3 ms·

When it comes to damage-reduction, I think the most immediate step going forward that can be done on the side of the private sector is to stop collecting, as mu

When it comes to damage-reduction, I think the most immediate step going forward that can be done on the side of the private sector is to stop collecting, as much as possible, extensive profiles on people, especially profiles that are, or easily can be, tied to their real identity. For those of us who aren't doing so ourselves, we can pressure companies not to do so, either those we work for, or those we interact with as customers. This can either mean not collecting profiles at all, collecting limited ones only as needed, and/or collecting them tied to pseudonyms rather than making use of real-names mandatory or default. I realize it can be commercially valuable to have such profiles when it comes to things like targeting ads or financial instruments, but on the whole I think the damage such data can do, if it exists, outweighs that justification. To take a concrete example, the side of the internal Google+ "nymwars" who were against the real-name requirement were right. Of course, we should also work to keep corporate and government data collection separate. But I fear that will be a longer-term struggle, in which case an avenue to pursue simultaneously is to minimize corporate data-collection.

youngerdryas 13y ago
>I think the most immediate step going forward that can be done on the side of the private sector is to stop collecting, as much as possible, extensive profiles on people, especially profiles that are, or easily can be, tied to their real identity. So Google and Facebook should commit Seppuku?
- _delirium 13y ago
  Google has been making large profits since long before Google+ even existed. There's probably some incremental value in having real-name profiles tied to data, but there's very large incremental harm as well, such that adding such functionality is net-negative for society. A large number of Googlers have made a similar argument, which is why the real-name policy was so controversial; the argument was already pretty strong before the NSA revelations, and is only stronger now. Facebook is a trickier case. Their business model may simply be incompatible with a non-surveillance society.
  - physicslover 13y ago
    I think the original idea of elimination of the collection of all private or personal information by all companies is a bit extreme. From what we have learned, these programs are quite broad involving everyone from banking institutions to ISPs and telecoms. Should banks do their business without knowing anything a about you, same for credit reporting agencies? Maybe, but that would be quite a shift from the way things are done today. Also, I thought it was common knowledge that some type of digital surveillance has been going on for some time. My recollection is that the FBI was able to gain access to ISPs and use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software) to track emails. If an individual is concerned with privacy they should probably take matters into their own hands and use encryption, cash, bitcoin and other tools to protect their identity and leave as little private information online as possible.
jpdoctor 13y ago
I think a better approach would be client-side: Something like a browser extension for identity rotation, for one example. I also suspect Tor-for-the-masses has a larger chance of becoming a reality. Presumably, VCs are now wringing their hands over the money to be made in the newfound software industry of identity obfuscation. I'm sure all of this has the NSA folks whining and moaning, to which I'd have to point out: You made your bed.
maxerickson 13y ago
It's anyway all a side issue. A tidy personal history and limited data collection provide some flimsy bulwark against petty tyranny. They don't do anything against arbitrary tyranny. The solution to tyranny is to build robust and open societies and to spread those values. Not open societies in the sense of transparency, open societies in the sense that people are not attacked for who they are or for the choices they make (transparency is often a useful tool, it just isn't in itself any sort of sensible goal). And I don't mean that simple personal steps are futile, I just think there is a larger picture to consider (and direct energy towards!).

youngerdryas 13y ago

>I think the most immediate step going forward that can be done on the side of the private sector is to stop collecting, as much as possible, extensive profiles on people, especially profiles that are, or easily can be, tied to their real identity. So Google and Facebook should commit Seppuku?

_delirium 13y ago
Google has been making large profits since long before Google+ even existed. There's probably some incremental value in having real-name profiles tied to data, but there's very large incremental harm as well, such that adding such functionality is net-negative for society. A large number of Googlers have made a similar argument, which is why the real-name policy was so controversial; the argument was already pretty strong before the NSA revelations, and is only stronger now. Facebook is a trickier case. Their business model may simply be incompatible with a non-surveillance society.
- physicslover 13y ago
  I think the original idea of elimination of the collection of all private or personal information by all companies is a bit extreme. From what we have learned, these programs are quite broad involving everyone from banking institutions to ISPs and telecoms. Should banks do their business without knowing anything a about you, same for credit reporting agencies? Maybe, but that would be quite a shift from the way things are done today. Also, I thought it was common knowledge that some type of digital surveillance has been going on for some time. My recollection is that the FBI was able to gain access to ISPs and use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software) to track emails. If an individual is concerned with privacy they should probably take matters into their own hands and use encryption, cash, bitcoin and other tools to protect their identity and leave as little private information online as possible.

jpdoctor 13y ago

I think a better approach would be client-side: Something like a browser extension for identity rotation, for one example. I also suspect Tor-for-the-masses has a larger chance of becoming a reality. Presumably, VCs are now wringing their hands over the money to be made in the newfound software industry of identity obfuscation. I'm sure all of this has the NSA folks whining and moaning, to which I'd have to point out: You made your bed.

maxerickson 13y ago

It's anyway all a side issue. A tidy personal history and limited data collection provide some flimsy bulwark against petty tyranny. They don't do anything against arbitrary tyranny. The solution to tyranny is to build robust and open societies and to spread those values. Not open societies in the sense of transparency, open societies in the sense that people are not attacked for who they are or for the choices they make (transparency is often a useful tool, it just isn't in itself any sort of sensible goal). And I don't mean that simple personal steps are futile, I just think there is a larger picture to consider (and direct energy towards!).