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

121–130 of 140 posts

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#121

Post by everybodyknows »

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…

You write "town", so I'll suggest that if indeed there's an elected city council, and you're willing to be a bit militant, you can put pressure on the situation.

Put together an oral argument and rehearse it to fit whatever is the time limit for speakers from the public, and sign up to speak at the next meeting. Angles to consider: ageism, economic justice, equal protection under the law, identity theft, vetting of software vendors.

For added force, get in touch with neighbors, try to stir up a bit of indignation from them as well, and channel it into showing up at the meeting with you for visible support. Better yet, urge them to take a speaking slot themselves. Coordinate content of your respective presentations, and help tune each others, at least at the level of reviewing speaking notes, ideally with a standup practice run-through.

If there's a local paper that covers council meetings, write a "letter to the editor". And try to get their attention onto your talk with a heads-up to them just before the meeting at which you will speak.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#122

Post by dylan604 »

Analemma_ wrote: post #84
dylan604 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retail businesses that don't accept cash are also reducing their risk of being robbed. Prominently placed signs informing customers and criminals to the lack of cash on site means most criminals will go to the next place. It also helps keep the employees' sticky fingers from skimming the till. I can see why some might be enticed.

Yeah, I have been on both sides of this issue. I really want cash to work anywhere, but I have also worked retail and seen that cash is a giant pain in the ass for businesses. It has to be secured, transported, the employees steal it, and it means more accounting headaches. Whereas if all your payments are done through Square, this all goes away. It's not surprising to me an increasing number of businesses— especiall…

Also, making change for cash transactions is also not trivial. I've been on both sides as a vendor and a buyer where this has been an issue. As a vendor, i've tried rounding down to be advantageous for the buyer for the inconvenience, but it's annoying. as a seller, if it's a craft fair or some sort of thing with small artisans, i've rounded up for a tip. either way, it's a painful part of a business that going cashless avoids altogether.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#124

Post by r_klancer »

Spooky23 wrote: post #77
BurningFrog wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad drivers should pay more for car insurance.

What’s a bad driver? This stuff isn’t exactly peer reviewed data, and insurance companies don’t publish the telematics data they produce or how they make decisions. They are funny with how they evaluate certain things. If you have 3 accidents in a certain period, they’ll drop you regardless of fault because you’re unlucky. But they’ll also penalize you if brake heavily and avoid accidents.

Well, statistics matter here and one thing insurance companies know about is statistics. If you brake hard once or twice, no biggie.

But, for sure, my prior is that someone who frequently brakes hard on the road is someone who gets themselves into jams they shouldn't have been in in the first place. Maybe it's a matter of failing to anticipate what's coming up ahead. Maybe it's a matter of where, when, and how often they drive.

Both indicate risk that, arguably, should be priced appropriately. Same for health behaviors.

Dropping you is a thing that happens when the expected value of your insurance payouts exceed the expected value of the premiums collected. With granular data from telematics, an insurer [*] could notify you to change your game long before they end up concluding, "Well, none of the data we have on this person differentiates them from the last 3 guys to cost us a million plus in settlements and claims, so sayonara"

[*] thinking of TFA here I mean a suitably regulated insurer, not one that is somehow sneakily accessing telematics data without any transparency

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#125

Post by krono »

z_ack wrote: post #115
krono wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all places in the world share the same set of laws or jurisprudence. What's allowed or required and what isn't is entirely dependent on the jurisdiction(s) the website operators are beholden to.

Are you sure of that ? I knew that the competent jurisprudence or "forum" is that of the user, or everyone could circumvent the law using "offshore" companies to track people in regulated countries (i.e. EU). I was reading here on HN that , for that reason ( avoid EU Regulation ) sites like New York Times, blocked the availability of their contents in whole EU. I was checking, see here, for example: https://reutersin…

Insofar as what the jurisdictions the website operators are beholden to or perhaps care about have to say about it, but otherwise I (not a laywer) share your perspective.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#126

Post by Spooky23 »

r_klancer wrote: post #124
Spooky23 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s a bad driver? This stuff isn’t exactly peer reviewed data, and insurance companies don’t publish the telematics data they produce or how they make decisions. They are funny with how they evaluate certain things. If you have 3 accidents in a certain period, they’ll drop you regardless of fault because you’re unlucky. But they’ll also penalize you if brake heavily and avoid accidents.

Well, statistics matter here and one thing insurance companies know about is statistics. If you brake hard once or twice, no biggie. But, for sure, my prior is that someone who frequently brakes hard on the road is someone who gets themselves into jams they shouldn't have been in in the first place. Maybe it's a matter of failing to anticipate what's coming up ahead. Maybe it's a matter of where, when, and how often…

Insurance companies know stats. But I don’t think regulators effectively regulate use of these new statistics, which is essential to an business like car insurance.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#127

Post by Spooky23 »

hansvm wrote: post #98
Spooky23 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s a bad driver? This stuff isn’t exactly peer reviewed data, and insurance companies don’t publish the telematics data they produce or how they make decisions. They are funny with how they evaluate certain things. If you have 3 accidents in a certain period, they’ll drop you regardless of fault because you’re unlucky. But they’ll also penalize you if brake heavily and avoid accidents.

The only winning move is not to play ;) I'm half serious. All else equal, if you drive less you'll have fewer problems that lead to insurance penalties.

Honestly, don’t be a dope is the optimal move. I’ve driven for 25+ years, and barring some stupid teenage male stuff and a few deer, have done so without incident.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#128

Post by omniglottal »

radarsat1 wrote: post #83
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…

Supermarkets used to have coupons that you had to cut out of the paper to get discounts on certain items. That was already bullshit -- if you can sell it at that price, please sell it at that price! Why the extra hoop of cutting up a magazine first? Then supermarkets discovered bar codes. If you can convince people to carry around a barcode, suddenly you can track their usage patterns in exchange for a small discount…

Consider asking a cashier for a new membership card and take the membership form home but never fill it out. Why give a fake name when you can give no name at all? The loyalty card still works, and a usage pattern is tracked, even if not necessarilly tied to an identity.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#129

Post by omniglottal »

kibwen wrote: post #64
wahnfrieden wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Indeed, but this post is about commercial surveillance.

Commercial surveillance, by definition, includes the context of a surveillance company's primary customer. When dealing with the sale of endangered animal furs, you don't just go after the trappers. It's no good to ignore the market effects of an eager customer.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#130

Post by hansvm »

Spooky23 wrote: post #127
hansvm wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only winning move is not to play ;) I'm half serious. All else equal, if you drive less you'll have fewer problems that lead to insurance penalties.

Honestly, don’t be a dope is the optimal move. I’ve driven for 25+ years, and barring some stupid teenage male stuff and a few deer, have done so without incident.

So, a bit worse than the average driver? Surely there's some better evidence you can throw at us ;)

I'm kind of on your side. Not being a dope decreases the crash rate by 90% or so per mile last I checked ("crashes caused by driver error"). Drive enough and you'll still become a statistic though.

Post reply on HN