The Fantasy of Opting Out • Hacker News Board

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#121

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 2:56 PM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #19

Altheasy wrote: post #11

The author: Privacy does not mean stopping the flow of data; it means channeling it wisely and justly to serve societal ends and values and the individuals who are its subjects, particularly the vulnerable and the disadvantaged. You are wrong, privacy mean stopping the flow of the data completely. No one should spy on your life.

No one should spy on your life. Absolute statements are always wrong. ;) The problem with this way of thinking is that it's very hard to define what 'spying' is, and what 'your life' is. This is best illustrated with an example - when you read this comment you'll have loaded a page on HN. That means HN's server probably has a log of your IP address, browser agent string, etc. There's a complete history of every artic…

>> No one should spy on your life.

That actually sounds as a pretty straightforward, self-explanatory request. I don't see where the confusion arises.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#122

Post by d3nj4l » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 2:56 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #78

d3nj4l wrote: post #63

This article talks about the cost of opting out, but doesn't go into some of the more insidious ways in which companies have made it harder and harder to do so. I recently opened the Downloads app on my new Mi phone only to find a notice asking me to grant authorization to Xiami to "... collect, process and use [my] personal data" in order to use the app[1]. Why does a basic downloads app need to gather and analyze m…

> Why can't I use a version of the app that doesn't collect that data Because that particular developer hasn’t chosen to offer you that deal. If you don’t like the deal vendor X is offering, don’t use vendor X. Particularly in the case of a phone app, you tend to have a lot of choice. If vendor Y provides you a deal you like better, why not use them? You might find that vendors who offer those terms might bundle them…

The linked article is literally about why your reasoning doesn't pan out.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#123

Post by ensignavenger » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

bananatron wrote: post #44

In Germany recording folks without their consent is illegal (or at least not admissible in courts) in many contexts. It is possible to build incentives that don't lead towards mass surveillance.

Do stores there not use security cameras? Or is a sign at the door considered consent?

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#124

Post by whatshisface » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 3:03 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #115

I'm very pessimistic about all this. It seems to me that the horse has already bolted: we are all under constant surveilance and there is not much we can do about it at all. Many of us don't even think it's a problem and even many who do think it is don't want to lose the benefits that are attached to the constant automated surveilance. As citizens of democratic countries we have uttely failed to protect our rights a…

History has consistently shown that the rights tend to arise after the violations, not the other way around. The Magna Carta was written in response to an awful king, the FDA was established as a response to widespread problems with people getting poisoned, slavery wasn't abolished until millenia after it was invented, and labor organization (leading to such modern niceties as the 40 hour week) did not arise until well after the industrial revolution. Give it time.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#125

Post by DSingularity » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 3:07 PM UTC

hos234 wrote: post #101

stereolambda wrote: post #79

This is one of the better articles on the subject, not written in inside-tech-bubble terms. I think they also describe something we may call "obfuscation of power": formally you can opt out, in practice you cannot, and people who have power over you are lost in a soup of legal entities. So first, you are alienated to face surveillance alone as an individual, taking all blame for losing your freedom because you "chose…

But framing things differently has been done, yet we have smoking, drinking, gambling, mcd and coke. To me it fells like certain people (a percentage of any population) are just wired to exploit human weakness. Sometimes they are unconsciously doing it and when made conscious don't know how to exit that path. And society needs to make it simpler for exits to happen. Those that are consciously doing it...well we are j…

I would rather blame the systems we all create and enable. Our reward systems in particular. These are the systems that make the exploitation so enticing and irresistible.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#126

Post by mikelyons » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 3:09 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #124

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #115

I'm very pessimistic about all this. It seems to me that the horse has already bolted: we are all under constant surveilance and there is not much we can do about it at all. Many of us don't even think it's a problem and even many who do think it is don't want to lose the benefits that are attached to the constant automated surveilance. As citizens of democratic countries we have uttely failed to protect our rights a…

History has consistently shown that the rights tend to arise after the violations, not the other way around. The Magna Carta was written in response to an awful king, the FDA was established as a response to widespread problems with people getting poisoned, slavery wasn't abolished until millenia after it was invented, and labor organization (leading to such modern niceties as the 40 hour week) did not arise until we…

There will have to be time, but also immense harm and death before something will be done. It wont just take decades of the discomfort of wondering what they're doing with the data. It will take some sort of massive act against the people done with the data before the outcry will happen, as with any technology. People didn't invent and require seatbelts becasue "you could die" people did die.

