4 ms·

> data's collected primarily to build better products That's may be true today, but one of features that distinguishes modern forms of surveillance from what w

by pdkl95 12y ago

> data's collected primarily to build better products That's may be true today, but one of features that distinguishes modern forms of surveillance from what was possible in the past is that truly massive amounts of data can now be stored "forever"[1]. Google itself may change what it wants to do with its data in the future. Worse, the fact that data was captured at all means it will be available for a subpoena or "national security letter" and Google will have little say in what happens to the data. [1] the value of "forever" generally varies by the size of the available budget, which is "large enough" in the case of nation-states and companies the size of Google (or Apple)

nostrademons 12y ago
So I'm not here to say whether or not people's fears are justified. I don't know; I can't predict the future either. There have certainly been ample cases where a belief that was true of Google management once was not true the next year. The original question posed, though, was "Why do people at Google/Facebook/NSA continue to collect all this data? What's their purpose?", which I think I answered. While it may not be true in 10 years, it's true now. Also, I think that the sheer pace of change today may insulate a lot of people from the consequences of having data available on them. The data may be out there - but by the time it gets into the wrong hands, it no longer reflects reality, which makes it largely useless. That guy who talks about having his dick sucked by sororisluts [1] may, in a couple years, be the guy with 200 million users whose company you desperately want to invest in. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/28/confirmed-snapchats-evan-spiegel-is-kind-of-an-ass/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/28/confirmed-snapchats-evan-sp...
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Combine google profiles, facebook and 23andme and I think that the data will have repercussions even beyond the lives of those directly addressed by it.
sneak 12y ago
Forget about today. How many Google SREs are NSA assets today? It's not about why you collect the data. It's that a massive database of such information exists. The intent in mind when building a system has no jurisdiction over the potential uses later. If the NSA wants the data and it's inside of a US-jurisdiction entity, they will get it. Period. Maybe they NSL some people with legitimate access and make sure they know they go to federal if they let their boss find out. Maybe they recruit some SREs. Maybe they blackmail the night watchman in the building that holds the equipment that has the dark fiber L2 encryption keys so that they can get the inter-datacenter link monitoring going again. It doesn't matter what people intended when they built it. The fact is that it exists and the men with guns and a money printing press want it. Game over.
- pekk 12y ago
  Do you mean assets, or employees? There is a difference... normally the word "asset" is used to refer to people who are recruited and run for human intelligence purposes ("spies"), e.g. using payouts or blackmail - for example, there is no health insurance which comes with being a CIA "asset," while a CIA employee even under non-official cover does have benefits.

by pdkl95 12y ago

nostrademons 12y ago

So I'm not here to say whether or not people's fears are justified. I don't know; I can't predict the future either. There have certainly been ample cases where a belief that was true of Google management once was not true the next year. The original question posed, though, was "Why do people at Google/Facebook/NSA continue to collect all this data? What's their purpose?", which I think I answered. While it may not be true in 10 years, it's true now. Also, I think that the sheer pace of change today may insulate a lot of people from the consequences of having data available on them. The data may be out there - but by the time it gets into the wrong hands, it no longer reflects reality, which makes it largely useless. That guy who talks about having his dick sucked by sororisluts [1] may, in a couple years, be the guy with 200 million users whose company you desperately want to invest in. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/28/confirmed-snapchats-evan-spiegel-is-kind-of-an-ass/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/28/confirmed-snapchats-evan-sp...

jacquesm 12y ago
Combine google profiles, facebook and 23andme and I think that the data will have repercussions even beyond the lives of those directly addressed by it.

sneak 12y ago

Forget about today. How many Google SREs are NSA assets today? It's not about why you collect the data. It's that a massive database of such information exists. The intent in mind when building a system has no jurisdiction over the potential uses later. If the NSA wants the data and it's inside of a US-jurisdiction entity, they will get it. Period. Maybe they NSL some people with legitimate access and make sure they know they go to federal if they let their boss find out. Maybe they recruit some SREs. Maybe they blackmail the night watchman in the building that holds the equipment that has the dark fiber L2 encryption keys so that they can get the inter-datacenter link monitoring going again. It doesn't matter what people intended when they built it. The fact is that it exists and the men with guns and a money printing press want it. Game over.

pekk 12y ago
Do you mean assets, or employees? There is a difference... normally the word "asset" is used to refer to people who are recruited and run for human intelligence purposes ("spies"), e.g. using payouts or blackmail - for example, there is no health insurance which comes with being a CIA "asset," while a CIA employee even under non-official cover does have benefits.