3 ms·

Well, because that's what "intrusive" means. Your property is being intruded into in order to use it for the benefit of someone other than you. Your property is

Well, because that's what "intrusive" means. Your property is being intruded into in order to use it for the benefit of someone other than you. Your property is yours. It's in your possession because you paid for it. It should only do something because you tell it to or because it will help it to better respond to your commands later. It should never act against your interests. You would not buy a microphone that eavesdropped on you, right? It should be equally unacceptable that your computers read your files, perform some computation on them, and send the results to some remote location without your intervention. On the other hand, when you transfer your data to someone else's computer, you're relinquishing some control over it. Just like how your computer should serve you, that computer will serve its operator, and that operator's interests may be adversarial to you.

sfvegandude 4y ago
> It should be equally unacceptable that your computers read your files, perform some computation on them, and send the results to some remote location without your intervention. I hear you. I really do. The world you describe is the world I want to live in. But it’s not the world we live in. Your device is so complex, does so many operations per second, has so many sensors, sends so much data, receives so much data, that it is functionally impossible for a person to consent to everything that their device does. For all intents and purposes, you own the device, but have very little control over it. This has been true since smartphones came into existence. So to take a stance like yours — and all-or-nothing stance, a declaration of sovereignty from the The Way It Works — is, I’m sorry to say, delusional. Demanding that perfect be the enemy of the good is exactly how we will sleepwalk into the dystopian surveillance state.
- deadbeeves 4y ago
  You're looking at it the wrong way. You're saying that it's impractical to have perfect knowledge of everything the device is doing, but in fact that's not necessary. All it would take is to have laws that make it illegal to inspect data in a user's computer except by confiscating the device with a warrant. That would remove all incentive for LEO and companies acting on their behalf to pull stunts like these. It would also mean they would have to have very good tracking to prevent tainting of evidence (since it would otherwise be difficult to tell where a piece of data came from). Obviously this would not secure you from all attackers (e.g. imagine you want to keep some trade secrets, secret), but nothing other than good infosec would. The problem is that a lot of people don't understand why privacy is important and why compromising it for what seems like good reasons is dangerous. Such people don't understand that some laws that make it easier to get away with crimes can still be good.

sfvegandude 4y ago

> It should be equally unacceptable that your computers read your files, perform some computation on them, and send the results to some remote location without your intervention. I hear you. I really do. The world you describe is the world I want to live in. But it’s not the world we live in. Your device is so complex, does so many operations per second, has so many sensors, sends so much data, receives so much data, that it is functionally impossible for a person to consent to everything that their device does. For all intents and purposes, you own the device, but have very little control over it. This has been true since smartphones came into existence. So to take a stance like yours — and all-or-nothing stance, a declaration of sovereignty from the The Way It Works — is, I’m sorry to say, delusional. Demanding that perfect be the enemy of the good is exactly how we will sleepwalk into the dystopian surveillance state.

deadbeeves 4y ago
You're looking at it the wrong way. You're saying that it's impractical to have perfect knowledge of everything the device is doing, but in fact that's not necessary. All it would take is to have laws that make it illegal to inspect data in a user's computer except by confiscating the device with a warrant. That would remove all incentive for LEO and companies acting on their behalf to pull stunts like these. It would also mean they would have to have very good tracking to prevent tainting of evidence (since it would otherwise be difficult to tell where a piece of data came from). Obviously this would not secure you from all attackers (e.g. imagine you want to keep some trade secrets, secret), but nothing other than good infosec would. The problem is that a lot of people don't understand why privacy is important and why compromising it for what seems like good reasons is dangerous. Such people don't understand that some laws that make it easier to get away with crimes can still be good.