5 ms·

The question that is always missing from these conversations is "Why should we care?" That isn't a popular question in communities like HN, but it is how the av

by slg 3y ago

The question that is always missing from these conversations is "Why should we care?" That isn't a popular question in communities like HN, but it is how the average person thinks. On a philosophical level the "if you have nothing to hide" argument is flawed, but from a practical perspective it is kinda true (edit: in the context of corporate data collection). People who actually want change need to be able to communicate this to the average person in a clear and concrete manner how this negatively impacts their life. Once that reasoning starts getting into hypotheticals about a future totalitarian government or philosophical points about the nature of privacy, you have already lost people. You need to be able to tell normal people why they should care about their privacy before they are motivated to protect it.

mbauman 3y ago
> from a practical perspective it is kinda true Folks don't realize all the things they are hiding — and can be extraordinarily important to hide — even when they're actively hiding them! My personal favorite anecdote here is comes from a debate with a friend who was staunchly asserting that she had nothing to hide. I just blindly suggested — hypothetically — that one example would be if she were in early stages of pregnancy. Seven months later, guess what she was hiding during the argument.
- slg 3y ago
  This is part of what I'm talking about. Hiding something from an individual you know is very different from hiding something from a faceless corporation. There are obvious practical implications from someone you know finding out that you are pregnant before you want them to know. Why does it matter whether your car manufacturer knows if you are pregnant?
  - kevincox 3y ago
    The problem is that the more people know a secret the less likely it is to stay secret. I don't want the people I know to be able to download a profile about my from their local data broker. Even if my car company doesn't sell my data (which they probably will) one of the companies that do know it will eventually leak it and it will be slurped up and be made available to people that I don't want it available to.
    - slg 3y ago
      Now you are arguing separate issues. There are three concerns here: data collection, data brokering, and data security. Your complaint is about the latter two. Addressing the data collection would certainly address the other two, but if those are the concerns why shouldn't we make laws focusing on them rather than the collection?
  - throwworhtthrow 3y ago
    In the case of Target, they might mail your pregnant teenage daughter a flier for newborn items before she's told you the news. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits....
  - mbauman 3y ago
    Unfortunately it can also matter if your boss knows. Or the company you’re interviewing with. It shouldn’t matter (and would be illegal if it could be proven), but it matters.
V__ 3y ago
> if you have nothing to hide Anytime someone says that, I ask them to unlock their phone and give it to me. Except for one person who actually did it, they quickly seem to change their position.
- unsui 3y ago
  While I do think that is a great example, it would appear that your peer group might have a self-selection bias for increased security, vs the normal population. A quick google search leads to multiple articles suggesting that the vast majority of people do not lock their phones. As to whether they would give you their phones or not is a different question, but I would wager that many (most?) of those who don't lock their phones would also not necessarily care if someone looks at their device, or at the very least do not take measures to prevent others from doing so.
  - V__ 3y ago
    This is a valid point, and the people I talked to tended to be younger. I assume older people don't lock their devices? Or maybe its a regional thing? In Germany I (anecdotal) have met maybe a handful of people under 40 who didn't lock their phone and one under 30 of a 100+ people.
- jackthetab 3y ago
  I ask them "What's you annual salary?"
XTHK 3y ago
Aren't there a ton of data science people here on HN? I feel like that would cause a ton of bias and skew away from the general population.
sandworm101 3y ago
You should care, but spend some time to appreciate the issue before rushing to judgement. There is too much armchair laweying going on in this area. I just watched louis rossmann's vid about cars collecting sexual histories. Too many people don't know what these user agreements are in the real world. BMW doesn't want to monetize your sexual history. They probably couldn't do that even with user consent. This sort of language is about protecting the car company from the user when the user is suing the car company. Example: Car company collects location data for legitimate uses such as safety, product development or legal requirements. Then a leak happens. Some blogger looks at the data and notices that the local mayor's car parks at a gay bar ever Friday night, often remaining there until saturday afternoon. The implications are clear. Mayor then sues car company for collecting his "sexual history". The car company can then point to the user agreement. They are covered for not just the location data, but all the things that can be inferred from that location data. These seemingly outrageous agreements are more lawyers covering their asses than companies actually attempting to collect. A better answer may be to adjust laws not to ban or unban such tracking, but simply to mandate off switches. A mechanical switch that disables the GPS antenna would cost maybe 10$ per car, comparable to any number of rarely-used mandatory features in cars these days.
- hiatus 3y ago
  I don't understand this argument though. The car company did not disclose any sexual history and only the location data that it says it collected. That things can be inferred from the data seems like a legal slippery slope. Are there examples of such cases going to trial without being thrown out?
Spooky23 3y ago
End of the day, ICE cars are getting more reliable due to emissions controls, and EVs are much more reliable. So the ongoing revenue stream for car companies (service) is a dead business. The "why should we care" is the same as many other things -- the car company is going to use technology and tracking to monetize valuable features and experiences. There's few if any scenarios where this is good for you.
- whelp_24 3y ago
  Do emission controls improve reliability? I thought they added complexity?
mortify 3y ago
We have already seen the privacy implications of this at the private and government level at the same time. There is data that the government isn't allowed to collect, but it is allowed to purchases that data from 3rd parties. If the government having access to your data isn't a concern, what should be is that if the government can purchase it, anyone can. Yes, people generally don't care if others know they shop at Target and the mundane details of their kid's softball practice, but they don't know what else is available: - When nobody is home and their house is empty. Not only can they do this in real-time especially if they can track car data, but they use see time data to determine when you're least likely to be home in the future. - Your medical history. You car was parked outside of a cardiologist and a pharmacy. You probably have high blood pressure. Did you go to an obstetrician's office for the 3rd time? Maybe you're pregnant. - How about existing and future interstate crimes? You go to a shooting range every week and since the recent passage of a law banning ammunition purchases without a background check in your state, you've started making regular runs to a neighboring state. Is this probable cause to show you're breaking the law? What about a woman going to the doctor in a state that bans abortions who makes similar trips out of state? Have you been posting about your recent bourbon tastings and making trips to the nearby state known for having better alcohol availability? - People don't care about strangers having access to boring personal details, but what about people you know? There's nothing stopping your mother-in-law from snooping on your life and asking personal questions they have no business looking at. Maybe this is cumbersome and expensive today, but considering how tech makes things easier and cheaper over time, will it always be this way? Once data is out there, it's out there forever. Maybe people aren't concerned because these laws aren't being enforced, but how much of that is a chicken and the egg? Are they not enforced because they don't want to enforce them or because or because it's difficult to ID the people breaking the law. Data like this makes it easier.
- slg 3y ago
  As I said: >Once that reasoning starts getting into hypotheticals about a future totalitarian government... you have already lost people. You can't start talking about states arresting people for going to a bourbon tasting and have people actual care about your argument. People have way too many more tangible and more pressing concerns than this type of weird hypothetical. I'm not saying your argument is wrong. It just isn't going to actually motivate anyone to action.
wintermutestwin 3y ago
>"Why should we care?" That isn't a popular question in communities like HN, but it is how the average person thinks. This is an oft repeated sentiment that really needs to be questioned. And I don't mean by posting some survey where the questioning is as nebulous as the privacy policies and EULAs that the average person is manipulated into accepting without a clear understanding of the implications. My one piece of counter data today is that I was at the gym and saw a TV commercial for DuckDuckGo that was painting Google for the privacy thieves that they are. Daytime TV is a demographic of boomer average users. DDG is actually paying for airtime to target them with a value prop of "we don't invade your privacy like this big thug over here does." Maybe there is a sea change coming and we might soon see what average people think about how much value they put on their privacy.
htwillie 3y ago
The answer that's always missing is what hardware can be disabled to prevent the data from being harvested/transmitted/available in the first place?

