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

81–90 of 264 posts

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

#81

Post by sova »

ProAm wrote: post #67
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.

Cryptography is not magic, and it will become the standard. Privacy can either be provided, demanded, or created. Since nobody wants to demand it, and it is not being provided, there is only one option.

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

#82

Post by devrandomguy »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #40
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?

"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…

Sounds to me like the GP believes in minimally constrained competition, where monopolism is one of the many undesirable constraints on their way of life. They are correctly identifying large corporations as analogous to overbearing governments. That, to me, is a classic right-wing belief, and one that I can empathize with, as a staunch Decentralist Green.

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

#83

Post by pgodzin »

Google, for instance, has a ton of data about me. They don't sell that data directly to advertisers, because if they give up that data then it loses all value to Google because the advertisers would then be able to resell it. So instead they let advertisers target specific demographics of people, leveraging what they know about me. As long as I use an adblocker and individual information isn't sold to insurers for example, what's the harm to me?

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

#84

Post by PeterisP »

Kadin wrote: post #35
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 am honestly surprised there is not more ultra-targeted advertising to either ultra-high-net-worth individuals, or to individuals in key positions within large institutions. E.g., there are ads all over the DC Metro for huge defense-sector projects, like a particular company's bid for fighter-jet engines. They're spending huge sums on these ad buys, which presumably are aimed at only a handful of people who actually…

Why do you think there isn't such advertising? For example, in B2B sales, you can and do show specific targeted ads to the IP ranges belonging to particular companies or social media accounts identified as their employees (to which you want to sell your product), you also do social media profiling of particular people before you're going to visit them, so that you can tailor sales pitches to their personalities.

It's just that this isn't done in a scalable way, but as a part of high-touch sales activity involving human salespeople.

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

#85

Post by confounded »

ProAm wrote: post #67
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.

Not really. Surveillance as the primary way essential services are paid for is, in relative terms, an extremely new business model, and one that's already adverse to meaningful competition. It's escaped regulation so far mainly as a product of public ignorance and private lobbying.

The EU and independent US states are already starting to legislate for consumer/citizen protections. The public response has generally been positive.

It's easy to forget that 'surveillance capitalism' was seen by most outside of our bubble as a trivial little industry until fairly recently.

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

#86

Post by guelo »

ProAm wrote: post #67
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.

We have representatives that are supposed to care about these types of technical issues so we don't have to. In our republican form of government their job is to make sure that government is working for us. The real problem is that billionaires and corporations have convinced a significant portion of the public that government is evil and should be destroyed and that any kind of commercial restraint is un-american communism.

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

#87

Post by matthewmacleod »

rlucas wrote: post #71
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.

No, it can be against the law merely to have (and keep) a monopoly. It is against the law to acquire, or to perpetuate, a monopoly by any combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade. Although you're quite right that the move into the browser market was a big part of the case against Microsoft, there were other pieces to that case. There was a whole bunch of work around APIs/ABIs and in particular, denying other p…

I disagree with this argument – it can be illegal to participate in uncompetitive business practices while holding a monopoly position (even when those practices would be competitive in another market) but that does not make it illegal to have a monopoly position. The parent is right - having a monopoly position in a market is not illegal.

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

#88

Post by ashark »

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.

> We simply need laws against data brokerage.

This is the right answer. Collecting, retaining, using, and selling all this crap should simply be illegal. For Google, for Amazon, for Target, for Visa. Any of 'em.

The more pragmatic libertarians ought even be on board with this, since even if they don't care about massive corporations having all this stuff, allowing its collection gives de facto access to it by the government, and you can't effectively opt out even if you take extreme measures like not communicating with anyone except over encrypted comms and not having any kind of cell phone—you are still in pictures others post to social media, for example, or mentioned in others' unencrypted messaging/email conversations, et c. Your only hope is to become a hermit, basically, which is unreasonable.

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

#89

Post by Gys »

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…

The comparison that Bruce Schneider makes is not correct.

Governments are likely to control food pathogens and airline risks because they need living, productive, happy voters.

But governments have also a fundamental distrust for all individuals and therefore want as much surveillance as possible. By allowing big companies to collect that, they have access as well.

Therefore I think governments are not motivated to improve privacy at all. On the contrary.

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

#90

Post by kerkeslager »

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…

One particularly horrifying example of this is dating. In Brooklyn where I live, dating has moved online so thoroughly that many women I've talked to simply refuse to consider men they meet in person as potential partners. It's definitely still possible to date the old fashioned way, but it's obviously more difficult. I don't date online, but I've been blessed with fairly good looks, a successful career, and decent social skills. I can definitely empathize with guys who feel they have to choose between giving up their privacy and giving up finding relationships. And that's a completely unreasonable choice.

The way we form relationships is one of the most personal parts of our lives.

Post reply on HN