11 ms·

This is why I don't have much concerns about privacy. I own an Alexa and some HN dude tells me it's like having a one way mic that records everything I say 24/7

This is why I don't have much concerns about privacy. I own an Alexa and some HN dude tells me it's like having a one way mic that records everything I say 24/7 and transmits it to Amazon. I agreed with him it's possible but I didn't see the problem and he didn't see why I didn't give a shit. The title of the article is one reason among many about why I could care less about privacy. I could see if you abuse your kids regularly or some other heinous disgusting crime in your home I could see how you could be paranoid about this, but from a practical perspective I don't think even criminals have to worry about it at all.

ceejayoz 3y ago
Current data, if stored, can become a problem in the future if data analysis techniques improve dramatically. (Brute force, technological progress, etc.) Which seems... likely.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Lack of current data produced can also become a future problem. What's the optimal data footprint?
  - anonym29 3y ago
    Lack of current data produced offers potential adversaries a hunch, not confirmation. In a hypothetical scenario where Nazis come into power in the USA, who is safer, the Jewish person with their real name tied to their Amazon account, who orders menorahs with their voice over Alexa, or the Jewish person who does not own an Alexa, only buys religious items from a physical shop, pays with cash, and offers a fake name to the seller? Everything that you do or don't do produces data in some sense, but the odds that what you're not doing is being explicitly logged are almost certainly lower than the odds of what you are doing being explicitly logged. Besides, what you're not doing is data point. What you are doing is information. Data does not deterministically produce information, it is merely possible to extract information from data, and it's possible to extract the wrong information from data. Ergo, I posit that the optimal amount of data to voluntarily hand over under the premise of "I'm doing nothing wrong, so I have nothing to hide" is zero, because voluntarily handing over your data is offering more concrete information than not doing so offers, and because other people, including those who achieve positions of power, can define "doing something wrong" extremely differently than you do.
    - teddyh 3y ago
      > from a physical shop, pays with cash, and offers a fake name to the seller? Who gives their name to a physical shop when paying cash?
      - anonym29 3y ago
        Someone making polite conversation with the shopkeeper who politely asked the name of a repeat customer they get along well with in a socially appropriate context.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      A hunch might be enough to get you into trouble. Not taking a phone along has been used against people, for example (not a US case). By the way, buying something in a shop that people can observe is zero protection against actors like Nazis.
    - nothercastle 3y ago
      Your cash guy is going to draw suspicion on that alone. Besides the Germans are now on the same team there isn’t much danger.
- corethree 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - beedeebeedee 3y ago
    > Ooooo Im so scared to see a relevant product recommendation. Duly noted. Thank goodness you are not in a position of authority. Your attitude towards the invasion of privacy (and other people's concerns) is alarming. You sound like a frog joking about the water getting warmer (it's just like a jacuzzi right now, who cares?)
    - corethree 3y ago
      Maybe I am a frog. But so is everyone else. I mean who doesn't own a smart phone? Everybody mostly doesn't care.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > Ooooo Im so scared to see a relevant product recommendation. Maybe you purchased a Palestinian flag in the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/10/people-supporting-hamas-in-uk-will-be-held-to-account-says-rishi-sunak https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/10/people-supp... Maybe you purchased a dildo in Texas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_obscenity_statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_obscenity_statute Governments can change. I wouldn't want my Amazon purchase history looked over by a theocratic regime like Iran's.
    - macintux 3y ago
      Women in red states today in the U.S. need to be concerned about pregnancy indicators in their data.
  - complianceowl 3y ago
    No disrespect, but that's an extremely wrong mindset to have. There are so many things wrong with that way of thinking. You fail to understand that in our modern reality, our data is our identity. Like computers, we too have vulnerabilities that can be exploited. Imagine how well a hacker could exploit software if he had access to the source code? You fail to understand that Big Corporations DO care about our data. They harvest it precisely to manipulate our behavior for their benefit, at our expense. ("Digital Minimalism" by Cal Newport) You fail to understand the many Big Corporations are essentially quasi-governmental organizations; they work in tandem with government to carry out agendas that are mutually beneficial to the government and the corporation, at our expense. Ask Edward Snowden. You fail to understand that people are not paranoid. Many people simply understand that big corps may CURRENTLY take what is primarily a commercial interest, but as the political climate continues to shift, that primarily commercial purpose can pivot overnight to using your data to suppress dissent, influential voices, target members of whatever group they deem the "opposition". You fail to understand how our lives are altered by Big corps Having access to our data. We are in an unfair fight; we are up against Big Corps that invest millions and millions into R&D to find the most effective ways to manipulate us to promote consumerism, for their profit. > I think people are paranoid. I think you're too trusting and need to think deeper about this topic.
dewey 3y ago
Just because you don’t think you “have anything to hide” doesn’t mean it should be normalized. Governments change, policies change, leaks happen, one might be in a group that’s suddenly suspicious etc.
- corethree 3y ago
