6 ms·

I think the social element is one of the roots of the problem. Basically, people don't understand privacy, and don't see what is going on, so they don't care a

by m463 2y ago

I think the social element is one of the roots of the problem. Basically, people don't understand privacy, and don't see what is going on, so they don't care about it. Additionally, most privacy intrusions are carefully combined with some reward or convenience, and that becomes the status quo. This leads to the people who stand up to this being ridiculed as tinfoil hat types, or ignored as nonconformist. everything after that is just a matter of time.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
Yes. The weirdest example of this ( and most personally applicable ) is the DNA data shared with 23andme and the like. I did not subscribe to this. Neither did my kids ( or kids of the individual who did subscribe I might add ), but due to some shared geography and blood ties, whether I want to or not, I am now identifiable in that database. To your point, there is something in us that does not consider what information could do.
- 14 2y ago
  If you have nothing to hide what are you worried about? Or if you are not planning to be a criminal what are you worried about? I am 100% not serious and do not believe either statement above. I sadly am in the same boat as you and had a blacksheep of a brother who did some sort of crime and as a condition had his DNA taken so I by default am in the system as well. I never could understand why people would willingly offer their DNA to companies that even if they are not selling that data sooner or later could have that data leak and the consequences could mean being able to afford life and medical insurance or not.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    << I never could understand why people would willingly offer their DNA to companies I can play devil's advocate and come up with some level of rationalization along the lines of 'it will help humanity cure cancer' in a handwavy kinda way, but even then one is trading future potential against near 100% guarantee that things do change in regards to what you gave -- that is: even if company is promising today it will not do something with data, a day will come when that will no longer be the case. The blacksheep example is definitely interesting though and likely a good idea for a police drama episode ( if it wasn't used already ). Edit: And now that I think about it, if it would be made, it would show the the good certainly have nothing to fear indeed.
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    > I never could understand why people would willingly offer their DNA to companies that even if they are not selling that data sooner or later could have that data leak and the consequences could mean being able to afford life and medical insurance or not. I’m the odd one out on this thread but I just… don’t see why it’s a big deal? All the consequences of my dna leaking seem so extremely theoretical and unlikely that I’m willing to take the risk in exchange for a few minutes of fun reading a report about where my ancestors came from. This is always framed like people who willingly surrender privacy must not know better or be uneducated about the harms but I think it’s fair for people to just decide they don’t evaluate the harms as very serious. The example you gave about health insurance is implausible because it’s illegal in the US and I assume other developed countries for insurers to charge different amounts for health coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It strikes me as very, very paranoid to worry that someday my DNA might leak, and there’s something bad in it, and the law will change such that insurers can abuse it, and I for some reason won’t have a job that gives me health insurance anyway. That’s a lot of ands making the probability of that outcome very small.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
      << The example you gave about health insurance is implausible because it’s illegal in the US and I assume other developed countries for insurers to charge different amounts for health coverage based on pre-existing conditions. As phrased, I am unable to comment as to whether that statement is accurate, but I will go with it for the sake of the argument. I chuckled a little, because that one phrase immediately reminded of just how much political capital was spent to even allow 'pre-existing conditions' to be removed as a factor in denying coverage. What exactly makes you think that law cannot be changed?
      - School-Cotton 2y ago
        Changing the law is extremely difficult in the US because of the gridlocked-by-design political system, so I think it's unlikely. Changing it would also be extremely unpopular. Of course it could happen. But even if it did, all the other unlikely events I listed would all have to happen for me to be harmed. The point of my post was that me being harmed due to having given my DNA to 23&me is unlikely, not impossible. Just like it's theoretically possible a brick could fall on my head while walking outside, but I still don't wear a helmet every time I go outside. Worrying so much about this stuff just feels to me like the tech geek version of preppers who stock their house with guns and canned food in case the apocalypse comes (which never does).
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > I never could understand why people would willingly offer their DNA to companies that even if they are not selling that data sooner or later could have that data leak and the consequences could mean being able to afford life and medical insurance or not. Reality: nobody cares about your DNA. It's useless for medical or life insurance companies, they can't discriminate based on the DNA by law. And if it's ever repealed, you can bet that life insurance companies will just start asking for your DNA info anyway. DNA also doesn't provide actionable intelligence for advertisers that is worth more than a week of your purchase history or your Facebook profile. However, DNA provides actionable intelligence for _you_. Mostly by highlighting the disease risks and other clinically-significant data (like drug metabolism speed).
    - chiefalchemist 2y ago
      All true but above all DNA is personal. It's yours to share or not. When someone related to you shares, they're sharing you and yours as well. Let's rephrase: I never could understand why people would willingly offer their DNA *and the DNA of all those who share some part of their DNA* to for profit companies subject to data breaches, court orders, nefarious employees, etc.
      - School-Cotton 2y ago
        I’m quite sure nobody in my family is the type of HN privacy geek who would care about this, so I don’t feel bad at all.
        chiefalchemist 2y ago
