Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Fantasy of Opting Out

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 205 posts

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#151

Post by philwelch »

shadowgovt wrote: post #141

Cost of ubiquitous surveillance is going down, and at the end of the day, that's the dominant effect. Given the intersection of low cost and demonstrated utility, we're seeing a sea-change in society of significant scale, such that "opting out of surveillance" really does being to equate to "opting out of society." Imagine if you had a moral objection to, say, walking on roads. What percentage of society would you ha…

Everybody in Star Trek is serving in the military and has no expectation of privacy while on duty. Plus it only tracks their commbadges.

Another consideration might be: what privacy would someone have had living in a premodern or early modern village or even a small town at the turn of the century? Aside from being surveilled in our own homes by Alexa and her kind, are we worse off today?

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#152

Post by Maximus9000 »

pdkl95 wrote: post #12

> Obfuscation may be our best digital weapon. From Dan Geer's talk "Cybersecurity as Realpolitik" (which everyone should hear[1]/read[2]): >> There are so many technologies now that power observation and identification of the individual at a distance. They may not yet be in your pocket or on your dashboard or embedded in all your smoke detectors, but that is only a matter of time. Your digital exhaust is unique hence…

> "Misrepresentation means putting a motor-generator between you and the Smart Grid. Misrepresentation means..."

All of that sounds exhausting. Some of it is easy... but some of those tasks would take over 10 hours to do. I've got a life to live. Plus, it doesn't really fix the problem, does it? Wouldn't it be better if we all took those hours to lobby the government to change the laws?

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#153

Post by entee »

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…

I think you’re right but the problem is that this time it’s different: maybe the rights will arise, but for many people it’ll be too late.

Assume there is a privacy law enacted, all the data that was previously collected is still around. So essentially people around prior to that law are still somewhat screwed. It’s good for those coming afterwards, so eventually it washes out, but it won’t be like the FDA or slavery where everyone benefits quickly.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#154

Post by EvanAnderson »

excalibur wrote: post #98
pdkl95 wrote: post #12

> Obfuscation may be our best digital weapon. From Dan Geer's talk "Cybersecurity as Realpolitik" (which everyone should hear[1]/read[2]): >> There are so many technologies now that power observation and identification of the individual at a distance. They may not yet be in your pocket or on your dashboard or embedded in all your smoke detectors, but that is only a matter of time. Your digital exhaust is unique hence…

> If you are an optimist or an apparatchik, then your answer will tend toward rules of data procedure administered by a government you trust or control. Make the data public. All of it. Don't allow them any secrets. Knowledge is power, power to the people.

It's heartening to know that I'm not the only person who has had this thought. Eliminate the power gradient and level the playing field.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#155

Post by anigbrowl »

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…

Who is going to stand up against the new threat to our rights? A few dispersed academics that nobody listens to? Anonymous?

Get to know your local anarchists.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#156

Post by CharlesColeman »

entee wrote: post #153
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…

I think you’re right but the problem is that this time it’s different: maybe the rights will arise, but for many people it’ll be too late. Assume there is a privacy law enacted, all the data that was previously collected is still around. So essentially people around prior to that law are still somewhat screwed. It’s good for those coming afterwards, so eventually it washes out, but it won’t be like the FDA or slavery…

>> 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.

> I think you’re right but the problem is that this time it’s different: maybe the rights will arise, but for many people it’ll be too late.

This time is not different. Take the FDA example for instance: it's founding (or later gaining the power to oversee drug safety) didn't help the people who'd already been poisoned [1]. The reforms were too late for them.

[1] an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radithor

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#157

Post by swader999 »

bilbo0s wrote: post #106
Loughla wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nobody's gonna care until it hits them personally or has the potential to do so imminently. It's for this reason that I really, really want the US to implement some kind of formal, stated facial recognition across the board. I honestly don't think we'll see any mass movement on privacy issues from regular folks until something that big happens.

Just, Devil's Advocate - but what happens if you allow such a program to go forward, and no one outside the usual suspects objects? How would you reign it back in? I believe it would be best not to allow such a program in the first place, because counting on the population to be opposed to it is, well, let's just label it "unwise".

Naive to think our entire online and physical location data isn't already indexed by name, phone, email ids. Snowden said as much. The accelerometers on your phone already give gait.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#158

Post by sokoloff »

squiggleblaz wrote: post #116
sokoloff wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

That's absolutely daft. You can pick your lord, but they'll all demand unnecessary permissions. The road to serfdom looks like capitalism working according to spec - right up until you can't meaningfully vote.

The difference is in a great many cases, you can pick "no lord". Don't like being tracked with electronic tolling transponder? Don't use a toll transponder. Don't like giving Xiami permissions to use your personal data? Don't install a Xiami app. Don't like the supermarket tracking your purchases? Pay cash and don't use the loyalty card.

The key is that you have to be willing to give up what those things give you as well. The article even lists several: "long waits at road toll cash lines, higher prices at grocery stores, inferior seating on airline flights."

There were very few things in the article that I read that a principled person literally could not reasonably live without. Electricity was perhaps the closest, but even most automated meter reading or smart metering programs have a way to pay a monthly fee for a dumb meter to be installed and read manually.

If that's the case, then the question is one of convenience vs privacy tradeoff. I choose to get a driver's license, to have a car and to register it and put license plates on it. I could bike or walk. I choose to use credit cards, frequent flier and other loyalty programs, to use electronic tolling and automated meter reading, to use Kindles and highlight passages, to use a TiVo, Netflix, and Amazon to consume television, to use a smartphone and many apps, to connect with friends and family on Facebook and colleagues on LinkedIn. I do so because I perceive the benefit of doing so to be extraordinarily higher than the loss of privacy.

That's quite a bit different from being a feudal serf living on a lord's land in my book.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#159

Post by JohnFen »

aSplash0fDerp wrote: post #128
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…

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 emp…

> IMO, we're on the cusp of a level of individual freedoms that were not available in the past

I really, truly, wish I could share your optimism.

What I think will happen is that things are going to continue to go strongly the opposite direction, until everything gets so egregious that people actually start fighting back in numbers.

If that fight is successful, we'll just return to something close to, but not quite, the status quo that existed a couple of decades ago.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#160

Post by shrimp_emoji »

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…

>As citizens of democratic countries we have uttely failed to protect our rights against private and public intrusions. We have failed to vote against politicians who introduce legislation to legalise pervasive automated surveilance. In the UK, Theresa May, who brought the Snooper Charter into law became Prime Minister instead of being kicked out of her political career in disgrace.* A majority of citizens of Western democracies continue to use social media and online services like Amazon and Netflix etc.

Compared to whom? We've de-munitionized RSA, we've mostly resisted the "outlaw strong encryption" meme (the U.K. is probably the most obtusely retrograde Western nation when it comes to tech, so I exclude them), we never pulled the "install this government cert to use the Internet" trigger (like Kazakhstan has tried to)... i-it could be worse!

x3

"Using social media" isn't a privacy-hostile stance like the above are; I'm a cryptonerd, but having my groceries delivered is just. I. Look. We live in a society. Where you don't have to go to the store anymore. It's too good to pass up. I order everything on Amazon through my offshore, Bitcoin-paid VPN, and I would have to be Stallman levels of insane not to. (Screw Netflix though, yeah; just torrent.)

Post reply on HN