  I literally said even criminals don't have to worry. I think my main point here is not only is there too much data. But that the reason for too much data is most of it is fluff data no one gives a shit about. That's the key. Your data and my data is the fluff. Nobody cares for it. Amazon doesn't give a flying shit about you. You're not important. At best you data is analyzed by an algorithm and you're served the relevant ads. Oooh shit big deal.
  - yvely 3y ago
    >...and you're served the relevant ads. Should probably correct this to: ...and the analysis yields a personality model that helps best manipulate you That it is currently being used for relevant ads is just one outcome, incidentally also an attempt at manipulating you, but that's more my disdain for the ad industry talking.
    - corethree 3y ago
      You can word it like that. But in actuality I don't care and most people behave exactly like me. Ads are just an annoyance mostly.
- bena 3y ago
  I think you missed what he was trying to say. He's not saying he has nothing to hide, he's saying it's easy to hide when you generate garbage the vast majority of the time. It's kind of related to that old software adage: There are two methods in software design. One is to make the program so simple, there are obviously no errors. The other is to make it so complicated, there are no obvious errors. There are two ways to protect your privacy. One is to tell people absolutely nothing about yourself. This way requires constant vigilance. The other is tell people everything about yourself and then make up some stuff. Pretty soon people won't be able to distinguish between noise and signal.
WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> I agreed with him it's possible but I didn't see the problem and he didn't see why I didn't give a crap. Your assertion may be more placating than you advertise. This surveillance is asymmetrical and it may be that you don't object to that. Restated: Truly unavoidably collected surveillance data should be visible to the public, who could then use it to provide meaningful oversight of governments and other powerful entities. This provides symmetry that is ethical, moral and healthy to society. Strongly asymmetric surveillance is none of those. It gifts power that will eventually be used for authoritarian ends. I recommend not acquiescing to surveillance that is unethical, amoral and unhealthy to society.
- corethree 3y ago
  I didn't think about this. Asymmetry is interesting. So you're pro surveillance as long as it's symmetrical?
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    I'm saying whatever surveillance is in place should be symmetrical. As to how much surveillance, I believe symmetry naturally leads to boundaries. Asymmetry doesn't. My mental model is a small town or village from 200 years ago - or even an early human tribe. Privacy was limited but it was universal.
HPsquared 3y ago
There's nothing particularly special about the Alexa or Google home, it's all software controlled. Phones and computers also have microphones and we have to trust them too. And phones/computers have a lot more software vendors involved.
- corethree 3y ago
  They've also been backdoored by the nsa. I think those Snowden docs revealed that. Even so, me and most of the world still doesn't care that much as we all use and own smart phones. The backlash in this thread is just hypocritical.
titzer 3y ago
Do not normalize surveillance because you're "too cool" for it, when really, you're just too lazy and too unimaginative to care. Don't ever cross a government official, wittingly or unwittingly. Don't ever get in their way, even just by being an accidental obstacle. I hope you never witness a crime by a public official or get framed for one yourself. If you do witness a crime, don't testify in court! Also, you'll do well to never hold any controversial opinion whatsoever. Especially don't express one or take a public position about one. Also, I hope you have nothing of value or do anything that could potentially embarrass yourself or someone you care about. Probably best to avoid any job or position of influence that might lead to bribery or blackmail. Overall, you should probably just sit life out. Probably don't even bother registering to vote, and definitely don't vote against corrupt officials! The ways that privacy-obliterating surveillance alter our lives by inviting corruption in the power structure are endless. Tell them no, hell no, and fuck-you. We don't need a reason to kick them the hell out of our lives.
- corethree 3y ago
  How is it cool? The trendy thing to do is to hate surveillance. I'm doing the uncool thing here. Hence the negative karma. You're the one acting cool. Do you own a smart phone? If so everything I said applies to you. Those are surveillance devices.
  - titzer 3y ago
    Your language of "some HN dude" and how "he didn't see why I didn't give a shit" was condescending and borderline rude. It tends to suggest you think that everyone who cares about this is beneath you and stupid. I know you didn't say those words, but it's the impression everyone gets. > Do you own a smart phone? If so everything I said applies to you. Those are surveillance devices. The vast majority of people don't understand what data is collected or how it is used. Most probably wouldn't care because they've been conditioned to not care and don't have much imagination for how bad a dystopia can result if we continue to get this wrong. Most of them believe it won't affect them. I really don't understand the motivation to loudly proclaim "I don't give a shit" and draw attention to yourself as a distraction from a very serious issue being discussed by people who actually do give a shit. Do you also show up at funerals and loudly declare "I didn't know this guy!"?
EasyMark 3y ago
That's fine, but the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for what a few people who don't care think. Every time you give up a freedom you move closer to an authoritarian system.
- corethree 3y ago
  Well hold on. I'm not the few. I'm the majority. Most people use smart phones and Gmail and are tracked and surveilled all the time and they don't care. If you're one of those people using tor on a burner phone to reply to me, then you're the minority. So are you? Or are we on the same team?

ceejayoz 3y ago

Current data, if stored, can become a problem in the future if data analysis techniques improve dramatically. (Brute force, technological progress, etc.) Which seems... likely.

