4 ms·

Seems reasonable to want a greater understanding. I know so many tech people who have given up on privacy because they know the cat is already out of the bag s

Seems reasonable to want a greater understanding. I know so many tech people who have given up on privacy because they know the cat is already out of the bag so to speak. It would be illuminating to know how many companies know X/Y/Z details of myself. I imagine it'd be quite scary. In Europe we are beholden to the liberal use of data by big tech, and that's supposedly the legal side of the data usage.

spacebanana7 2y ago
I'm more concerned about criminals than companies, although there's definitely overlap. Realistically our names, addresses, approx net worths etc are all out there. Just so many data leaks that've ended up on darknet marketplaces.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  Yeah, AT&T leak was huge.
- ricardo81 2y ago
  There are plenty examples where criminals acquire the data from companies, e.g. social media. There was a time where you could upload a very old adobe hack (~100M email addresses), find out the person's name, DOB, who they know etc to various social media platforms. It's improved somewhat but there's still so many vectors.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  I'm far more concerned about above the table stuff. It's trivially easy to get your money back as the result of fraudulent transactions or undo any other harm that far away criminals do compared to appealing your way out of whatever harm you suffered as the result of some BigCo or government agency's half-baked attempt at cross referencing.
martinald 2y ago
I think the privacy argument is generally the wrong way round in Europe. So much time and effort is spent on marketing privacy - which IMO is mostly very low risk (there are exceptions, of course). The real problem is "sensitive data" privacy which is usually managed by the government in Europe. Things like healthcare records, diplomatic cables, police records, unredacted census data, etc. When/if there was a mass breach of that the consequences would be unbelievably serious - much more than marketing preferences. GDPR has cost hundreds of billions in compliance costs for really not a huge amount of gain in my opinion (some of it is good - like fines for poor cybersecurity practices, but it places an enormous compliance burden on SMEs for SARs and the like). I have rarely heard of any similar initiatives to secure government data.
- Urahandystar 2y ago
  The huge increase in online fraud would say that your original premise is incorrect. The major financial institutions are eating billions every year in fees they have to refund the customer having been a victim of fraud.
  - martinald 2y ago
    But we have GDPR in the UK and bank fraud is stratospheric. I don't understand what that has to do with it? It's not like the fraudsters are implementing GDPR themselves is it?
- blitzar 2y ago
  > marketing privacy - which IMO is mostly very low risk > The real problem is "sensitive data" privacy managed by the government I get multiple scam calls a day, 1000's of spam emails every day. 100% of that is from "marketing" privacy violations - my details either sold or leaked by private companies.
  - Ylpertnodi 2y ago
    Did you fully read the EULA?
    - blitzar 2y ago
      Which version? The one when I signed up, the one when they decided to monetize their user data, the one when they decided to sell the data or the one they released retrospectively after they got "hacked" via a plain text unscured s3 bucket?
- dmix 2y ago
  > GDPR has cost hundreds of billions in compliance costs for really not a huge amount of gain in my opinion Last time I researched GDPR I discovered it's not meaningfully enforced and the advertising business hasn't changed significantly at all, even in Europe. They have a big back log of older claims and the stuff they enforce trickles out slowly. It's mostly voluntary compliance and only the bigger noisier consumer-UI facing social media companies get attention, not the bulk of business who make money off data. Similar to cookie banners I doubt it will have much long term impact for the internet in real terms (absent major enforcement on data industry and constant updates to reflect new technology/adaption ala cookies->fingerprinting/JS embeds), but people will claim it as a success regardless.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ricardo81 2y ago
RE: deleted comment "I know so many tech people who have given up on privacy because they know the cat is already out of the bag so to speak. That doesn't make sense to me. What does "the cat is out of the bag" actually mean here in concrete terms? I would never just give up on privacy." Your details are already 'out there' therefore any further action you do serves little purpose. In the context of big tech keeping 'shadow profiles' where they can probabilistically determine 'you are that person' based on historical knowledge and intimate tracking.
- jart 2y ago
  If the information is already out there, then what's the point of implementing all these totalitarian systems of control over who can have it and how it's used? They're just regulating computing itself. Only good guys follow the rules and it puts them at a disadvantage when the rules prevent them from using knowledge about you to help you. Whereas bad guys just use information about you freely regardless of what the government says. If the cat is out of the bag then access to knowledge should be democratized. The government shouldn't regulate what we're allowed to see and know. Information wants to be free and openness is the will of technology.
  - conception 2y ago
    “Why have laws? Only good guys follow laws!”
    - jart 2y ago
      Look this isn't like preventing murder or building roads. We're talking about knowledge. The only ethical way to protect privacy is to prevent knowledge slipping into the hands of other people. Restrictions to sharing it once it's out are unconstitutional in the United States because it's the same thing as speech.
      - conception 2y ago
        There are many constitutional restrictions on the freedom of speech?

