Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Secrets of Surveillance Capitalism

faz.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 78 posts

Re: Secrets of Surveillance Capitalism

#31

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

magicGLASSman wrote: post #29
wfo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting google doesn't employ people with guns? Are you suggesting google and the government are fundamentally separate entities? Are you suggesting the government does not have access to everything google has access to? And are you suggesting non-governmental agencies can't employ physical force? Like the groups of violent criminals used to destroy the pro-union movement many years ago or organized crime…

Are you suggesting that people can't use alternative services just by typing a address into their browser? Or are you saying that if you dislike your goverment polices like unjust wars or surveillance state you don't have to pay taxes for them? "children" uses ad hominem attacks. Force is great when the force is directed against dissenting views, but not so cool when your views are in the minority.

> Are you suggesting that people can't use alternative services just by typing a address into their browser?

Look up the concepts of (de facto) monopolies, network effects, and externalities.

Re: Secrets of Surveillance Capitalism

#32

Post by teekert »

driverdan wrote: post #6

> Governmental control is nothing compared to what Google is up to. Governments have guns, Google does not. I'm not saying we should ignore corporate surveillance but there is a big difference.

Also, Google is opt-in (to a degree, perhaps using Tor/blockers/anti-tracker should be called opt-out), The government presents not options.

Re: Secrets of Surveillance Capitalism

#33

Post by magicGLASSman »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #31
magicGLASSman wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that people can't use alternative services just by typing a address into their browser? Or are you saying that if you dislike your goverment polices like unjust wars or surveillance state you don't have to pay taxes for them? "children" uses ad hominem attacks. Force is great when the force is directed against dissenting views, but not so cool when your views are in the minority.

> Are you suggesting that people can't use alternative services just by typing a address into their browser? Look up the concepts of (de facto) monopolies, network effects, and externalities.

I know the concept very well. Of course their are advantages to using a service that everyone else is using, but it comes down to what you value more your privacy or the inconvenience of a smaller user group/paying a fee. I think the majority of people don't care about their privacy and would rather make that trade off right now. My core argument is that you still have a choice with free markets but with goverment if your views aren't the majority you are at the whims of group think.

Re: Secrets of Surveillance Capitalism

#34

Post by Animats »

clouddrover wrote: post #22
themartorana wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Force is the ultimate form of influence against which there is only force to stand against it. I can stop using Google products tomorrow without the need for a gun or explanation. The article is sowing some serious FUD. Everything is engaged in behavior modification. That's the basic point of products and services. Watch more/better/less/no TV. Exercise more. Eat healthier. Stand up at work. Reward yourself with a ca…

> Force is the ultimate form of influence against which there is only force to stand against it Gandhi would disagree with you. The weakness of hard power is that it is expensive, blatant in application, and virtually guaranteed to create opposition. The strength of soft power is that it is indirect while being cheaper and less likely to create resentment. People are best manipulated through suggestion rather than co…

Gandhi operated in an era before governments and businesses really had the "soft power" thing figured out.

Re: Secrets of Surveillance Capitalism

#35

Post by mirimir »

microtonal wrote: post #30
mirimir wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. More generally, governments monopolize the use of force. Against corporate surveillance, there's at least a chance of resisting. Against governments, you put your life on the line. Anyway, it's a thoughtful essay. But I'm a simple person, and I tend to prefer action to contemplation. Interfering with corporate surveillance starts with simple steps. You block tracking and ads. You harden browsers against fingerpr…

Interfering with corporate surveillance starts with simple steps. It's harder than you suggest, because all that you propose helps little with some big elephants in the room: https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-be... http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/oct/06/faceb... http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/14/iphone-address-book/ Basically, people have to start telling other people that they…

I forgot to mention that one obviously doesn't use Gmail or Facebook. Or at least, one only uses them for superficial stuff. And one has multiple personas, with non-overlapping social networks. Most of those are online-only. But some can be LARP, if you like.

It may be possible to use iOS anonymously. I have an anonymous Apple online account, and could presumably use it with used devices purchased for cash. Anyone know if that's doable?

Re: Secrets of Surveillance Capitalism

#36

Post by cronjobber »

hifier wrote: post #24
driverdan wrote: post #6

> Governmental control is nothing compared to what Google is up to. Governments have guns, Google does not. I'm not saying we should ignore corporate surveillance but there is a big difference.

The difference is not about who is more powerful. The difference is that I can choose to use DuckDuckGo instead of Google. I cannot (barring extreme measures) choose to disobey the government.

Yeah, you have the "choice"... of cutting off most of your friends, your employers and customers, and be "Google free".

