4 ms·
And this friends is why "third party" entities collecting your meta data and such is a concern. A lot (read: enough) can be learned about you *and who you assoc
by chiefalchemist 4y ago
And this friends is why "third party" entities collecting your meta data and such is a concern. A lot (read: enough) can be learned about you *and who you associate* without actually listening to your calls, etc.
On the surface, this article is cute. After that it's a red flag for all of us.
- wink 4y agoI'd argue the opposite. People already know what Google can do, this is how you reap some benefits for yourself with the data that's already there.
- chiefalchemist 4y agoThe NSA, etc. is not Google. What about the Constitution?
- anarticle 4y agoI've always wondered what the NSA actually thinks of me. Consider it a psychoanalysis paid for by taxes. Extra creepy, but we're already at the party.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 4y agoAll depends on your threat model. A company openly collecting your data by your say so seems significantly less threatening (to me, to many others) than all the actors who are doing it without your knowledge or consent.
- chiefalchemist 4y agoThe point is, any / all data collection is - or should be - suspect. Today's benevolent actor is tomorrow's victim of a hack, or simply changes their spots. Furthermore, even data that is positioned as harmless (i.e., phone call metadata) can tell stories. Finally, per "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" (and others) these minor privacy infringements add up and is used against us. There's no such thing as no threat.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 4y agoI've concluded that the benefits significantly outweigh the, imo, fairly remote risks. It's that simple.
- chiefalchemist 4y agoRead the book. Once you come to realize the collecting of your data isn't "passive" and that ultimately, it's being done to be used against you - and your free will - your perceived benefits are insignificant. Put another way, being complacent and complicit not only sells-out your own privacy, it compromises the privacy of all those round you, your (future) offspring, etc. For what? Convenience?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 4y agoI'm not going to read a whole book about this issue. I already know that the collecting of data isn't passive. I deny that it's being done to be used against me. I also deny any concrete harms for most people on the short to medium term, although the far future is hard to predict. Given that I deny the likelihood of harm to this data collection, I'm setting a concrete benefit against no drawbacks. Therefore I will continue to use it.
- chiefalchemist 4y agoNo drawbacks? You're naive (at best). In some camps, a couple of years ago, the book was on a number of "Book of Year" lists. The issue is far less simplistic than you're making it out to be. That fact that you dismiss the risks and dangers is something - funny enough - covered in the book as well. Leaving this for completeness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capita... p.s. Not passive, as in the aim is to be proactive (in influencing behavior). There are plenty of other sources that explore how fragile "free will" is, so maybe we can do that some other time? :)
- 4y ago
- hoseja 4y agoDoes your threat model include universal subsumation by state-corporate entities or are you just, sorta leaving that one on your children?
- m463 4y agoYou really want someone to have access to your data to HELP you, without dealing themselves in. I think the long-term answer is to have agents that work for you. Maybe a personal AI?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 4y agoI consider Google to already be an agent that is working for me. It obviously has its own interests, which are not perfectly aligned with mine. But its interests and my interests in the space of location data collection are sufficiently aligned that I don't object to them having it.