spacebanana7 2y ago

I'm more concerned about criminals than companies, although there's definitely overlap. Realistically our names, addresses, approx net worths etc are all out there. Just so many data leaks that've ended up on darknet marketplaces.

johnisgood 2y ago
Yeah, AT&T leak was huge.
ricardo81 2y ago
There are plenty examples where criminals acquire the data from companies, e.g. social media. There was a time where you could upload a very old adobe hack (~100M email addresses), find out the person's name, DOB, who they know etc to various social media platforms. It's improved somewhat but there's still so many vectors.
potato3732842 2y ago
I'm far more concerned about above the table stuff. It's trivially easy to get your money back as the result of fraudulent transactions or undo any other harm that far away criminals do compared to appealing your way out of whatever harm you suffered as the result of some BigCo or government agency's half-baked attempt at cross referencing.

martinald 2y ago

I think the privacy argument is generally the wrong way round in Europe. So much time and effort is spent on marketing privacy - which IMO is mostly very low risk (there are exceptions, of course). The real problem is "sensitive data" privacy which is usually managed by the government in Europe. Things like healthcare records, diplomatic cables, police records, unredacted census data, etc. When/if there was a mass breach of that the consequences would be unbelievably serious - much more than marketing preferences. GDPR has cost hundreds of billions in compliance costs for really not a huge amount of gain in my opinion (some of it is good - like fines for poor cybersecurity practices, but it places an enormous compliance burden on SMEs for SARs and the like). I have rarely heard of any similar initiatives to secure government data.

Urahandystar 2y ago
The huge increase in online fraud would say that your original premise is incorrect. The major financial institutions are eating billions every year in fees they have to refund the customer having been a victim of fraud.
- martinald 2y ago
  But we have GDPR in the UK and bank fraud is stratospheric. I don't understand what that has to do with it? It's not like the fraudsters are implementing GDPR themselves is it?
blitzar 2y ago
> marketing privacy - which IMO is mostly very low risk > The real problem is "sensitive data" privacy managed by the government I get multiple scam calls a day, 1000's of spam emails every day. 100% of that is from "marketing" privacy violations - my details either sold or leaked by private companies.
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  Did you fully read the EULA?
  - blitzar 2y ago
    Which version? The one when I signed up, the one when they decided to monetize their user data, the one when they decided to sell the data or the one they released retrospectively after they got "hacked" via a plain text unscured s3 bucket?
dmix 2y ago
> GDPR has cost hundreds of billions in compliance costs for really not a huge amount of gain in my opinion Last time I researched GDPR I discovered it's not meaningfully enforced and the advertising business hasn't changed significantly at all, even in Europe. They have a big back log of older claims and the stuff they enforce trickles out slowly. It's mostly voluntary compliance and only the bigger noisier consumer-UI facing social media companies get attention, not the bulk of business who make money off data. Similar to cookie banners I doubt it will have much long term impact for the internet in real terms (absent major enforcement on data industry and constant updates to reflect new technology/adaption ala cookies->fingerprinting/JS embeds), but people will claim it as a success regardless.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ricardo81 2y ago

RE: deleted comment "I know so many tech people who have given up on privacy because they know the cat is already out of the bag so to speak. That doesn't make sense to me. What does "the cat is out of the bag" actually mean here in concrete terms? I would never just give up on privacy." Your details are already 'out there' therefore any further action you do serves little purpose. In the context of big tech keeping 'shadow profiles' where they can probabilistically determine 'you are that person' based on historical knowledge and intimate tracking.

jart 2y ago
If the information is already out there, then what's the point of implementing all these totalitarian systems of control over who can have it and how it's used? They're just regulating computing itself. Only good guys follow the rules and it puts them at a disadvantage when the rules prevent them from using knowledge about you to help you. Whereas bad guys just use information about you freely regardless of what the government says. If the cat is out of the bag then access to knowledge should be democratized. The government shouldn't regulate what we're allowed to see and know. Information wants to be free and openness is the will of technology.
- conception 2y ago
  “Why have laws? Only good guys follow laws!”
  - jart 2y ago
    Look this isn't like preventing murder or building roads. We're talking about knowledge. The only ethical way to protect privacy is to prevent knowledge slipping into the hands of other people. Restrictions to sharing it once it's out are unconstitutional in the United States because it's the same thing as speech.
    - conception 2y ago
      There are many constitutional restrictions on the freedom of speech?