RandomLensman 3y ago
Lack of current data produced can also become a future problem. What's the optimal data footprint?
- anonym29 3y ago
  Lack of current data produced offers potential adversaries a hunch, not confirmation. In a hypothetical scenario where Nazis come into power in the USA, who is safer, the Jewish person with their real name tied to their Amazon account, who orders menorahs with their voice over Alexa, or the Jewish person who does not own an Alexa, only buys religious items from a physical shop, pays with cash, and offers a fake name to the seller? Everything that you do or don't do produces data in some sense, but the odds that what you're not doing is being explicitly logged are almost certainly lower than the odds of what you are doing being explicitly logged. Besides, what you're not doing is data point. What you are doing is information. Data does not deterministically produce information, it is merely possible to extract information from data, and it's possible to extract the wrong information from data. Ergo, I posit that the optimal amount of data to voluntarily hand over under the premise of "I'm doing nothing wrong, so I have nothing to hide" is zero, because voluntarily handing over your data is offering more concrete information than not doing so offers, and because other people, including those who achieve positions of power, can define "doing something wrong" extremely differently than you do.
  - teddyh 3y ago
    > from a physical shop, pays with cash, and offers a fake name to the seller? Who gives their name to a physical shop when paying cash?
    - anonym29 3y ago
      Someone making polite conversation with the shopkeeper who politely asked the name of a repeat customer they get along well with in a socially appropriate context.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    A hunch might be enough to get you into trouble. Not taking a phone along has been used against people, for example (not a US case). By the way, buying something in a shop that people can observe is zero protection against actors like Nazis.
  - nothercastle 3y ago
    Your cash guy is going to draw suspicion on that alone. Besides the Germans are now on the same team there isn’t much danger.
corethree 3y ago
[flagged]
- beedeebeedee 3y ago
  > Ooooo Im so scared to see a relevant product recommendation. Duly noted. Thank goodness you are not in a position of authority. Your attitude towards the invasion of privacy (and other people's concerns) is alarming. You sound like a frog joking about the water getting warmer (it's just like a jacuzzi right now, who cares?)
  - corethree 3y ago
    Maybe I am a frog. But so is everyone else. I mean who doesn't own a smart phone? Everybody mostly doesn't care.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > Ooooo Im so scared to see a relevant product recommendation. Maybe you purchased a Palestinian flag in the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/10/people-supporting-hamas-in-uk-will-be-held-to-account-says-rishi-sunak https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/10/people-supp... Maybe you purchased a dildo in Texas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_obscenity_statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_obscenity_statute Governments can change. I wouldn't want my Amazon purchase history looked over by a theocratic regime like Iran's.
  - macintux 3y ago
    Women in red states today in the U.S. need to be concerned about pregnancy indicators in their data.
- complianceowl 3y ago
  No disrespect, but that's an extremely wrong mindset to have. There are so many things wrong with that way of thinking. You fail to understand that in our modern reality, our data is our identity. Like computers, we too have vulnerabilities that can be exploited. Imagine how well a hacker could exploit software if he had access to the source code? You fail to understand that Big Corporations DO care about our data. They harvest it precisely to manipulate our behavior for their benefit, at our expense. ("Digital Minimalism" by Cal Newport) You fail to understand the many Big Corporations are essentially quasi-governmental organizations; they work in tandem with government to carry out agendas that are mutually beneficial to the government and the corporation, at our expense. Ask Edward Snowden. You fail to understand that people are not paranoid. Many people simply understand that big corps may CURRENTLY take what is primarily a commercial interest, but as the political climate continues to shift, that primarily commercial purpose can pivot overnight to using your data to suppress dissent, influential voices, target members of whatever group they deem the "opposition". You fail to understand how our lives are altered by Big corps Having access to our data. We are in an unfair fight; we are up against Big Corps that invest millions and millions into R&D to find the most effective ways to manipulate us to promote consumerism, for their profit. > I think people are paranoid. I think you're too trusting and need to think deeper about this topic.

dewey 3y ago

Just because you don’t think you “have anything to hide” doesn’t mean it should be normalized. Governments change, policies change, leaks happen, one might be in a group that’s suddenly suspicious etc.

