6 ms·

The ability to aggregate personal information of large numbers of people is a form of political power. Facebook can, if it so wishes, provide a list of all gay

The ability to aggregate personal information of large numbers of people is a form of political power. Facebook can, if it so wishes, provide a list of all gay people in an area; all supporters of gaza or of israel; all people who have recently commented on an article about drugs. The very ability to provide that list previously required an expensive secret police; today it does not. This is an extremely dangerous ability for anyone to have -- human rights (such as that to privacy) were won against oppression. They aren't optional, they're the system by which we prevent those previous eras from reoccurring. This is why i'm suspicious of the being a meaningful sense of 'consent' here -- if enough people consent, then the tracking agency acquires a novel political power over everyone. This is why the infrastructure of tracking itself is a concern.

lefstathiou 3y ago
Yes, as can Apple, Google, every cable company, every telecom, the credit card companies, Grindr, health clinics
- mjburgess 3y ago
  Hence, the GDPR's making a distinction between data essential for operation of the basic service vs. more broad collection. I take your point that some level of this power exists, necessarily, within internet-based companies with online users. But I think there's a big difference between, say, signing up to Grindr where you submit a basic form with limited information (and presumably) can retain some minimal anonymity in how you use the app --- and a system whereby the history of all your actions across your online life (banking, social media, dating apps, etc.) is collectable by a centralised agency. With laws like GDPR, broad datasets have become a liability for companies like telecoms, banks, etc. They don't want it. Accidentally forming 'rich user profiles' based on non-annoymous data is a legal liability. This is exactly the incentive structure needed. Rather than have companies with an existential profit motive to build mass surveillance systems. As far as whether a relational database that takes user data from a form is different to a whole system of streaming live event databases with massive streams of user monitoring across websites --- well, I think it wouldnt be hard to write a law against the latter. These are political, moral, legal and technical distinctions that can be drawn.
- staunton 3y ago
  Your point being?
  - goodpoint 3y ago
    Just whataboutism, it seems.
- kibwen 3y ago
  Yes, and the handling all of that personal data should be strictly regulated. Ideally, companies would be treating all of it as toxic waste, and disposing of it as soon as possible.
  - thmsths 3y ago
    This, exactly this. A big part of what got us into this mess is that data is very very cheap to collect, store and process with modern computing. And there is basically no other cost or downside to dealing with the data. This has led to a gold rush where every company became obsessed with data, thinking that any piece of data was valuable and could be monetized eventually. If however there were strict liabilities for data leaks or privacy breaches, businesses would collect just the bare minimum data and get rid of it as soon as it is not strictly needed.
- renegat0x0 3y ago
  Credit company does not have microphone near your bed, they do not know which posts you like, or not, they do not have all your mails, and not necessarily know where you drive and how often. Keeping all of the data under one company umbrella is vulnerable, target for hackers, and easy target for governments. Your post is not correct.
  - cornedor 3y ago
    > and not necessarily know where you drive and how often. They do tough. They know where you refueled/charged your car, hotels you've booked. Not only that, but they also know if you donate money to your local mosque/synagogue, spend just a bit too much at a liquor store, etc.
    - AndersSandvik 3y ago
      You can still opt for taking money out of an ATM and and pay by cash to not be tracked by the card company. Meta does not offer the same option
      - 4RealFreedom 3y ago
        You have to use Meta? I'm not arguing for or against privacy here - just trying to point out that you still have options. It might be a pain to contact loved ones, check in on friends, etc. but so is using an ATM.
        phone8675309 3y ago
        "Simply create your own social media company and get all the people you want to keep in contact with to move to it"
        4RealFreedom 3y ago
        When did I say anything like that? You can call or txt to check in on friends.
- nunez 3y ago
  Apple Google and Grindr aside, those industries are heavily regulated to prevent exactly this
  - j16sdiz 3y ago
    They are heavily regulated, but it's hard to audit or prove in court
- NoboruWataya 3y ago
  Right, which is why many of those companies are also commonly criticised on privacy grounds.
dr_dshiv 3y ago
You can frame it as tracking; but the fact is that the aggregation of data about people happens almost without intent. In order to provide services, you need unique id— and people want to be sharing and posting information. Facebook might be oriented around personalized ads, but even Friendster was based on an enormous amount of shared personal data. When we use tools like Facebook and Instagram and others, we want to provide our data. When I use chatGPT, I want to provide my data. I think there are very good economic reasons why companies don’t dox their customers. They treat data cautiously even in the absence of regulation— since it would be a loss of business value to lose customer trust. When we call for “privacy” — what does it mean when we want to share our data? Ok, one might say that you don’t want 3rd party sites tracking etc etc. That’s fine. You don’t want data sold. That’s fine. But if we make a big fuss about privacy in a world where we want to share so much personal information, I think we cloud the issues. We want a lot more than privacy, obviously, when we are so willing to give it up. I want those other desires made more clear and not lumped in as privacy. I think the GDPR just trains people to click “accept.” Do you see my concern?

