4 ms·

The term "surveillance business model" itself is a serious abuse of language. Surveillance is something done by states and police forces, usually to catch crimi

The term "surveillance business model" itself is a serious abuse of language. Surveillance is something done by states and police forces, usually to catch criminals or suppress dissent. People use it as a label for Google's business model simply because it has a negative connotation. It's a cheap tactic in my opinion.

yakireev 3y ago
If what Google does - closely observing us, collecting the data for further analysis, often without our knowledge or permission - is not surveillance, then what it is? Which word should we use to describe these activities?
- olalonde 3y ago
  I would say a "data-driven business model". Google is not "closely observing us" in the sense that a policeman surveilles a criminal. And it's not without our knowledge or permission. Google won't learn much about you unless you volunteer the information. At worse, it might learn that a certain browser visited X or Y website (until the browser cookies are cleared). Plus, they collect data to improve their services and serve relevant ads, not to put people in jail.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    [dead]
coldtea 3y ago
>People use it as a label for Google's business model simply because it has a negative connotation This reads like parody. Let's say that states and police forces alone (for the sake of the argument) used to do surveillance. For the last 2 decades, Google, Facebook, and co ALSO collect data in 1000x the times the data breadth and detail than even Stazi was capable to collect, including collecting data covertly, and abuses it for all kinds of purposes, both aggregated and targeted. Not to mention that, beyond the surveillance they do for their private interests and business, even the "states and goverments" vs "Google and Facebook" are not even remotely separate from surveillance by states and police forces, cooperating, sharing data, or even ordered to give surveillance data, to both.
- olalonde 3y ago
  What do you mean by abuse? Can you name one instance of someone's life being negatively impacted by Google's data collection? > Not to mention that, beyond the surveillance they do for their private interests and business, even the "states and goverments" vs "Google and Facebook" are not even remotely separate from surveillance by states and police forces, cooperating, sharing data, or even ordered to give surveillance data, to both. I'll grant you that, but I wouldn't call that their business. They probably would do without if they could.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >What do you mean by abuse? Can you name one instance of someone's life being negatively impacted by Google's data collection? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_concerns_regarding_Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_concerns_regarding_Goo... https://fortune.com/2019/01/28/google-iab-sensitive-profiles/ https://fortune.com/2019/01/28/google-iab-sensitive-profiles...
pixl97 3y ago
>Surveillance is something done by states and police forces I will have to disagree here, that is not the dictionary definition of the word. So attempting to call out a serious abuse of language while doing the same thing is definitely an interesting take. Just like governments can abuse their position, so do corporations. Google absolutely has surveilled society at large and been caught and fined for doing so.
- olalonde 3y ago
  How is it not? Cambridge dictionary: the careful watching of a person or place, especially by the police or army, because of a crime that has happened or is expected.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Because this is the description of the act "the careful watching of a person or place" This is a non-inclusive list of reasons why and whom may perform the act "especially by the police or army", "for the purposes of catching criminals" There are many acts that are defined by 'who' does it. The act of surveillance is not one of them. For example a private investigator can surveil you. A business can do the same by intentional action (for example selling hidden tracking devices to ensure they can find you if you are kidnapped) or unexpected action (your cell phone reports back to a server every 30 seconds of an exact GPS location of where you are).
    - olalonde 3y ago
      Historically, surveillance has always been used in the context of detective work, police, spying, security, crime prevention, supervision, etc. No one thought of data collection for the purpose of improving services and serving ads as "surveillance" until a few years ago when critics of Google started abusing that term.
  - rpdillon 3y ago
    The same dictionary has a great entry for "surveillance capitalism" as well: > an economic system in which the product for sale is personal data collected on the internet, especially from search engines (= programs used to find information on the internet) and social media platforms (= websites and programs that allow people to communicate and share information on the internet) I think this is the context folks are reaching for: it's not just a data-driven business model, it's driven by people's personal data in particular. As far as sharing willingly, it's _incredibly_ hard to buy a smartphone and prevent it from collecting your personal information (like location, movement patterns, app usage) without removing much of the functionality that makes it useful. And once that data is collected, it's open season. I just ran across this piece from today where the government literally goes directly to private data brokers because the NSA takes too long: https://www.404media.co/us-counterintel-buys-netflow-data-team-cymru-track-vpns/ https://www.404media.co/us-counterintel-buys-netflow-data-te... That particular case is about tracking VPNs (so not directly related to Google's data collection), but is a good example of how we can limit government's reach, but as long as they can buy data from private firms, there's a loophole in the 4th amendment, likely rooted in the third-party doctrine.
wesapien 3y ago
Not really since besides a state, big tech has more data on anyone else and they will sell the product ( end user ) to the customer ( advertisers ). Why do they have to know what's in your local network and all the other apps in your operating system?