The question is what will happen, or how bad will it get? The worst fear is some sort of automated genocide.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#127

Post by dashwav » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 3:19 PM UTC

mikelyons wrote: post #126

whatshisface wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History has consistently shown that the rights tend to arise after the violations, not the other way around. The Magna Carta was written in response to an awful king, the FDA was established as a response to widespread problems with people getting poisoned, slavery wasn't abolished until millenia after it was invented, and labor organization (leading to such modern niceties as the 40 hour week) did not arise until we…

There will have to be time, but also immense harm and death before something will be done. It wont just take decades of the discomfort of wondering what they're doing with the data. It will take some sort of massive act against the people done with the data before the outcry will happen, as with any technology. People didn't invent and require seatbelts becasue "you could die" people did die. The question is what wil…

I think that one of the pervasive problems of these kinds of technology is that each individual violation can be individually tailored to the person in question.

In my opinion, it's not going to be some blanket thing that is immediately obvious, but rather a collection of individual actions taken against individual people in exactly the way that is the least suspicious for that person specifically.

Plus with the level of surveillance, those in control of the centralization will also know the dissidents well before they become a serious threat and can take preventative measures should they need to.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#128

Post by aSplash0fDerp » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 3:24 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #124

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #115

I'm very pessimistic about all this. It seems to me that the horse has already bolted: we are all under constant surveilance and there is not much we can do about it at all. Many of us don't even think it's a problem and even many who do think it is don't want to lose the benefits that are attached to the constant automated surveilance. As citizens of democratic countries we have uttely failed to protect our rights a…

History has consistently shown that the rights tend to arise after the violations, not the other way around. The Magna Carta was written in response to an awful king, the FDA was established as a response to widespread problems with people getting poisoned, slavery wasn't abolished until millenia after it was invented, and labor organization (leading to such modern niceties as the 40 hour week) did not arise until we…

Those were some very good points!

IMO, we're on the cusp of a level of individual freedoms that were not available in the past (in the western world) and are seeing those that are desparate for relevance, those unable to compete/comprehend or those not involved/behind doing their darndest to stifle the growth and progress.

Most of the privacy exploitation sounds like that saying about "C managers" firing "A and B employees" due to their insecurities or more likely, job security/relevance.

My only question at this point is...

Does chasing the boogie{man,woman,trans} count as exercise?

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#129

Post by Affine_Stack » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 3:25 PM UTC

stereolambda wrote: post #79

This is one of the better articles on the subject, not written in inside-tech-bubble terms. I think they also describe something we may call "obfuscation of power": formally you can opt out, in practice you cannot, and people who have power over you are lost in a soup of legal entities. So first, you are alienated to face surveillance alone as an individual, taking all blame for losing your freedom because you "chose…

I'm reminded of Foucault's work, Surveiller et punir. He discusses this obfuscation of power, specifically that we are being conditioned by unseen entities in our daily lives in ways which are entirely unnatural. He contrasts the more modern (and arguably unnatural) levels of discipline imposed by surveillance (specifically with respect to panopticism) to those imposed by the fear of bodily harm that existed in the days of executioners.

When we held public executions, we could at least see who was wielding the power, by whom we were being conditioned, and what there was to fear. Yes, the body was being tortured, but the soul remained intact. In the surveillance age, we are subjugated by forces we cannot untangle, see, or fully understand. We discipline ourselves in fear of these unseen entities who may or may not be constantly watching; what they do with our information remaining a mystery

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#130

Post by infinitezest » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 3:31 PM UTC

SysINT wrote: post #88

The use of the word Privacy is misleading the conversation. We should be setting the goal to make it illegal to collect. It should be illegal for commercial entities to collect information that can be considered personally identifiable information without explicit consent. Additionally, that should not be allowed within a commercial terms of service agreement, and if automated must also provide means to remove with t…

This would be a huge step in the right direction but I think it's important to limit surveillance by government entities as well. After all, you have _no_ opt-out options where they are concerned.