lefstathiou 3y ago

Yes, as can Apple, Google, every cable company, every telecom, the credit card companies, Grindr, health clinics

mjburgess 3y ago
Hence, the GDPR's making a distinction between data essential for operation of the basic service vs. more broad collection. I take your point that some level of this power exists, necessarily, within internet-based companies with online users. But I think there's a big difference between, say, signing up to Grindr where you submit a basic form with limited information (and presumably) can retain some minimal anonymity in how you use the app --- and a system whereby the history of all your actions across your online life (banking, social media, dating apps, etc.) is collectable by a centralised agency. With laws like GDPR, broad datasets have become a liability for companies like telecoms, banks, etc. They don't want it. Accidentally forming 'rich user profiles' based on non-annoymous data is a legal liability. This is exactly the incentive structure needed. Rather than have companies with an existential profit motive to build mass surveillance systems. As far as whether a relational database that takes user data from a form is different to a whole system of streaming live event databases with massive streams of user monitoring across websites --- well, I think it wouldnt be hard to write a law against the latter. These are political, moral, legal and technical distinctions that can be drawn.
staunton 3y ago
Your point being?
- goodpoint 3y ago
  Just whataboutism, it seems.
kibwen 3y ago
Yes, and the handling all of that personal data should be strictly regulated. Ideally, companies would be treating all of it as toxic waste, and disposing of it as soon as possible.
- thmsths 3y ago
  This, exactly this. A big part of what got us into this mess is that data is very very cheap to collect, store and process with modern computing. And there is basically no other cost or downside to dealing with the data. This has led to a gold rush where every company became obsessed with data, thinking that any piece of data was valuable and could be monetized eventually. If however there were strict liabilities for data leaks or privacy breaches, businesses would collect just the bare minimum data and get rid of it as soon as it is not strictly needed.
renegat0x0 3y ago
Credit company does not have microphone near your bed, they do not know which posts you like, or not, they do not have all your mails, and not necessarily know where you drive and how often. Keeping all of the data under one company umbrella is vulnerable, target for hackers, and easy target for governments. Your post is not correct.
- cornedor 3y ago
  > and not necessarily know where you drive and how often. They do tough. They know where you refueled/charged your car, hotels you've booked. Not only that, but they also know if you donate money to your local mosque/synagogue, spend just a bit too much at a liquor store, etc.
  - AndersSandvik 3y ago
    You can still opt for taking money out of an ATM and and pay by cash to not be tracked by the card company. Meta does not offer the same option
    - 4RealFreedom 3y ago
      You have to use Meta? I'm not arguing for or against privacy here - just trying to point out that you still have options. It might be a pain to contact loved ones, check in on friends, etc. but so is using an ATM.
      - phone8675309 3y ago
        "Simply create your own social media company and get all the people you want to keep in contact with to move to it"
        4RealFreedom 3y ago
        When did I say anything like that? You can call or txt to check in on friends.
nunez 3y ago
Apple Google and Grindr aside, those industries are heavily regulated to prevent exactly this
- j16sdiz 3y ago
  They are heavily regulated, but it's hard to audit or prove in court
NoboruWataya 3y ago
Right, which is why many of those companies are also commonly criticised on privacy grounds.

dr_dshiv 3y ago

You can frame it as tracking; but the fact is that the aggregation of data about people happens almost without intent. In order to provide services, you need unique id— and people want to be sharing and posting information. Facebook might be oriented around personalized ads, but even Friendster was based on an enormous amount of shared personal data. When we use tools like Facebook and Instagram and others, we want to provide our data. When I use chatGPT, I want to provide my data. I think there are very good economic reasons why companies don’t dox their customers. They treat data cautiously even in the absence of regulation— since it would be a loss of business value to lose customer trust. When we call for “privacy” — what does it mean when we want to share our data? Ok, one might say that you don’t want 3rd party sites tracking etc etc. That’s fine. You don’t want data sold. That’s fine. But if we make a big fuss about privacy in a world where we want to share so much personal information, I think we cloud the issues. We want a lot more than privacy, obviously, when we are so willing to give it up. I want those other desires made more clear and not lumped in as privacy. I think the GDPR just trains people to click “accept.” Do you see my concern?