2 ms·

It’s pretty much too late by the time that happens. People’s general indifference regarding privacy never ceases to amaze me, we really put up no fight whatsoev

It’s pretty much too late by the time that happens. People’s general indifference regarding privacy never ceases to amaze me, we really put up no fight whatsoever

dghlsakjg 2y ago
I wonder if there isn't a case to be made for some really bad faith projects as demonstrators for just how creepy this shit is. Privacy advocacy orgs should have contests for tracking people using publicaly available video feeds, or something of the sort. Let people search their license plate to see how easy it is to track all of your movements. Maybe put up a few high res webcams in the vicinity of a legislature building for maximum effect.
- conductr 2y ago
  I don't have much hope in that approach. It might get some attention and trend for a day/week or so, but nothing happens and people move on to the next thing and the camera's remain Also, practically, the advocacy groups would need to get access to the surveillance feeds or deploy their own hardware - which I just don't see happening
  - 1659447091 2y ago
    I've used this as a bit of a thought experiment, and also think it may do more harm than good--but a part of me wonders if it may be just thing to create change. A non-profit that works a bit like haveibeenpwned.com but with data sold by data brokers that anyone can look up, with corresponding source attribution. At one point, long ago I was of the idea that all data should be public/exposed or none of it (this ship already sailed with data brokers and such. Don't know how it could be undone). The problem I keep running into is a real world take on the Trolley problem[0]. Do you publicly publish all data, which: 1. Reduces its sellable value 2. Makes people aware of how much they are being tracked and profiled 3. Gives back a small bit of agency over ones data by knowing where to send delete/remove request to make data brokers honour local laws However, doing so would also: 1. Give easy access to abuse victim data, putting them in further harm 2. Give actual stalkers an easier path to their targets 3. Other harm that I can not fathom at this point in time I don't know the answer, maybe mask the address part, or do like Strava and set a blocking geo fence around home/work addresses. For location tracking keep it months behind and remove/mask anything remotely related to health services (mental and physical). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
    - conductr 2y ago
      I’d prefer the passive data never existed, it’s actively collected and that activity can be banned. Meaning, when I’m on strava I’m actively collecting data and have opted in to that. But, if I’m jogging, I didn’t opt in to the cameras on every pole using facial recognition to triangulate my location (my face + camera location = my location) and so I think this is a bit of an overreach. Just like everyone though, I’m just going to gripe here and move on with my life as the mass surveillance infrastructure rollout proceeds

It’s pretty much too late by the time that happens. People’s general indifference regarding privacy never ceases to amaze me, we really put up no fight whatsoever

dghlsakjg 2y ago

I wonder if there isn't a case to be made for some really bad faith projects as demonstrators for just how creepy this shit is. Privacy advocacy orgs should have contests for tracking people using publicaly available video feeds, or something of the sort. Let people search their license plate to see how easy it is to track all of your movements. Maybe put up a few high res webcams in the vicinity of a legislature building for maximum effect.

conductr 2y ago
I don't have much hope in that approach. It might get some attention and trend for a day/week or so, but nothing happens and people move on to the next thing and the camera's remain Also, practically, the advocacy groups would need to get access to the surveillance feeds or deploy their own hardware - which I just don't see happening
- 1659447091 2y ago
  I've used this as a bit of a thought experiment, and also think it may do more harm than good--but a part of me wonders if it may be just thing to create change. A non-profit that works a bit like haveibeenpwned.com but with data sold by data brokers that anyone can look up, with corresponding source attribution. At one point, long ago I was of the idea that all data should be public/exposed or none of it (this ship already sailed with data brokers and such. Don't know how it could be undone). The problem I keep running into is a real world take on the Trolley problem[0]. Do you publicly publish all data, which: 1. Reduces its sellable value 2. Makes people aware of how much they are being tracked and profiled 3. Gives back a small bit of agency over ones data by knowing where to send delete/remove request to make data brokers honour local laws However, doing so would also: 1. Give easy access to abuse victim data, putting them in further harm 2. Give actual stalkers an easier path to their targets 3. Other harm that I can not fathom at this point in time I don't know the answer, maybe mask the address part, or do like Strava and set a blocking geo fence around home/work addresses. For location tracking keep it months behind and remove/mask anything remotely related to health services (mental and physical). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
  - conductr 2y ago
    I’d prefer the passive data never existed, it’s actively collected and that activity can be banned. Meaning, when I’m on strava I’m actively collecting data and have opted in to that. But, if I’m jogging, I didn’t opt in to the cameras on every pole using facial recognition to triangulate my location (my face + camera location = my location) and so I think this is a bit of an overreach. Just like everyone though, I’m just going to gripe here and move on with my life as the mass surveillance infrastructure rollout proceeds