        Two books that would be good for you to read then: "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" - Long and details but extremely thorough. A must read for anyone with that excuse "I have nothing to hide". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capita... - "Stand Out of Our Light " - Similar message as "Surveillance Capitalism" - from an ex-Google'r - but without the depth and breadth. Not as heavy but packs a near similar punch. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/stand-out-of-our-light/3F8D7BA2C0FE3A7126A4D9B73A89415D https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/stand-out-of-our-light/... p.s. Not feeling bad and/or not recognizing the issue is a symptom of the problem. Yeah, ironic.
  - yard2010 2y ago
    Not GP but I despise this argument because the definition of a criminal depends who you're asking: in some countries, doctors giving warnings about an impending pandemic could be criminals. Edit: I was too fast on the comment button and didn't read until the end.
  - amatecha 2y ago
    You could put quotes around the first line to make it clear you're joking or being sarcastic. I was pretty taken aback by someone seemingly actually saying that, at first! :`D
  - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
    I don't see the logic following a data leak and not affording medical insurance, as that would imply insurance company saying "hey there's been a big DNA data leak - get that data and make profiles as to what people we should up the premiums on!" Which , ok I guess I can't believe they wouldn't because of moral reasons or even because it may already be illegal to do so or because they would worry about being found out, just seems like it would require not just thinking about it but probably also they would need to assemble a team to take advantage of it and that would not be worth it.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
      << just seems like it would require not just thinking about it but probably also they would need to assemble a team to take advantage of it and that would not be worth it. I think it has been somewhat well established that humans will do a whole lot of nasty without much thinking as long as a higher up tells them to. And this does not touch the simple fact that the companies are not exactly entities governed by morality ( and some would argue that it is not entirely certain if humans are either ). In short, I think you are wrong.
      - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
        >whole lot of nasty without much thinking as long as a higher up tells them to. sure >In short, I think you are wrong. so, your technical conclusion is that because people will do bad things when told by authorities they will not need to start any sort of project to integrate the dumped data into their platforms, paying multiple developers for a potentially long time - it will just magically happen because of the power of evil? I mean I want to believe in the power of evil as much as the next guy, but that's a bit much. And once we go back to the whole "they would need to assemble a team to take advantage of it" which maybe was not that clear at the end of my post then again, no matter how you slice the evil, it would not be worth it. Because assembling the team to analyze and ingest 23&me data might take a while, cost a good amount of money, might decrease in value over time (or increase in risk) for something that is probably illegal to do in the first place. Higher ups may want it done, but probably only if it can be done immediately and doesn't cost a lot of money.
tqi 2y ago
> most privacy intrusions are carefully combined with some reward or convenience ...ie people are making a conscious choice based on what they value?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- 123123sdfasf 2y ago
  Yeah that's why everyone is smoking and drinking.
- m463 2y ago
  Do you think people make a conscious choice to share their location thousands of times a day forever because they used the department store app to find the men's section one day?
  - tqi 2y ago
    I think most people don't care, or at least don't care enough to make a different decision.
teekert 2y ago
Once my wife was ill and at home, I was at work. I wondered how she was doing so I looked at Home Assistant and saw the hallway motion detector was triggered, the toilet fan shortly after. I saw in Adguard that some news sites were accessed. Then a spike in gas usage and a steep temp increase in the shower followed by a 1 min overall power usage of 2500 W, probably she made tea. She turned on the living room Sonos. So I guess she was doing relatively well. I showed her all this, and joked about how I'd make a "Wife status tile" in Home Assistant. All of a sudden she understood privacy.
everdrive 2y ago
Privacy also seems to be one of those things people claim to care about, but in fact are actually reluctant to do anything about. Easy, low-tech privacy measures: - leave your phone at home most of the time. - don't buy a smart TV or other smart devices - don't use social media - etc. None of these measures are bullet-proof, but they are relatively low-cost and don't require much expertise. These are much, much more likely to be things consumers complain about than things that consumers are actually ready to do something about. I think it's clear that consumers ALSO do not understand privacy, but I'd also suggest that they don't care very much. If they cared, there would be more a market for privacy.
- evoke4908 2y ago
  "Don't buy a smart TV" is stupid out of touch and tonedeaf advice. There are no non-smart TVs. You cannot buy one. Your only alternatives are to not buy a TV period, or go to great lengths to firewall your new smart TV. Yes, non-smart displays exist, but they are not sold to consumers, nor at a price consumers can afford. This is one of those prime examples of how the idea of "vote with your wallet" is a fantasy. Consumers are not in any way in control of the market. There is no possible way to protest smart TVs when the only options for a new TV include spyware. Your only possible move is to not participate in the market, which then summarily ignores you. Similarly, existing without a smartphone in today's society is largely not possible. You can't even park in many cities without an app. I think it's clear that you don't understand the problems being discussed and are just blithely assuming that deflecting blame onto individuals is a reasonable position. It isn't. It's moronic and unconsidered.
  - everdrive 2y ago
    I just bought a non-smart TV at a yard sale for $10. I wasn't even out looking, it just happened to be there. It works great. Much scarier, there are "smart monitors" coming which are just computer monitors but will display ads to users. Once that happens, and is wholly unavoidable, I'm honestly finished with computers for good. As an aside, I have a very clear understanding of privacy issues. If there's a particular issue you'd like to dig into, I'd be happy to talk it out with you. I'll bet we agree more than you think.

