... See also: 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything is a Crime https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713
- mvdwoord 4y agoPlenty of uproar after Roe v Wade overturning, even here in the EU but.. The real shame is leaving lawmaking to the courts due to political opportunism. I am fully in favor of legalized abortion, but why was it never codified in law? Not a priority according to democratic politicians. Not a priority. So, you reap what you sow if you ask me. I learned that many countries, including my own, made, and make that mistake as well. On many topics.
- Toxygene 4y ago> [...] why was it never codified in law? The findings of the SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade was: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to abort her fetus. [1] In other words, *the SCOTUS finding said* abortion was codified in law -- the U.S. Constitution. Edit: clarified the summary to attribute the finding to the SCOTUS and not to my opinion [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
- hef19898 4y agoExcept it was not as the SCOTUS just ruled.
- Toxygene 4y agoThe question was not about the most recent finding of the SCOTUS. The question was, why wasn't abortion codified into law since Roe v. Wade.
- Mordisquitos 4y agoIf the right to an abortion was already codified in law by the U.S. Constitution, why was a ruling on Roe v. Wade even necessary?
- Toxygene 4y ago
- upupandup 4y agoFirst I believe in equality and all humans should have a shot at a good life based on merit. However, I also see that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and we are on this trajectory. We decided that men and women are equal (which they are to a large degree) on all aspects. We believe in this part of the world that women should have just the same say and power as the most powerful men (usually white) do. Yet all we've done is concentrate power at the most attractive, most white , most affluent group of men and women while taking it away from other groups. We told ourselves that we achieved a better society with this skewed distribution of power because finally, women and men are able to compete for the same jobs AND same sexual powers that we've traditionally never dealt with. Contraception is THE main enablers of this new paradigm shift. However, what society deems women who are unattractive or "not it" do not benefit. Similarly, men who society deems unattractive or "not it" do not benefit. These groups are further pushed away into the fringes while the "it" crowd receives all the benefits. Contraception technology increases women's sexual capital because they no longer have to worry about pregnancy. This creates losers on both side of the gender and they both engage in toxic competition. Social media further magnifies and increases the impact on people's mental health. The same groups are also aligned with this political scaffolding because they benefit by not having to discriminate by genders or race, and able to hire people based largely on merit. Outside this bubble, there is a growing sense of anger, especially in regions where they've largely witnessed the loss of the old power structure and economic powerhouses that once provided the social stability. Coupled with the fact that there is the greatest amount of highly educated young, marginally employed demographic, who are online all the time, you get a recipe for unstability. I absolutely believe that an individual should have agency over their own body and mind. However, I also recognize that we've confused individual liberty and freedom with apathy. Apathy is in demand because people think that's what enables their freedom, it only pushes people away into isolation, extremism. The freedom to think, say, act whatever is the power they believe must champion all else and because of this attachment that an individual forms with his own thoughts and ideas, it is unable to reconcile the differences in reality vs expectations which is filled with ideals and half baked ideas. So with all these things in mind, is it not a natural progression that this society creates angry, self-loathing, self-obsessed, individuals looking for an escape? The ideal avatar they create online vs the real one they need to live as, this cognitive dissonance when paired with apathy from society and the individual creates extreme stress. This is my take on America. Take it or live it but I will leave this bit: The perfect slave engages in a self-dialogue that convinces himself they are free and that they belong to an apathetic, materialistic, shallow, vapid society we've built today. All started with nothing but good intentions.
- TrackerFF 4y agoThe current SCOTUS steamrolling isn't just about abortion, it's part of a long fought right-wing battle to give more power to the states, and less to the federal government. And with that said, I think people must simply prepare for some states having absolutely abysmal and regressive laws / protections when it comes to privacy, gender / sex, etc., while the rest will continue to live in the present day. I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments, but do you really think people that will fight this hard for essentially making abortion illegal (in certain states) will be content with just that? Or are fundamentally the type of people to only control one aspect of life? Absolutely not. The SCOTUS is signaling that anything that's not an originalist black-or-white interpretation of the constitution, is going to be fair game at the state level in the future.
- ck2 4y agoTip of iceberg. Everyone knows they are going after marriage equality next. Imagine having to end partner medical, etc. benefits for millions of people previously legally married across the country. And why would they stop there?