22 ms·

I have always thought biometrics on phones is just another way so-called "tech" companies perform data collection ultimately to be used for commercial purposes

I have always thought biometrics on phones is just another way so-called "tech" companies perform data collection ultimately to be used for commercial purposes or any purposes deemed appropriate by the companies or their business partners The companies are secretive so who knows what they are up to that we dont know about. What we do know is that these companies do not tell the whole truth when explaining their publicly visible conduct, including their data collection practices For example, a so-called "tech" company might claim they need a user's phone number for "security" purposes while the data actually serves other purposes for the company that the user might find objectionable if they knew about them (This actually happened) The mobile phone has become a computer that the user cannot truly control. Companies can remotely install and run code on these computers at any time for any reason.^1 If the user stores data on the phone, the company tries to get the user to sync it to the company's computers If there are promises, e.g., about "privacy", made by the companies, then these promises are unlikely to be enforceable. It's rather difficult if not impossible to verify such promises are kept, or to discover they have been breached. Unfortunately, when the promises are broken then there is no adequate remedy. It's too late 1. This unfettered access can be blocked but there's been a culture that has emerged around actively doing the opposite. That the so-called "tech" companies are the primary beneficiaries is surely a fortuitous coincidence

Nevermark 9mo ago
The only secure data is secure data. Anything else is insecure in principle, and getting less and less secure in practice, as acquisition, collation, sharing, and leveraging unpermissioned information use becomes cheaper, easier, and more profitable by the day. Cryptography provides a long menu of ways entities can exchange information and interact, without sharing information that is not functionally relevant. Making those capabilities the basis for digital inter-entity trade is the only way we will get real privacy and avoid the massive predatory surveillance-manipulation-for-hire economy from continuing to metastasize. With AI driving the value and opportunity of its leverage against us ever upward. Strict laws might have been a practical solution a couple decades ago when information based services began hyperscaling the surveillance-manipulation economy. It wouldn't be a bad thing now. But those laws seem unlikely, so the technical solution is the only path forward. I don't think people really absorb how much of the value of the economy is parasitically skimmed off by the 2-sided centralized S-M business model. From consumers and ad buyers/producers. The colossal revenues of Google and Facebook to start. And how effectively that is incentivizing and funding continued growth in addictive, manipulative and dominant (through pervasiveness) "personalized" content, that will make things much worse.
ajross 9mo ago
> biometrics on phones is just another way so-called "tech" companies perform data collection ultimately to be used for commercial purposes No, sorry, that's just silly. Routine biometrics have made personal devices near-unhackable and almost un-stealable. They have turned automated password attacks into a historical memory. They are a huge boon to consumers. Yuge, even. Can they be abused? Yeah, sure. I guess everything can. But to cynically claim they have no value, or negative value, is just detached from reality.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

Nevermark 9mo ago

The only secure data is secure data. Anything else is insecure in principle, and getting less and less secure in practice, as acquisition, collation, sharing, and leveraging unpermissioned information use becomes cheaper, easier, and more profitable by the day. Cryptography provides a long menu of ways entities can exchange information and interact, without sharing information that is not functionally relevant. Making those capabilities the basis for digital inter-entity trade is the only way we will get real privacy and avoid the massive predatory surveillance-manipulation-for-hire economy from continuing to metastasize. With AI driving the value and opportunity of its leverage against us ever upward. Strict laws might have been a practical solution a couple decades ago when information based services began hyperscaling the surveillance-manipulation economy. It wouldn't be a bad thing now. But those laws seem unlikely, so the technical solution is the only path forward. I don't think people really absorb how much of the value of the economy is parasitically skimmed off by the 2-sided centralized S-M business model. From consumers and ad buyers/producers. The colossal revenues of Google and Facebook to start. And how effectively that is incentivizing and funding continued growth in addictive, manipulative and dominant (through pervasiveness) "personalized" content, that will make things much worse.

ajross 9mo ago

> biometrics on phones is just another way so-called "tech" companies perform data collection ultimately to be used for commercial purposes No, sorry, that's just silly. Routine biometrics have made personal devices near-unhackable and almost un-stealable. They have turned automated password attacks into a historical memory. They are a huge boon to consumers. Yuge, even. Can they be abused? Yeah, sure. I guess everything can. But to cynically claim they have no value, or negative value, is just detached from reality.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]