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

The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

elnion.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 140 posts

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#61

Post by verisimi »

Cookies and advertising are, imo, the provided excuse for surveillance by the governance system.

Understandably, people will object to this - after all what have corporations got to do with the governance system?

I would say however, that we already live in a fascist governance system. No democracies exist. At best, we only have 'representative democracy' - not the same thing!

This is as per Mussolini's definition of fascism:

> "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

I argue that corporations and states are 2 wings of the same bird.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#62

Post by kibwen »

hedora wrote: post #55
cmilton wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That being said, I am now running into what I call the "Non-App Tax". The most prominent example I can think of in my own experience is my towns local parking payment system. You actually don't need to use the app to find parking or pay. You can scan a QR code and pay via text. Then I looked at the prices on the app vs prices via text and the prices were a decent amount higher ($1-2 more) and less flexible than if I…

It says “this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private” on every dollar bill. I wish that was actually enforced.

AFAIK the concept of legal tender doesn't mean that you can use the law to force a business to accept dollar bills. If you want to trade your black lotus for my foil charizard, I can't refuse to trade and then sue you to pay you in cash instead. Rather, AIUI, the "debt" referred to there refers to legal debts, so e.g. if my dog gets into your chicken coop and you sue me for damages, you can only ask for an amount in dollars rather than forcing me to provide you with replacement chickens.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#63

Post by hedora »

BurningFrog wrote: post #16
z_ack wrote: post #12

I did an experiment: I deleted all the cookies using privacy settings of my browser then I avoid to click anything about cookies' authorisation, i.e. if a page present that kind of requests I immediately close the page itself. At the and, I verified that cookies are presente on browser's storage despite my absence of authorisation, even third parties cookies. So, yes, I agree: commercial surveillance is creepy and I…

This could easily be automated and the results published.

Even better, there could be a list of garbage cookies that this experiment produces.

As an anti-tracking measure, Firefox could put them into a global pool (shared with all other users), then randomly sample from the pool whenever making a request to the offending site.

The effect would be severe breakage for any sites that set unauthorized cookies.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#64

Post by kibwen »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #41
jgeada wrote: post #40

There is an easy way to fix this: make the companies collecting the data be criminally liable for any misuse or leaks of this data. Something with teeth, such x% of total revenue, not our current “sorry, we leaked your data, tough for you” If this data is so important it should be treated with the same care & auditing that their income stream gets.

Does nothing to prevent state abuse when the state sets and executes the punishment for it.

Indeed, but this post is about commercial surveillance.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#65

Post by nerdponx »

23B1 wrote: post #43
thfuran wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Heavy top-down regulation won't work, never has. That's utter nonsense. There will never be perfect compliance, but regulations absolutely can curb undesired behavior.

I wish you were right, but unfortunately 'regulations' always have carve-outs for the government itself, and they're one of the largest consumers of this data.

The fact that intelligence agencies get a carve-out is a distraction from the point, and not a reason not to pursue improvements.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#66

Post by gwbas1c »

What I worry about are future malicious actors. These are parties that will use today's harvested data to achieve a malicious agenda in the future.

For example: The Dutch used to collect a church tax that was used to support your church, or temple. When the Nazis invaded, church tax records were used to track down and exterminate Jewish people.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#67

Post by javajosh »

kibwen wrote: post #62
hedora wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It says “this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private” on every dollar bill. I wish that was actually enforced.

AFAIK the concept of legal tender doesn't mean that you can use the law to force a business to accept dollar bills. If you want to trade your black lotus for my foil charizard, I can't refuse to trade and then sue you to pay you in cash instead. Rather, AIUI, the "debt" referred to there refers to legal debts, so e.g. if my dog gets into your chicken coop and you sue me for damages, you can only ask for an amount in…

IANAL, and I don't think the GP's argument is valid, but his goal is valid: retail businesses should not discriminate against people without phones or credit cards. There are lots of them, and it could be you at some point. There are lots of good articles about accessibility and how we all get old, etc. That same argument applies here: you may be well off, consider having a smartphone and several credit cards "normal", but you may fall, financially, and you will lose those things. I would call this "financial accessibility". The argument is NOT for the business to address more market (there is that though) but rather to avoid making life even harder for people who's lives are already quite hard.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#68

Post by bobbylarrybobby »

hedora wrote: post #55
cmilton wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That being said, I am now running into what I call the "Non-App Tax". The most prominent example I can think of in my own experience is my towns local parking payment system. You actually don't need to use the app to find parking or pay. You can scan a QR code and pay via text. Then I looked at the prices on the app vs prices via text and the prices were a decent amount higher ($1-2 more) and less flexible than if I…

It says “this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private” on every dollar bill. I wish that was actually enforced.

The issue is that there is no debt if you haven't yet transacted. And you can't steal the item and then claim to be in debt and force the person to take your money.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#69

Post by ilyt »

ThaDood wrote: post #10

I mean, I know its not practical for everyone or every application - that being said I have made it my highest priority to go out of my way to not use services or products that require apps to be installed. Obviously I make exceptions for stuff I deem "required" but for coffee chains, fast food restaurants, grocery stores and other services if they need an "app" for me to use it. I just won't use it. Or I will go out…

I avoid phone-based apps for that purely for security...

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#70

Post by teeray »

ThaDood wrote: post #10

I mean, I know its not practical for everyone or every application - that being said I have made it my highest priority to go out of my way to not use services or products that require apps to be installed. Obviously I make exceptions for stuff I deem "required" but for coffee chains, fast food restaurants, grocery stores and other services if they need an "app" for me to use it. I just won't use it. Or I will go out…

> Then I looked at the prices on the app vs prices via text and the prices were a decent amount higher ($1-2 more) and less flexible than if I had just used the app. Kinda shitty and I can absolutely see this becoming the norm.

I’m surprised this is legal for a municipality. There are people with cars but no smartphone (elderly folks). It seems ageist.

Post reply on HN