by slg 3y ago

mbauman 3y ago

> from a practical perspective it is kinda true Folks don't realize all the things they are hiding — and can be extraordinarily important to hide — even when they're actively hiding them! My personal favorite anecdote here is comes from a debate with a friend who was staunchly asserting that she had nothing to hide. I just blindly suggested — hypothetically — that one example would be if she were in early stages of pregnancy. Seven months later, guess what she was hiding during the argument.

slg 3y ago
This is part of what I'm talking about. Hiding something from an individual you know is very different from hiding something from a faceless corporation. There are obvious practical implications from someone you know finding out that you are pregnant before you want them to know. Why does it matter whether your car manufacturer knows if you are pregnant?
- kevincox 3y ago
  The problem is that the more people know a secret the less likely it is to stay secret. I don't want the people I know to be able to download a profile about my from their local data broker. Even if my car company doesn't sell my data (which they probably will) one of the companies that do know it will eventually leak it and it will be slurped up and be made available to people that I don't want it available to.
  - slg 3y ago
    Now you are arguing separate issues. There are three concerns here: data collection, data brokering, and data security. Your complaint is about the latter two. Addressing the data collection would certainly address the other two, but if those are the concerns why shouldn't we make laws focusing on them rather than the collection?
- throwworhtthrow 3y ago
  In the case of Target, they might mail your pregnant teenage daughter a flier for newborn items before she's told you the news. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits....
- mbauman 3y ago
  Unfortunately it can also matter if your boss knows. Or the company you’re interviewing with. It shouldn’t matter (and would be illegal if it could be proven), but it matters.

V__ 3y ago

> if you have nothing to hide Anytime someone says that, I ask them to unlock their phone and give it to me. Except for one person who actually did it, they quickly seem to change their position.

unsui 3y ago
While I do think that is a great example, it would appear that your peer group might have a self-selection bias for increased security, vs the normal population. A quick google search leads to multiple articles suggesting that the vast majority of people do not lock their phones. As to whether they would give you their phones or not is a different question, but I would wager that many (most?) of those who don't lock their phones would also not necessarily care if someone looks at their device, or at the very least do not take measures to prevent others from doing so.
- V__ 3y ago
  This is a valid point, and the people I talked to tended to be younger. I assume older people don't lock their devices? Or maybe its a regional thing? In Germany I (anecdotal) have met maybe a handful of people under 40 who didn't lock their phone and one under 30 of a 100+ people.
jackthetab 3y ago
I ask them "What's you annual salary?"