Re: Secrets of Surveillance Capitalism

#37

Post by microtonal »

mirimir wrote: post #35
microtonal wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interfering with corporate surveillance starts with simple steps. It's harder than you suggest, because all that you propose helps little with some big elephants in the room: https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-be... http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/oct/06/faceb... http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/14/iphone-address-book/ Basically, people have to start telling other people that they…

I forgot to mention that one obviously doesn't use Gmail or Facebook. Or at least, one only uses them for superficial stuff. And one has multiple personas, with non-overlapping social networks. Most of those are online-only. But some can be LARP, if you like. It may be possible to use iOS anonymously. I have an anonymous Apple online account, and could presumably use it with used devices purchased for cash. Anyone kn…

I forgot to mention that one obviously doesn't use Gmail or Facebook.

Did you read the linked articles? The problem is that others use Google Mail and Facebook, so your e-mail/contact information end up at Google Mail/Facebook anyway.

The analysis of Benjamin Mako Hill shows this very aptly. Although he runs his own mail server, Google delivered 57% of the e-mails that he replied to. So, even though he does not use Google Mail at all, Google can scan/profile/whatever over half his e-mails.

Re: Secrets of Surveillance Capitalism

#38

Post by vixen99 »

kaybe wrote: post #7
geomark wrote: post #5

Interesting read. But the repeated notion that surveillance capitalists are only taking from the people by selling off the behavioral surplus omits that fact they they are providing services that those people want. Yes, appearing to be free is a subterfuge for many who don't understanding what they are giving away. But for many others they feel it is a fair exchange for services they really want.

The article is going much farther than just targeted advertising - it talks about predicting and manipulating behaviour in general, and about power, power in the political and personal, such as the question of who we are and our values. In combination with the article I read just before, the one about statehood in no-man's land, there is also the question of sovereignty raised. If our behavior can be predicted and ma…

I must admit I have no idea what you're talking about. If people behave in a predictable way then that's what they do though they are free to change, one trusts. Where is the evidence for manipulation (aside from that exhibited by all entrepreneurs from the market stall holder upwards) and to what end? Google exists by selling advertising on behalf of disparate traders; customers will therefore make choices which will change according to prevailing circumstances. Meanwhile billions of people make largely un-tracked purchases ex internet. Others are tracked and so what? Amazon and ABE Books know my tastes in literature and are welcome to push suggestions my way. If there are enough of us (like me), perhaps they'll conspire with a publisher to create a literary treasure replete with right of center (UK-style) politics, small state, free market, low tax ideas of the kind I favor. Of course I'll have no option but to buy it!

Re: Secrets of Surveillance Capitalism

#39

Post by mirimir »

microtonal wrote: post #37
mirimir wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I forgot to mention that one obviously doesn't use Gmail or Facebook. Or at least, one only uses them for superficial stuff. And one has multiple personas, with non-overlapping social networks. Most of those are online-only. But some can be LARP, if you like. It may be possible to use iOS anonymously. I have an anonymous Apple online account, and could presumably use it with used devices purchased for cash. Anyone kn…

I forgot to mention that one obviously doesn't use Gmail or Facebook. Did you read the linked articles? The problem is that others use Google Mail and Facebook, so your e-mail/contact information end up at Google Mail/Facebook anyway. The analysis of Benjamin Mako Hill shows this very aptly. Although he runs his own mail server, Google delivered 57% of the e-mails that he replied to. So, even though he does not use G…

OK, so Google knows a lot about Mirimir. And they see email that Mirimir sends to Gmail addresses. Except for mail lists, that's pretty much all encrypted. But there is the metadata, for sure.

However, I use other personas. I've had on the order of 100 email addresses, over the years. Most all now abandoned, of course. And I suspect that many of my correspondents have similar practices. That's not so easy to profile.

Re: Secrets of Surveillance Capitalism

#40

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

magicGLASSman wrote: post #33
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you suggesting that people can't use alternative services just by typing a address into their browser? Look up the concepts of (de facto) monopolies, network effects, and externalities.

I know the concept very well. Of course their are advantages to using a service that everyone else is using, but it comes down to what you value more your privacy or the inconvenience of a smaller user group/paying a fee. I think the majority of people don't care about their privacy and would rather make that trade off right now. My core argument is that you still have a choice with free markets but with goverment if…

> I think the majority of people don't care about their privacy and would rather make that trade off right now.

That depends on what you mean by that. I think most people care very much about the long-term effects that lack of privacy has on societies. They just are uninformed and therefore don't see those future costs, which is why they make a flawed tradeoff against their own interests.

> My core argument is that you still have a choice with free markets but with goverment if your views aren't the majority you are at the whims of group think.

So, if everyone is on facebook, what choice do you have in reaching an audience? If google started manipulating the opinions of the majority of society against your interests, what choice would you have? ...

Post reply on HN