When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by clarkmoody » Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 8:53 PM UTC

zpghjll wrote: post #175

clarkmoody wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> privacy needs to be a mainstream political issue No way. The political process will not produce a workable, sustainable, reasonable solution. The only way that privacy becomes important to existing large companies is if their users demand it -- and leave for competitors if they don't get it. I'm afraid that average people don't understand why privacy is important, and it will take a change in cultural mindset to im…

The political process should represent the will of the people and find solutions that represent the will of the people. The free market is not necessarily the best solution because it is arguable that we don't really live in a free market; consumers aren't all that educated or rational. The problem is that companies will find ways to subvert their users into thinking privacy is not important. They already have a larg…

I do not share your faith in democracy :-) At best, the government represents the will of a voting majority and imposes it upon the rest of the population. So what you really have is minority rule.

Look at public funding for science, NASA budget, etc to see the "will of the people" in action on technical topics.

> consumers aren't all that educated or rational

Be that as it may, I would rather make decisions for myself than have them made on my behalf, "for my own good," by someone who doesn't know me and whom I will never meet.

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

#192

Post by specialist » Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 8:56 PM UTC

Gys wrote: post #89

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 i…

Furthermore, since corporations are not subject to FOIA, governments routinely outsource to avoid transparency, accountability, oversight, responsibility, etc.

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

#193

Post by Zarath » Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 8:57 PM UTC

savanaly wrote: post #153

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…

>I don't know what needs to happen for people to get outraged, but privacy needs to be a mainstream political issue. Almost totally orthogonal to discussions about how bad lack of privacy is getting, but the answer to the question posed is certainly any tangibly bad results of lack of privacy in my everyday life, ever . Which there really are none, so far. Certainly none that the average person would attribute to lac…

The consequences are distributed over a long period of time, whereas the convenience of ignoring privacy is very tangible and immediate.

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

#194

Post by specialist » Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 8:59 PM UTC

clarkmoody wrote: post #191

zpghjll wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The political process should represent the will of the people and find solutions that represent the will of the people. The free market is not necessarily the best solution because it is arguable that we don't really live in a free market; consumers aren't all that educated or rational. The problem is that companies will find ways to subvert their users into thinking privacy is not important. They already have a larg…

I do not share your faith in democracy :-) At best, the government represents the will of a voting majority and imposes it upon the rest of the population. So what you really have is minority rule. Look at public funding for science, NASA budget, etc to see the "will of the people" in action on technical topics. > consumers aren't all that educated or rational Be that as it may, I would rather make decisions for myse…

Have you lobbied? Testified? Met with any of your legislators, representatives, councilmembers? Other forms of participation?

Voting is the smallest part of democracy.

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

#195

Post by amelius » Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 9:04 PM UTC

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...

I'm still curious about the worst case. What are some doom scenarios?

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

#196

Post by Rotareti » Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 9:31 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #195

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... I'm still curious about the worst case. What are some doom scenarios?

Orwell 1984

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

#197

Post by igravious » Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 9:38 PM UTC

KSteffensen wrote: post #178

ballenf wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we've all seen the story over and over: populist politician gets in power and forgets everything. They start to sacrifice principles in return for staying in power in order to ostensibly do the right thing later. But later never comes. So, maybe theoretically we can influence, but understanding the nature of what a self-interested, pragmatic government beaurocrat values is incredibly important. I think the pa…

Elect the parliament by lottery. 4 years of service if you get drafted, replace 25% of seats per year. Would be far more representative of the people than current way and less susceptible to populism. People often think I'm joking when I propose this but I haven't heard a good argument against it yet.

If jury duty is random why not political duty? I think your idea (is it your idea?) deserves a lot of attention. Maybe 2 years of service. 4 is a lot. That combined with Swiss-style direct democracy would go a long way I feel. And universal basic income.

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

#198

Post by pronik » Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 9:43 PM UTC

One point that I think comes too short in every discussion on privacy is that you are not always in control of your data and you never can be fully.

Say we consider a privacy-paranoid individual who is taking great care not to put his personal data online. And then we take a look at his or her parents or friends or colleagues who most certainly will keep his or her real name bundled with phone number(s) and (e-mail) address(es) in their address book synced to their Google or Apple or Microsoft account. It just happens, there is only so much you can do about it. Your data is out there and it's only the question of the security measures the data holder implemented that's keeping it safe.

(Basically, it's nothing new, many people have your data, but possibly only in the "offline world" -- think insurance, prospective or current employers, even your go-to car repair guy. It's just that we normally have a law for protecting the offline data and ways to enforce it and almost nothing alike in the online world.)

Privacy is something that has to be enforced on a population, and not simply recommended to an individual. The only institution that can reasonably do that is the government, by introducing data protection laws, abiding by them and allowing a third-party to verify they really keep their promise. Until then, we might not have a choice.

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

#199

Post by nebabyte » Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 9:47 PM UTC

zpghjll wrote: post #175

clarkmoody wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> privacy needs to be a mainstream political issue No way. The political process will not produce a workable, sustainable, reasonable solution. The only way that privacy becomes important to existing large companies is if their users demand it -- and leave for competitors if they don't get it. I'm afraid that average people don't understand why privacy is important, and it will take a change in cultural mindset to im…

The political process should represent the will of the people and find solutions that represent the will of the people. The free market is not necessarily the best solution because it is arguable that we don't really live in a free market; consumers aren't all that educated or rational. The problem is that companies will find ways to subvert their users into thinking privacy is not important. They already have a larg…

> should

Being the operative word. If you wish to pretend America's political process can approximate a hypothetical ideal on paper you're lying to yourself.

Until campaign finance regulations are back in place (the FECA amendments in the 70s would be a good starting point), until parties are wrested away from being the nigh-privatized dichotomy that led to the latest election's outcome, until the revolving door between government and the private sector is stopped, none of the rifts between that hypothetical and reality will be mended, because they are all symptoms of those key issues.

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

#200

Post by gerbilly » Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 9:50 PM UTC

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…

There is I think, they just use lobbyists and direct personal influence instead.