corethree 3y ago
I literally said even criminals don't have to worry. I think my main point here is not only is there too much data. But that the reason for too much data is most of it is fluff data no one gives a shit about. That's the key. Your data and my data is the fluff. Nobody cares for it. Amazon doesn't give a flying shit about you. You're not important. At best you data is analyzed by an algorithm and you're served the relevant ads. Oooh shit big deal.
- yvely 3y ago
  >...and you're served the relevant ads. Should probably correct this to: ...and the analysis yields a personality model that helps best manipulate you That it is currently being used for relevant ads is just one outcome, incidentally also an attempt at manipulating you, but that's more my disdain for the ad industry talking.
  - corethree 3y ago
    You can word it like that. But in actuality I don't care and most people behave exactly like me. Ads are just an annoyance mostly.
bena 3y ago
I think you missed what he was trying to say. He's not saying he has nothing to hide, he's saying it's easy to hide when you generate garbage the vast majority of the time. It's kind of related to that old software adage: There are two methods in software design. One is to make the program so simple, there are obviously no errors. The other is to make it so complicated, there are no obvious errors. There are two ways to protect your privacy. One is to tell people absolutely nothing about yourself. This way requires constant vigilance. The other is tell people everything about yourself and then make up some stuff. Pretty soon people won't be able to distinguish between noise and signal.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

> I agreed with him it's possible but I didn't see the problem and he didn't see why I didn't give a crap. Your assertion may be more placating than you advertise. This surveillance is asymmetrical and it may be that you don't object to that. Restated: Truly unavoidably collected surveillance data should be visible to the public, who could then use it to provide meaningful oversight of governments and other powerful entities. This provides symmetry that is ethical, moral and healthy to society. Strongly asymmetric surveillance is none of those. It gifts power that will eventually be used for authoritarian ends. I recommend not acquiescing to surveillance that is unethical, amoral and unhealthy to society.

corethree 3y ago
I didn't think about this. Asymmetry is interesting. So you're pro surveillance as long as it's symmetrical?
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  I'm saying whatever surveillance is in place should be symmetrical. As to how much surveillance, I believe symmetry naturally leads to boundaries. Asymmetry doesn't. My mental model is a small town or village from 200 years ago - or even an early human tribe. Privacy was limited but it was universal.

HPsquared 3y ago

There's nothing particularly special about the Alexa or Google home, it's all software controlled. Phones and computers also have microphones and we have to trust them too. And phones/computers have a lot more software vendors involved.

corethree 3y ago
They've also been backdoored by the nsa. I think those Snowden docs revealed that. Even so, me and most of the world still doesn't care that much as we all use and own smart phones. The backlash in this thread is just hypocritical.

titzer 3y ago

Do not normalize surveillance because you're "too cool" for it, when really, you're just too lazy and too unimaginative to care. Don't ever cross a government official, wittingly or unwittingly. Don't ever get in their way, even just by being an accidental obstacle. I hope you never witness a crime by a public official or get framed for one yourself. If you do witness a crime, don't testify in court! Also, you'll do well to never hold any controversial opinion whatsoever. Especially don't express one or take a public position about one. Also, I hope you have nothing of value or do anything that could potentially embarrass yourself or someone you care about. Probably best to avoid any job or position of influence that might lead to bribery or blackmail. Overall, you should probably just sit life out. Probably don't even bother registering to vote, and definitely don't vote against corrupt officials! The ways that privacy-obliterating surveillance alter our lives by inviting corruption in the power structure are endless. Tell them no, hell no, and fuck-you. We don't need a reason to kick them the hell out of our lives.

corethree 3y ago
How is it cool? The trendy thing to do is to hate surveillance. I'm doing the uncool thing here. Hence the negative karma. You're the one acting cool. Do you own a smart phone? If so everything I said applies to you. Those are surveillance devices.
- titzer 3y ago
  Your language of "some HN dude" and how "he didn't see why I didn't give a shit" was condescending and borderline rude. It tends to suggest you think that everyone who cares about this is beneath you and stupid. I know you didn't say those words, but it's the impression everyone gets. > Do you own a smart phone? If so everything I said applies to you. Those are surveillance devices. The vast majority of people don't understand what data is collected or how it is used. Most probably wouldn't care because they've been conditioned to not care and don't have much imagination for how bad a dystopia can result if we continue to get this wrong. Most of them believe it won't affect them. I really don't understand the motivation to loudly proclaim "I don't give a shit" and draw attention to yourself as a distraction from a very serious issue being discussed by people who actually do give a shit. Do you also show up at funerals and loudly declare "I didn't know this guy!"?

EasyMark 3y ago

That's fine, but the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for what a few people who don't care think. Every time you give up a freedom you move closer to an authoritarian system.

corethree 3y ago
Well hold on. I'm not the few. I'm the majority. Most people use smart phones and Gmail and are tracked and surveilled all the time and they don't care. If you're one of those people using tor on a burner phone to reply to me, then you're the minority. So are you? Or are we on the same team?