Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent • Hacker News Board

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#91

Post by umvi » Fri, May 31, 2019, 6:20 PM UTC

noxToken wrote: post #82

umvi wrote: post #71

Is this personally identifiable? I don't see any issue with collecting and selling anonymized observations. It would be like police setting up cameras and using them to train a machine learning model on drunk driver detection. It's not collecting who is driving, just observing how normal cars subtly drift in and out of a lane and brake vs. intoxicated drifting/braking and using that to train a DUI detection model.

The true test is if the anonymized data can be filtered and cross-referenced in a way to still link back to people[0]. [0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-privacy/anonymous-...

You can always de-anonymize data given enough resources so that argument seems bogus.

Anonymous data: Red car observed on Dawn Road at 23:34 on May 31 2019. DUI predictor - likely sober. Speed - 53 mph.

Can this information be de-anonymized? Sure can!

Police: "The suspect fled 7-11 Around 23:30 and either went on Dawn Road or Lost Haven Road. Let's filter all red car observation events that happened that night between 23:30 and 23:40 on Dawn and Lost Haven. Yup, found him"

So you are saying we have to scrub it further? You end up removing all information until there is nothing left.

"car observed on May 31"

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#92

Post by JohnFen » Fri, May 31, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #71

Is this personally identifiable? I don't see any issue with collecting and selling anonymized observations. It would be like police setting up cameras and using them to train a machine learning model on drunk driver detection. It's not collecting who is driving, just observing how normal cars subtly drift in and out of a lane and brake vs. intoxicated drifting/braking and using that to train a DUI detection model.

> I don't see any issue with collecting and selling anonymized observations.

In this day and age when correlating and analyzing data from a wide variety of sources is commonplace, the only effectively "anonymized" data is data that has been discarded.

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#93

Post by _hl_ » Fri, May 31, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #81

marmada wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think their consent is an outlier. Most users are somewhat ok with selling their data in exchange for free services. I mean I use Gmail, Google Search, Google Maps, etc. etc. knowing they hoover up my data because, in the end, I value the ability to have these services for free more than I care about Google's ability to collect useful statistics about me/its users.

> Most users are somewhat ok with selling their data in exchange for free services. I'm far from convinced that this is true. Most users don't actually know the extent to which their data is being collected. I suspect that a large percentage of people, if they were informed (and believed it), would object mightily.

I think it's far more likely that people don't want to know. By now I think most people are aware that their privacy is being violated, but feel powerless to do anything and don't want to resist the temptations of using addictive social media etc. They pity themselves for it, and try to ignore that it's a problem.

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#94

Post by umvi » Fri, May 31, 2019, 6:24 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #92

umvi wrote: post #71

Is this personally identifiable? I don't see any issue with collecting and selling anonymized observations. It would be like police setting up cameras and using them to train a machine learning model on drunk driver detection. It's not collecting who is driving, just observing how normal cars subtly drift in and out of a lane and brake vs. intoxicated drifting/braking and using that to train a DUI detection model.

> I don't see any issue with collecting and selling anonymized observations. In this day and age when correlating and analyzing data from a wide variety of sources is commonplace, the only effectively "anonymized" data is data that has been discarded.

Right so you are basically saying companies/governments should not be able to make generic observations about anything involving people in any way without their consent because it is impossible to have truly anonymous data.

I don't know if I agree with that.

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#95

Post by mediocrejoker » Fri, May 31, 2019, 6:25 PM UTC

Dig1t wrote: post #87

idlewords wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of reliability problems with Maine internet because lobsters keep snipping the cable.

I don't know what this site has against jokes, but you can have my upvote.

The site guidelines are here https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Jokes aren't explicitly against the guidelines either, but I think the site likes to emphasize high quality content that will not alienate people who don't understand obscure references.

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#96

Post by rapind » Fri, May 31, 2019, 6:25 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #85

rapind wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's rife with bad actors due to a lack of regulation. And even the good actors are kind of forced to be bad actors in order to compete. Lacking better regulation it's just a horrible business model for consumers, with really no exceptions since anyone who plays nice will ultimately lose out to less scrupulous players.

> And even the good actors This sounds like snark, but I don't intend it that way. I genuinely want to know. Who are the good actors? I really can't see any.

I naively consider(ed?) Google a good actor. I still kind of buy that they want to be at least. I'm sure others think differently though and I'm definitely not going to defend them. (Android, Dragonfly)

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#97

Post by JohnFen » Fri, May 31, 2019, 6:25 PM UTC

yeukhon wrote: post #32

asark wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should ban collecting tons if info about people, for all companies, period. We won't, because banks and CC companies are very into doing that and the politicians love them, but we should.

No. Because many businesses rely on data available. FAANG would be out of business then.

Businesses relying on collecting data without explicit permission should go out of business.

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#98

Post by QualityReboot » Fri, May 31, 2019, 6:25 PM UTC

johndubchak wrote: post #79

rapind wrote: post #61

I can predict the "Dark Patterns" right now. Giant Accept button and 6pt font opt-out link.

You assume they put an opt-out link on the button and not have it buried in either the Terms of Service, a customer request or an entirely separate EULA.

Just mail a letter to this PO box and we'll have your information removed in 8-12 weeks with no way to verify we did it!

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#99

Post by JohnFen » Fri, May 31, 2019, 6:26 PM UTC

rndgermandude wrote: post #64

yeukhon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Because many businesses rely on data available. FAANG would be out of business then.

AAN actually sell stuff other than hyper-targeted ads. F and G (and AAN) still can sell ads, just less targeted ones. They would suffer a bit (or a bit more), but not outright be forced out of business. And same goes for most if not all other FAANG-tier companies not explicitly included in that acronym. As for the "improving service" angle, e.g. Netflix could ask if it's OK to collect history to improve/personalize r…

> Netflix could ask if it's OK to collect history to improve/personalize recommendations.

If they ask for the data for that purpose, then they should only be allowed to use the data for that purpose.

Re: Maine passes bill to prevent ISPs from selling browsing data without consent

#100

Post by JohnFen » Fri, May 31, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #94

JohnFen wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see any issue with collecting and selling anonymized observations. In this day and age when correlating and analyzing data from a wide variety of sources is commonplace, the only effectively "anonymized" data is data that has been discarded.

Right so you are basically saying companies/governments should not be able to make generic observations about anything involving people in any way without their consent because it is impossible to have truly anonymous data. I don't know if I agree with that.

No, I'm not saying that.

It is possible, for instance, to collect individual data, tally up certain characteristics in the aggregate, then discard the individual data points and only keep the aggregate statistics.

With certain narrow exceptions, though, no data about me personally should be collected without my explicit permission regardless.