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

When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

news.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 264 posts

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#61

Post by gramakri »

grondilu wrote: post #39

Can someone explain to me why this so-called "privacy" is such a big deal on internet? Can't internet, or at least a major part of it, be considered a public place? I mean, when I walk in the street, I do not wear a mask (I suspect that'd be illegal in my country), yet I do not worry about someone using surveillance cameras to track all my activities. Sure, it could technically be done but I'm not that important : no…

> yet I do not worry about someone using surveillance cameras to track all my activities

I find this hard to believe. If someone followed me around video taping what you do, I would be so self-conscious that I will stop having a good time.

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#62

Post by dhimes »

amelius wrote: post #22
benbenolson wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps this is a good reason to have some sort of technocracy element to the federal government. I lean extremely far right, but in this case, this seems like one of the few things that the federal government should be doing-- breaking up stout monopolies that can't be competed with. I'm unfamiliar with the decision, but why split up a company like Microsoft in 1999, but leave Facebook and Google alone?

We simply need laws against data brokerage. And prohibit ad-based monetization on services with >100M users.

I'm ok with ads. I don't like tracking.

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#63

Post by dragonwriter »

pmoriarty wrote: post #52
richardwhiuk wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not against the law to have a monopoly - it's against the law to exploit having a monopoly to enter another market. Microsoft was seen to be exploiting it's consumer OS market share to gain a monopoly in the browser market and the productivity software market, AIUI.

"It's not against the law to have a monopoly - it's against the law to exploit having a monopoly to enter another market." What about the breakup of Ma Bell?

The breakup was a settlement of an anti-trust lawsuit over them leveraging their handset hardware monopoly to subsidize network costs so as to protect their telephone service monopoly, IIRC.

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#64

Post by sageikosa »

benbenolson wrote: post #11
carrier_lost wrote: post #5

I appreciate Bruce Schneier's pragmatism and his acknowledgement that the problem is bigger than an individual can reasonably be expected to solve, if that individual wishes to participate in modern society. Too often, privacy concerns are met with, "Use Tails + Tor + a hosts file + a burner phone + a burner laptop, etc. etc." But Grandma isn't going to do that, and frankly neither am I. While an individual chooses t…

Perhaps this is a good reason to have some sort of technocracy element to the federal government. I lean extremely far right, but in this case, this seems like one of the few things that the federal government should be doing-- breaking up stout monopolies that can't be competed with. I'm unfamiliar with the decision, but why split up a company like Microsoft in 1999, but leave Facebook and Google alone?

Microsoft wasn't split. It was informed that they could only do so much product integration.

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#65

Post by drdaeman »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #10

I once asked Bruce Schneier at a conference to scare me. He told me to consider the associations between data. Bits and pieces that Google knows about me, that Facebook knows about me, that Amazon knows about me...think of all of those little meaningless bits of data being associated all together to build a picture perfect model of my life, and then sold to advertisers, who know enough about your life to attempt to m…

I gave it a thought and decided that I'm not afraid about the data that I know that others know (or may know) about me.

Well, based on the fact seeing any actually helpful advertisement is an extremely rare occasion (just my experience), which usually requires explicit training of a suggestion engine with multiple rephrased queries explaining what I want to see, I'd say either they don't know any much, or the association part is not yet here. Not that it matters, though - that could change in future.

What I'm actually afraid is that there is some data I'm not even aware others know about me. Or, more specifically, data I don't want others to know about me, that could've somehow leaked despite lack of my consent or even me being informed.

E.g. I know that my phone sends various data to the third parties, that I've authorized it to send. I've evaluated it and had actually decided that I'm OK with the pros/cons. However, if, for example, that phone somehow eavesdrops and sends an audio stream that I've never consented to share - that would be scary.

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#66

Post by richmarr »

pmoriarty wrote: post #52
richardwhiuk wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not against the law to have a monopoly - it's against the law to exploit having a monopoly to enter another market. Microsoft was seen to be exploiting it's consumer OS market share to gain a monopoly in the browser market and the productivity software market, AIUI.

"It's not against the law to have a monopoly - it's against the law to exploit having a monopoly to enter another market." What about the breakup of Ma Bell?