by m463 2y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago

Yes. The weirdest example of this ( and most personally applicable ) is the DNA data shared with 23andme and the like. I did not subscribe to this. Neither did my kids ( or kids of the individual who did subscribe I might add ), but due to some shared geography and blood ties, whether I want to or not, I am now identifiable in that database. To your point, there is something in us that does not consider what information could do.

14 2y ago
If you have nothing to hide what are you worried about? Or if you are not planning to be a criminal what are you worried about? I am 100% not serious and do not believe either statement above. I sadly am in the same boat as you and had a blacksheep of a brother who did some sort of crime and as a condition had his DNA taken so I by default am in the system as well. I never could understand why people would willingly offer their DNA to companies that even if they are not selling that data sooner or later could have that data leak and the consequences could mean being able to afford life and medical insurance or not.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  << I never could understand why people would willingly offer their DNA to companies I can play devil's advocate and come up with some level of rationalization along the lines of 'it will help humanity cure cancer' in a handwavy kinda way, but even then one is trading future potential against near 100% guarantee that things do change in regards to what you gave -- that is: even if company is promising today it will not do something with data, a day will come when that will no longer be the case. The blacksheep example is definitely interesting though and likely a good idea for a police drama episode ( if it wasn't used already ). Edit: And now that I think about it, if it would be made, it would show the the good certainly have nothing to fear indeed.
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  > I never could understand why people would willingly offer their DNA to companies that even if they are not selling that data sooner or later could have that data leak and the consequences could mean being able to afford life and medical insurance or not. I’m the odd one out on this thread but I just… don’t see why it’s a big deal? All the consequences of my dna leaking seem so extremely theoretical and unlikely that I’m willing to take the risk in exchange for a few minutes of fun reading a report about where my ancestors came from. This is always framed like people who willingly surrender privacy must not know better or be uneducated about the harms but I think it’s fair for people to just decide they don’t evaluate the harms as very serious. The example you gave about health insurance is implausible because it’s illegal in the US and I assume other developed countries for insurers to charge different amounts for health coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It strikes me as very, very paranoid to worry that someday my DNA might leak, and there’s something bad in it, and the law will change such that insurers can abuse it, and I for some reason won’t have a job that gives me health insurance anyway. That’s a lot of ands making the probability of that outcome very small.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    << The example you gave about health insurance is implausible because it’s illegal in the US and I assume other developed countries for insurers to charge different amounts for health coverage based on pre-existing conditions. As phrased, I am unable to comment as to whether that statement is accurate, but I will go with it for the sake of the argument. I chuckled a little, because that one phrase immediately reminded of just how much political capital was spent to even allow 'pre-existing conditions' to be removed as a factor in denying coverage. What exactly makes you think that law cannot be changed?
    - School-Cotton 2y ago
      Changing the law is extremely difficult in the US because of the gridlocked-by-design political system, so I think it's unlikely. Changing it would also be extremely unpopular. Of course it could happen. But even if it did, all the other unlikely events I listed would all have to happen for me to be harmed. The point of my post was that me being harmed due to having given my DNA to 23&me is unlikely, not impossible. Just like it's theoretically possible a brick could fall on my head while walking outside, but I still don't wear a helmet every time I go outside. Worrying so much about this stuff just feels to me like the tech geek version of preppers who stock their house with guns and canned food in case the apocalypse comes (which never does).
- cyberax 2y ago