XTHK 3y ago

Aren't there a ton of data science people here on HN? I feel like that would cause a ton of bias and skew away from the general population.

sandworm101 3y ago

You should care, but spend some time to appreciate the issue before rushing to judgement. There is too much armchair laweying going on in this area. I just watched louis rossmann's vid about cars collecting sexual histories. Too many people don't know what these user agreements are in the real world. BMW doesn't want to monetize your sexual history. They probably couldn't do that even with user consent. This sort of language is about protecting the car company from the user when the user is suing the car company. Example: Car company collects location data for legitimate uses such as safety, product development or legal requirements. Then a leak happens. Some blogger looks at the data and notices that the local mayor's car parks at a gay bar ever Friday night, often remaining there until saturday afternoon. The implications are clear. Mayor then sues car company for collecting his "sexual history". The car company can then point to the user agreement. They are covered for not just the location data, but all the things that can be inferred from that location data. These seemingly outrageous agreements are more lawyers covering their asses than companies actually attempting to collect. A better answer may be to adjust laws not to ban or unban such tracking, but simply to mandate off switches. A mechanical switch that disables the GPS antenna would cost maybe 10$ per car, comparable to any number of rarely-used mandatory features in cars these days.

hiatus 3y ago
I don't understand this argument though. The car company did not disclose any sexual history and only the location data that it says it collected. That things can be inferred from the data seems like a legal slippery slope. Are there examples of such cases going to trial without being thrown out?

Spooky23 3y ago

End of the day, ICE cars are getting more reliable due to emissions controls, and EVs are much more reliable. So the ongoing revenue stream for car companies (service) is a dead business. The "why should we care" is the same as many other things -- the car company is going to use technology and tracking to monetize valuable features and experiences. There's few if any scenarios where this is good for you.

whelp_24 3y ago
Do emission controls improve reliability? I thought they added complexity?

mortify 3y ago

We have already seen the privacy implications of this at the private and government level at the same time. There is data that the government isn't allowed to collect, but it is allowed to purchases that data from 3rd parties. If the government having access to your data isn't a concern, what should be is that if the government can purchase it, anyone can. Yes, people generally don't care if others know they shop at Target and the mundane details of their kid's softball practice, but they don't know what else is available: - When nobody is home and their house is empty. Not only can they do this in real-time especially if they can track car data, but they use see time data to determine when you're least likely to be home in the future. - Your medical history. You car was parked outside of a cardiologist and a pharmacy. You probably have high blood pressure. Did you go to an obstetrician's office for the 3rd time? Maybe you're pregnant. - How about existing and future interstate crimes? You go to a shooting range every week and since the recent passage of a law banning ammunition purchases without a background check in your state, you've started making regular runs to a neighboring state. Is this probable cause to show you're breaking the law? What about a woman going to the doctor in a state that bans abortions who makes similar trips out of state? Have you been posting about your recent bourbon tastings and making trips to the nearby state known for having better alcohol availability? - People don't care about strangers having access to boring personal details, but what about people you know? There's nothing stopping your mother-in-law from snooping on your life and asking personal questions they have no business looking at. Maybe this is cumbersome and expensive today, but considering how tech makes things easier and cheaper over time, will it always be this way? Once data is out there, it's out there forever. Maybe people aren't concerned because these laws aren't being enforced, but how much of that is a chicken and the egg? Are they not enforced because they don't want to enforce them or because or because it's difficult to ID the people breaking the law. Data like this makes it easier.

slg 3y ago
As I said: >Once that reasoning starts getting into hypotheticals about a future totalitarian government... you have already lost people. You can't start talking about states arresting people for going to a bourbon tasting and have people actual care about your argument. People have way too many more tangible and more pressing concerns than this type of weird hypothetical. I'm not saying your argument is wrong. It just isn't going to actually motivate anyone to action.

wintermutestwin 3y ago

>"Why should we care?" That isn't a popular question in communities like HN, but it is how the average person thinks. This is an oft repeated sentiment that really needs to be questioned. And I don't mean by posting some survey where the questioning is as nebulous as the privacy policies and EULAs that the average person is manipulated into accepting without a clear understanding of the implications. My one piece of counter data today is that I was at the gym and saw a TV commercial for DuckDuckGo that was painting Google for the privacy thieves that they are. Daytime TV is a demographic of boomer average users. DDG is actually paying for airtime to target them with a value prop of "we don't invade your privacy like this big thug over here does." Maybe there is a sea change coming and we might soon see what average people think about how much value they put on their privacy.

htwillie 3y ago

The answer that's always missing is what hardware can be disabled to prevent the data from being harvested/transmitted/available in the first place?