> What about the breakup of Ma Bell?

"AT&T was, at the time, the sole provider of telephone service throughout most of the United States. Furthermore, most telephonic equipment in the United States was produced by its subsidiary, Western Electric. This vertical integration led AT&T to have almost total control over communication technology in the country, which led to the antitrust case, United States v. AT&T. The plaintiff in the court complaint asked the court to order AT&T to divest ownership of Western Electric"

i.e. AT&T used its network monopoly to maintain control over hardware manufacture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#67

Post by ProAm »

Chardok wrote: post #60

"Opting out doesn’t work. It’s nonsense to tell people not to carry a credit card or not to have an email address. And “buyer beware” is putting too much onus on the individual. People don’t test their food for pathogens or their airlines for safety." This is a brilliant line and it works so well because he is absolutely right: it should not be on the burden of the consumer to make sure their products are safe, be it…

> but privacy needs to be a mainstream political issue

Honestly most people don't care and money talks... This is the new normal, better get used to it. This fight was lost a long time ago.

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#68

Post by jack6e »

nocman wrote: post #32
komali2 wrote: post #12

They caught me at line 1 with a curious thought: >and have grudgingly accepted that being monitored by corporations and even governments is just a fact of modern life. I wonder which is the more "shocking" or "surprising" that society deems it acceptable - monitoring by corporations, or monitoring by governments?

Just because people have accepted something doesn't mean they deem it "acceptable". When your choices are "use a service and be monitored" or "don't use the service", it can be quite limiting if you really need that service to, say, do your job and feed your family. Yes I know there are alternative services, but often they either 1) don't work well enough to really be a viable alternative and/or 2) don't provide any…

> Just because people have accepted something doesn't mean they deem it "acceptable".

Actually, that is exactly, literally what it means. Perhaps you mean that just because we find something acceptable, we don't deem it moral, or optimal, or desirable. The distressing reality presented in the interview is that we accept non-benevolent, non-ideal options because they are good enough to be accepted, and not bad enough to be rejected. But accepting something, by definition, means you consider it accept-able, or, "able to be accepted."

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#69

Post by SimbaOnSteroids »

Kadin wrote: post #15
benbenolson wrote: post #4

The difficult part isn't getting people to understand that Internet privacy is important or at risk; nearly every person that I know (tech-savvy or not) understands that companies like Google and Facebook are in the business of collecting their data, and don't want them to. However, companies like these have human habit on their side: most people use these services daily, and will continue doing so unless it's easier…

It's worth remembering how Facebook got to the userbase that it currently has -- they didn't start out targeting "everyone on the planet", which is an almost impossibly hard challenge because of the network effects you note. Instead, they started off providing closed social networks for existing groups of users -- colleges, starting with a small number of elite colleges and slowly broadening out from there -- until e…

I think discord has better potential to be the next social media juggernaut, I know most of my social media interaction goes through discord. As our lives move more and more online discord seems to be the digital equivalent of the roman forums and I appreciate the ability to jump into a conversation with my friends in the same way I would IRL.

Mostly I appreciate the ability to be parts of different groups, the ease with which you can join groups, and the fact that you can host your own friend group. I realize this isn't Discord's mission statement or intent but it is a position they find themselves in.

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#70

Post by zanny »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #53
lowbloodsugar wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I lean extremely far right, but in this case, this seems like one of the few things that the federal government should be doing-- breaking up stout monopolies that can't be competed with." Doesn't sound like you are far right at all then. I'm wondering if we're actually a good judge of our own political leaning. I think that I'm libertarian (little 'l'), but Facebook ad policy thinks I'm far left . Maybe Facebook kn…

Spot on. The test at https://www.politicalcompass.org/ works reasonably well.

That test was accurate in pinning what I do believe my political leanings are, but the questions were awful and loaded. In the surrounding exposition and in the questions themselves the authors demonstrate what I believe to be a staunch leftist / progressive leaning. A lot of questions I read thinking "just because of how they worded this I have to say X because they are making an absolutionist statement on something I'm not absolutionist about".
Post reply on HN