  > I never could understand why people would willingly offer their DNA to companies that even if they are not selling that data sooner or later could have that data leak and the consequences could mean being able to afford life and medical insurance or not. Reality: nobody cares about your DNA. It's useless for medical or life insurance companies, they can't discriminate based on the DNA by law. And if it's ever repealed, you can bet that life insurance companies will just start asking for your DNA info anyway. DNA also doesn't provide actionable intelligence for advertisers that is worth more than a week of your purchase history or your Facebook profile. However, DNA provides actionable intelligence for _you_. Mostly by highlighting the disease risks and other clinically-significant data (like drug metabolism speed).
  - chiefalchemist 2y ago
    All true but above all DNA is personal. It's yours to share or not. When someone related to you shares, they're sharing you and yours as well. Let's rephrase: I never could understand why people would willingly offer their DNA *and the DNA of all those who share some part of their DNA* to for profit companies subject to data breaches, court orders, nefarious employees, etc.
    - School-Cotton 2y ago
      I’m quite sure nobody in my family is the type of HN privacy geek who would care about this, so I don’t feel bad at all.
      - chiefalchemist 2y ago
        Two books that would be good for you to read then: "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" - Long and details but extremely thorough. A must read for anyone with that excuse "I have nothing to hide". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capita... - "Stand Out of Our Light " - Similar message as "Surveillance Capitalism" - from an ex-Google'r - but without the depth and breadth. Not as heavy but packs a near similar punch. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/stand-out-of-our-light/3F8D7BA2C0FE3A7126A4D9B73A89415D https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/stand-out-of-our-light/... p.s. Not feeling bad and/or not recognizing the issue is a symptom of the problem. Yeah, ironic.
- yard2010 2y ago
  Not GP but I despise this argument because the definition of a criminal depends who you're asking: in some countries, doctors giving warnings about an impending pandemic could be criminals. Edit: I was too fast on the comment button and didn't read until the end.
- amatecha 2y ago
  You could put quotes around the first line to make it clear you're joking or being sarcastic. I was pretty taken aback by someone seemingly actually saying that, at first! :`D
- bryanrasmussen 2y ago
  I don't see the logic following a data leak and not affording medical insurance, as that would imply insurance company saying "hey there's been a big DNA data leak - get that data and make profiles as to what people we should up the premiums on!" Which , ok I guess I can't believe they wouldn't because of moral reasons or even because it may already be illegal to do so or because they would worry about being found out, just seems like it would require not just thinking about it but probably also they would need to assemble a team to take advantage of it and that would not be worth it.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    << just seems like it would require not just thinking about it but probably also they would need to assemble a team to take advantage of it and that would not be worth it. I think it has been somewhat well established that humans will do a whole lot of nasty without much thinking as long as a higher up tells them to. And this does not touch the simple fact that the companies are not exactly entities governed by morality ( and some would argue that it is not entirely certain if humans are either ). In short, I think you are wrong.
    - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
      >whole lot of nasty without much thinking as long as a higher up tells them to. sure >In short, I think you are wrong. so, your technical conclusion is that because people will do bad things when told by authorities they will not need to start any sort of project to integrate the dumped data into their platforms, paying multiple developers for a potentially long time - it will just magically happen because of the power of evil? I mean I want to believe in the power of evil as much as the next guy, but that's a bit much. And once we go back to the whole "they would need to assemble a team to take advantage of it" which maybe was not that clear at the end of my post then again, no matter how you slice the evil, it would not be worth it. Because assembling the team to analyze and ingest 23&me data might take a while, cost a good amount of money, might decrease in value over time (or increase in risk) for something that is probably illegal to do in the first place. Higher ups may want it done, but probably only if it can be done immediately and doesn't cost a lot of money.

