4 ms·

Re: the last link: this is not why surveillance prevails on the Internet. It’s an economic problem not a technological problem. Surveillance driven advertising

by api 2y ago

Re: the last link: this is not why surveillance prevails on the Internet. It’s an economic problem not a technological problem. Surveillance driven advertising became the business model of the net because people don’t pay for content online. That left advertisers as the only true customers, and companies and ecosystems grow toward and around their customers the way plants bend and stretch toward light. Making the Internet more secure would not have changed this. Surveillance is built into consumer technology directly because advertisers pay more for access to people than people pay directly. Advertising is the primary force behind this. Government driven surveillance is secondary and really just piggybacks on systems created and sustained by the ad and PR industries. One of the things you learn as an older engineer is that a lot of stubborn technology problems are stubborn because they are not technology problems. They are socioeconomic or political problems. Privacy online is one of these. The only way I see this changing is if people change their buying behavior and start demanding privacy, avoiding insecure products, and being willing to pay for it.

verisimi 2y ago
I tend to think that the idea of surveillance driven advertising as a model is itself an excuse or justification for intrusion and eradication of personal privacy. I'm saying the whole of that industry was all about spying from the beginning, subsidised by the governance structure, and that the idea that there is actually much of an industry there at all, is am excuse to provide plausible deniability. I don't think online advertising works at anything like the scales we are told.
- api 2y ago
  Look into how much money there actually is in surveillance driven advertising. It's more than you'd imagine. A good place to start is social media companies' revenue per user. A few years ago Facebook's was about $40/month/user globally, which means users would have to pay $40/month to outbid advertisers. It's definitely financially motivated. Governments surely piggyback on it and encourage it, but the main driver was and is money.
  - verisimi 2y ago
    I'm sure it's about money, I don't think it's based on the market though. I reckon it's based in indirect governance structure subsidies being sent to those companies that have been set up to harvest data. The reason I think this, is I don't think I invest any of my resources according to what adverts are shown on a screen. Also, I don't think I know anyone that does spend according to advertising. I realise companies' 'advertising spend' may also includes brand awareness and other non-sale elements... But you'd think that sometimes the spend would result in an actual sale to justify the spend.
ahmedbaracat 2y ago
I agree that a big part of the problem is human behavior and how ppl are not willing to change their buying behavior to buy more privacy preserving products or demand the creation of such products or stop using the ones that are “clearly” harming them. That said, the Internet in terms of privacy and surveillance is broken by design. Here is a relevant quote from the website I shared and you referred to: “ According to Washington Post's "Net of Insecurity" series the inventors of TCP/IP originally wanted to build basic end-to-end cryptography directly into the protocols, thus guaranteeing at least the authenticity of transmissions if not the content, within the possibilities of the late '70s. By impeding any public use of cryptography, the National Security Agency fundamentally broke the Internet early on. Since then we not only have an Internet which is unencrypted by default, it is also insecure as the provenience of any IP packet can be spoofed at will.”
hulitu 2y ago
> The only way I see this changing is if people change their buying behavior Really ? I was born in a world without advertising. If you want my time you must ask for permission.

by api 2y ago

verisimi 2y ago

I tend to think that the idea of surveillance driven advertising as a model is itself an excuse or justification for intrusion and eradication of personal privacy. I'm saying the whole of that industry was all about spying from the beginning, subsidised by the governance structure, and that the idea that there is actually much of an industry there at all, is am excuse to provide plausible deniability. I don't think online advertising works at anything like the scales we are told.

api 2y ago
Look into how much money there actually is in surveillance driven advertising. It's more than you'd imagine. A good place to start is social media companies' revenue per user. A few years ago Facebook's was about $40/month/user globally, which means users would have to pay $40/month to outbid advertisers. It's definitely financially motivated. Governments surely piggyback on it and encourage it, but the main driver was and is money.
- verisimi 2y ago
  I'm sure it's about money, I don't think it's based on the market though. I reckon it's based in indirect governance structure subsidies being sent to those companies that have been set up to harvest data. The reason I think this, is I don't think I invest any of my resources according to what adverts are shown on a screen. Also, I don't think I know anyone that does spend according to advertising. I realise companies' 'advertising spend' may also includes brand awareness and other non-sale elements... But you'd think that sometimes the spend would result in an actual sale to justify the spend.

ahmedbaracat 2y ago

I agree that a big part of the problem is human behavior and how ppl are not willing to change their buying behavior to buy more privacy preserving products or demand the creation of such products or stop using the ones that are “clearly” harming them. That said, the Internet in terms of privacy and surveillance is broken by design. Here is a relevant quote from the website I shared and you referred to: “ According to Washington Post's "Net of Insecurity" series the inventors of TCP/IP originally wanted to build basic end-to-end cryptography directly into the protocols, thus guaranteeing at least the authenticity of transmissions if not the content, within the possibilities of the late '70s. By impeding any public use of cryptography, the National Security Agency fundamentally broke the Internet early on. Since then we not only have an Internet which is unencrypted by default, it is also insecure as the provenience of any IP packet can be spoofed at will.”

hulitu 2y ago

> The only way I see this changing is if people change their buying behavior Really ? I was born in a world without advertising. If you want my time you must ask for permission.