3 ms·
Not sure anyone's asking for "benefit of the doubt". As defenses against privacy intrusion go, "Of course Facebook isn't listening to all your conversations and
by jerf 3y ago
Not sure anyone's asking for "benefit of the doubt". As defenses against privacy intrusion go, "Of course Facebook isn't listening to all your conversations and using that to serve ads to you. Why, that would be too expensive to contemplate. All they're doing is tracking everything you and your friends do on the web, tracking your location, noticing you're physically close to each other, inferring that you're probably having a conversation together, and using your friend's web activity to serve you targeted ads, as just one of a suite of methods for targeting ads based on your context. Also as soon as it's not too expensive to contemplate we're probably going to actually do it. We're not failing to do it for any ethical reason. It's just too expensive right now." is pretty weak sauce.
"We're not actually transcribing every word you hear and say, we're just using capabilities that the Stasi could only dream of at rates of speed they couldn't even conceive of, and it's just that these coincidences happen so often that it looks like we're transcribing your speech. Come on, be less paranoid."
- simonw 3y agoYour example right here is exactly why I care so much about this. If people think "they listen to me through the microphone" it distracts them from understanding what's actually happening - the whole sequence of things you listed there. Which means they can't take measures to protect themselves, or campaign for better practices - because they're working off the wrong mental model of how this stuff works.