tqi 2y ago

> most privacy intrusions are carefully combined with some reward or convenience ...ie people are making a conscious choice based on what they value?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
123123sdfasf 2y ago
Yeah that's why everyone is smoking and drinking.
m463 2y ago
Do you think people make a conscious choice to share their location thousands of times a day forever because they used the department store app to find the men's section one day?
- tqi 2y ago
  I think most people don't care, or at least don't care enough to make a different decision.

teekert 2y ago

Once my wife was ill and at home, I was at work. I wondered how she was doing so I looked at Home Assistant and saw the hallway motion detector was triggered, the toilet fan shortly after. I saw in Adguard that some news sites were accessed. Then a spike in gas usage and a steep temp increase in the shower followed by a 1 min overall power usage of 2500 W, probably she made tea. She turned on the living room Sonos. So I guess she was doing relatively well. I showed her all this, and joked about how I'd make a "Wife status tile" in Home Assistant. All of a sudden she understood privacy.

everdrive 2y ago

Privacy also seems to be one of those things people claim to care about, but in fact are actually reluctant to do anything about. Easy, low-tech privacy measures: - leave your phone at home most of the time. - don't buy a smart TV or other smart devices - don't use social media - etc. None of these measures are bullet-proof, but they are relatively low-cost and don't require much expertise. These are much, much more likely to be things consumers complain about than things that consumers are actually ready to do something about. I think it's clear that consumers ALSO do not understand privacy, but I'd also suggest that they don't care very much. If they cared, there would be more a market for privacy.

evoke4908 2y ago
"Don't buy a smart TV" is stupid out of touch and tonedeaf advice. There are no non-smart TVs. You cannot buy one. Your only alternatives are to not buy a TV period, or go to great lengths to firewall your new smart TV. Yes, non-smart displays exist, but they are not sold to consumers, nor at a price consumers can afford. This is one of those prime examples of how the idea of "vote with your wallet" is a fantasy. Consumers are not in any way in control of the market. There is no possible way to protest smart TVs when the only options for a new TV include spyware. Your only possible move is to not participate in the market, which then summarily ignores you. Similarly, existing without a smartphone in today's society is largely not possible. You can't even park in many cities without an app. I think it's clear that you don't understand the problems being discussed and are just blithely assuming that deflecting blame onto individuals is a reasonable position. It isn't. It's moronic and unconsidered.
- everdrive 2y ago
  I just bought a non-smart TV at a yard sale for $10. I wasn't even out looking, it just happened to be there. It works great. Much scarier, there are "smart monitors" coming which are just computer monitors but will display ads to users. Once that happens, and is wholly unavoidable, I'm honestly finished with computers for good. As an aside, I have a very clear understanding of privacy issues. If there's a particular issue you'd like to dig into, I'd be happy to talk it out with you. I'll bet we agree more than you think.