5 ms·

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.

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.