yakireev 3y ago

If what Google does - closely observing us, collecting the data for further analysis, often without our knowledge or permission - is not surveillance, then what it is? Which word should we use to describe these activities?

olalonde 3y ago
I would say a "data-driven business model". Google is not "closely observing us" in the sense that a policeman surveilles a criminal. And it's not without our knowledge or permission. Google won't learn much about you unless you volunteer the information. At worse, it might learn that a certain browser visited X or Y website (until the browser cookies are cleared). Plus, they collect data to improve their services and serve relevant ads, not to put people in jail.
- pixl97 3y ago
  [dead]

coldtea 3y ago

>People use it as a label for Google's business model simply because it has a negative connotation This reads like parody. Let's say that states and police forces alone (for the sake of the argument) used to do surveillance. For the last 2 decades, Google, Facebook, and co ALSO collect data in 1000x the times the data breadth and detail than even Stazi was capable to collect, including collecting data covertly, and abuses it for all kinds of purposes, both aggregated and targeted. Not to mention that, beyond the surveillance they do for their private interests and business, even the "states and goverments" vs "Google and Facebook" are not even remotely separate from surveillance by states and police forces, cooperating, sharing data, or even ordered to give surveillance data, to both.

olalonde 3y ago
What do you mean by abuse? Can you name one instance of someone's life being negatively impacted by Google's data collection? > Not to mention that, beyond the surveillance they do for their private interests and business, even the "states and goverments" vs "Google and Facebook" are not even remotely separate from surveillance by states and police forces, cooperating, sharing data, or even ordered to give surveillance data, to both. I'll grant you that, but I wouldn't call that their business. They probably would do without if they could.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >What do you mean by abuse? Can you name one instance of someone's life being negatively impacted by Google's data collection? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_concerns_regarding_Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_concerns_regarding_Goo... https://fortune.com/2019/01/28/google-iab-sensitive-profiles/ https://fortune.com/2019/01/28/google-iab-sensitive-profiles...

pixl97 3y ago

>Surveillance is something done by states and police forces I will have to disagree here, that is not the dictionary definition of the word. So attempting to call out a serious abuse of language while doing the same thing is definitely an interesting take. Just like governments can abuse their position, so do corporations. Google absolutely has surveilled society at large and been caught and fined for doing so.

olalonde 3y ago
How is it not? Cambridge dictionary: the careful watching of a person or place, especially by the police or army, because of a crime that has happened or is expected.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Because this is the description of the act "the careful watching of a person or place" This is a non-inclusive list of reasons why and whom may perform the act "especially by the police or army", "for the purposes of catching criminals" There are many acts that are defined by 'who' does it. The act of surveillance is not one of them. For example a private investigator can surveil you. A business can do the same by intentional action (for example selling hidden tracking devices to ensure they can find you if you are kidnapped) or unexpected action (your cell phone reports back to a server every 30 seconds of an exact GPS location of where you are).
  - olalonde 3y ago
    Historically, surveillance has always been used in the context of detective work, police, spying, security, crime prevention, supervision, etc. No one thought of data collection for the purpose of improving services and serving ads as "surveillance" until a few years ago when critics of Google started abusing that term.
- rpdillon 3y ago
  The same dictionary has a great entry for "surveillance capitalism" as well: > an economic system in which the product for sale is personal data collected on the internet, especially from search engines (= programs used to find information on the internet) and social media platforms (= websites and programs that allow people to communicate and share information on the internet) I think this is the context folks are reaching for: it's not just a data-driven business model, it's driven by people's personal data in particular. As far as sharing willingly, it's _incredibly_ hard to buy a smartphone and prevent it from collecting your personal information (like location, movement patterns, app usage) without removing much of the functionality that makes it useful. And once that data is collected, it's open season. I just ran across this piece from today where the government literally goes directly to private data brokers because the NSA takes too long: https://www.404media.co/us-counterintel-buys-netflow-data-team-cymru-track-vpns/ https://www.404media.co/us-counterintel-buys-netflow-data-te... That particular case is about tracking VPNs (so not directly related to Google's data collection), but is a good example of how we can limit government's reach, but as long as they can buy data from private firms, there's a loophole in the 4th amendment, likely rooted in the third-party doctrine.

wesapien 3y ago

Not really since besides a state, big tech has more data on anyone else and they will sell the product ( end user ) to the customer ( advertisers ). Why do they have to know what's in your local network and all the other apps in your operating system?