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

131–140 of 264 posts

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

#131

Post by cortesoft »

hnaccy wrote: post #8

I'm already extremely pessimistic about these things. Computers were a mistake and represent the greatest threat to freedom in human history. The ability of those in power to mass produce perfectly obedient machines that can perform complex tasks without rest allow for a nightmare society. Additionally machine learning asymmetrically benefits those with the resources to fully leverage large amounts of data collection…

I can understand the fear in the abstract, but it seems like a huge jump to go to suicide as the best option.

What are 'they' going to do with the information that makes your life so miserable that not existing is preferable?

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

#132

Post by cinquemb »

Only thing people should fear are the downside risks of submitting themselves and becoming reliant upon walled gardens, people in mass only give such their power… perhaps most have decided that the convenience of such gardens are worth it for now.

The mass surveillance/advertising state runs on abundant and prevalent hardware and software full of flaws that can be used in favor for those who seek to exploit such, from nation states, to well financed actors, to individuals.

The common man has less to loose, than an general's affair with his aid conducted over gmail… and hey, when you are a relative nobody in a society, whats sitting on a couple of iOS 0days from your dev exp, waiting for a better day? I guess succumbing to fear porn from our best institutions is an option…

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

#133

Post by Dirlewanger »

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 like using the example of your healthcare premium rising ever-so-slightly when you make questionable decisions like buying a 6-pack of beer. All the data has been collected, it's now just a matter of legislatures/corporate lobbyists passing the right laws.

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

#134

Post by nocman »

jack6e wrote: post #68
nocman wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah I knew someone would come back with that -- but that's only true if you tie a very strict one-to-one meaning between every use of the verb "accept" and the adjective "acceptable".

Words have subtle meanings. If you paid attention to my post, I was clearly drawing a line between the fact that people accept the fact that they really don't have a good alternative to using, say, Google. But they may not find it acceptable that Google data mines their searches to sell their info to advertisers.

So while they "accept" their situation, they clearly don't find it "acceptable". Much as you might accept the fact that you have to work for a boss who is a jerk, because you have no other employment options. So you don't find the situation acceptable, but you have to accept it anyway.

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

#135

Post by newscracker »

I'm dejected by two things - that privacy invasions are increasing over time and that there's barely any outrage (or outrage that lasts) against these. I feel more and more trapped when I see that most people I know don't care about privacy on the Internet or Internet based services. I point them to how it could be bad for them (including Martin Fowler's excellent article, "Privacy protects bothersome people" [1]), but it all falls on deaf ears. Or they shrug their shoulders in defeat saying it's a lost cause and that it's better not even to think about it.

I'm truly stumped, and can't imagine what tragic event or events will wake people up and get them to take action at a personal level, along with organizing and campaigning for privacy. As of now, I doubt if there will ever be a mass resistance for several decades (leaving the gates wide open for more invasions and power grabs).

[1]: https://www.martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.htm...

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

#136

Post by acobster »

j_s wrote: post #7

One resource I haven't seen mentioned on HN much: Michael Bazzell is an expert on both sides of internet privacy. https://privacy-training.com/ vs. https://inteltechniques.com/ "Hiding from the Internet" vs. "Open Source Intelligence Techniques" https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Bazzell/e/B007GNUI92/ "The Complete Privacy & Security Podcast" (42 episodes so far) https://inteltechniques.com/podcast.html

Definitely interested in that podcast, but I must say I find it ironic that they're running JS from Google Analytics and Scorecard Research. :D

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

#137

Post by alsetmusic »

nxsynonym wrote: post #129
794CD01 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to think "more logging/transparency never hurts" until you actually try it out and see how much data you get that you don't really care about. The EU cookie law is nothing but an annoyance already - making it even more laborious and universal is not going to help anyone. It'd basically be EULAs everywhere.

I see your point - I was thinking more along the lines of a directory of sorts that would show recent data purchases, partnerships, etc. It's too easy to hide your true intentions behind generic EULAs that are inundated with lawyer speak.

Perhaps if companies that collect and share data were required to maintain a list of their transactions, press release style? Statements could be generalized such that it is understood how all users were affected collectively by a particular decision. It might be a workable middle ground.

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

#138

Post by Communitivity »

svachalek wrote: post #115
nxsynonym wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the crux of the whole privacy issue for me. I understand there is way too much money in advertising, and therefore data collection, to ever go away. What I want in an ideal world is transparency. If I opt-in to using web services that collect + sell my browsing data, I want to know what data is collected, how much, and who it is sold to and for what. Then I can make an informed decision about the services I'm…

Ideally instead of a wall of text preceding the use of a service, or even worse hidden away somewhere under a fine-print footer link, I'd like to see services have to do something like this: "You've just entered some search text. May we store this text and future search queries? [ ] yes, anonymously to help suggest searches for other users [ ] yes, along with your user name to help refine future searches, and to impr…

This is on the right track. I'd like to see it go farther though. Each of these pieces of information has value of X to an advertiser. Flip the relationship management, so vendors treat their users as content producers, and pay some fraction of X to access the user's information. This would need better trust technologies, but is the right path. It's the path groups like the Project VRM folks at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society are working toward, and ties in to Cory Doctorow's concept of Whuffie. Also ties into my concept of Communitivity enhancing software technologies - technologies that help people do community.

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

#139

Post by BenjiWiebe »

gramakri wrote: post #61
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.

For one thing, security cameras don't follow you around, and are generally poor quality images and possibly slow frame rate. I'd rather be watched through security cameras than through a movie camera following me around.

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

#140

Post by kiliantics »

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…

> Perhaps we need to see what Google and Facebook actually have on us...

A great approach to spreading awareness is doing exactly this. There are groups like the one linked below who have been staging immersive theatre pieces which simulate a scenario where a devious actor has gained access to your data. And they do this with the audience's actual social media data (voluntarily given and erased after the show) so that the implications really hit home to them.

https://quantifiedselfless.tumblr.com/

Post reply on HN