Wait till the FTC discovers Full Story
FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
81–90 of 359 posts
Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I CAN JUST TURN TARGETED ADS OFF The only reason you have the option to do this is because of groups pushing back against advertising companies. Ad companies have no incentive to offer the option to disable targeting. If you like having this option available, then you should like this FTC report and the position they are taking.
> If you like having this option available, then you should like this FTC report and the position they are taking. I can like other positions and actions the FTC has done, like requiring the ability to turn off targeted ads, and not like others, like this one. This is among the biggest problems in politics right now. Supporting a political party doesn't mean you need to 100% back all their opinions and policies, that…
> I can like other positions and actions the FTC has done, like requiring the ability to turn off targeted ads, and not like others, like this one
They weren't saying that was the case I think you're misunderstanding them here. But they are 100% correct, you are benefiting from other people fighting against this mass surveillance and yet speaking against it. I think you should do some research on why privacy is important and challenge yourself and your potentially entrenched beliefs.
Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been stalked and harassed by an Apple employee using data they were able to glean from their access at Apple. The impossible part is proving the abuse. All of these companies keep their database, access controls, and everything they possible can about these data lakes secret. The simple fact of the matter is that you will never have any evidence someone looked you up in a database. It is really easy to walk th…
Apple wasn't listed and (outside the app store) doesn't collect the data described in the press release.
They absolutely do, in fact they even tried to encrypt user data to not be as invasive as other companies but the FBI sued them and said no you can't do that, you need to keep that data so we can subpoena you.
Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
#84To me, what's missing from that set of recommendations is some method to increase the liability of companies who mishandle user data. It is insane to me that I can be notified via physical mail of months old data breaches, some of which contained my Social Security number, and that my only recourse is to set credit freezes from multiple credit bureaus.
If you aren’t directly harmed yet what liability would they have? I imagine if your identity is stolen and it can be tied to a breach then they would already be liable.
This is exactly why thinking of it in terms of individual cases of actual harm, as Americans have been conditioned to do by default, is precisely the wrong way to think about it. We're all familiar with the phrase "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", right?
It's better to to think of it in terms of prevention. This fits into a category of things where we know they create a disproportionate risk of harm, and we therefore decide that the behavior just shouldn't be allowed in the first place. This is why there are building codes that don't allow certain ways of doing the plumbing that tend to lead to increased risk of raw sewage flowing into living spaces. The point isn't to punish people for getting poop water all over someone's nice clean carpet; the point is to keep the poop water from soaking the carpet in the first place.
Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your argument boils down to "yes, someone has had a gun pointed at my head for quite some time now, but they haven't pulled the trigger yet so I don't see the problem."
No, I'm arguing that it's not actually a gun, and my evidence is that there are 2 billion "guns" that have been pointed at 2 billion people's heads for years, and nobody has been hurt. It's more like a flashlight than a gun
> It's more like a flashlight than a gun
I disagree, and again, implore you to use your imagination. If private messages (not just yours but someone elses) were to suddenly be public or institutional knowledge, what damning things might happen? What influence might some have over others? What dynamics could or would shift as a result?
I'm comfortable making the claim that you aren't really thinking this through, at all, in any meaningful way.
Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
#86Behind the ball by 15 years to start taking this seriously and beginning to think about pushing back, but better late than never. Next please reign in the CRAs.
It makes me irrationally angry that I suddenly started getting spam emails from Experian. Like motherfucker I never consented for you to have my data, then you leak it all, now you're sending me unsolicited junk email? It's just such bullshit that I'm literally forced to have a relationship with these companies to freeze my credit or else I'm at the mercy of whoever they decide to release my information to without my…
For a while they were sending emails about my account that I was actually unable to unsubscribe from[1]. I knew it was illegal at the time, and when I finally noticed an unsubscribe button it was because the FTC finally intervened[2].
https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/udy8rz/exper...
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/08/...
Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
>and people are ok with that. All the propagandists said he was a Russian asset, as if even if that were true, it somehow negated the fact that we were now living under a surveillance state. >Snowden pointed and everyone looked at his finger. This is a great way of putting it.
> it somehow negated the fact that we were now living under a surveillance state. There's long been surveillance programs and also numerous laws outlining the responsibilities of telecom provides to enable wire tapping. There's really nothing new from Snowden besides the names of a bunch of people to go kill cause they're spies. FISA [1] isn't a private law either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.…
>There's really nothing new from Snowden besides the names of a bunch of people to go kill cause they're spies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disc...
Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you aren’t directly harmed yet what liability would they have? I imagine if your identity is stolen and it can be tied to a breach then they would already be liable.
The fact that my data can be stolen in the first place is already outrageous, because I neither consented to allowing these companies to have my data, nor benefit from them having my data. It's like if you go to an AirBNB and the owner sneaks in at night and takes photos of you sleeping naked and keeps those photos in a folder on his bookshelf. Would you be okay with that? If you're not directly harmed, what liabilit…
That's the big problem with relying on tort law to curb this kind of bad corporate behavior: The plaintiff has to show actual injury or harm. This kind of bad behavior should be criminal, and the state should be going after companies.
Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Snowden was bang on when in 2013 he warned us of a last chance to fight for some basic digital privacy rights. I think there was a cultural window there which has now closed.
Snowden pointed and everyone looked at his finger. It was a huge shame, but a cultural sign that the US is descending into a surveillance hell hole and people are ok with that . As someone who was (and still is) vehemently against PRISM and NSLs and all that, it was hard to come to terms with. I'm going to keep building things that circumvent the "empire" and hope people start caring eventually.
> and people are ok with that
I've seen no evidence of this. People mostly either don't understand it for feel powerless against it.
Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
My pet solution has been to make the credit reporters liable for transmitting false information to the CRAs. Chase tells Experian I opened a new line of credit with them, but it later is demonstrated that it was a scammer with my SSN? Congratulations, $5,000 fine. Of course this all gets priced in to the cost and availability of consumer credit. Good! Now the lenders have an incentive to drive those costs down (cheap…
The solution is much simpler. Put all of the consequences of being defrauded by a borrower onto the lender. If a lender wants to be repaid, then they need to show the borrower all the evidence they have for proof that the borrower entered into the contract. If all a lender has is the fact that a 9 digit number, date of birth, name, and address were entered online, then the borrower simply has to say “I did not enter…
Right. This is a problem between the lenders and the people who stole from the lenders. The person whose name/number was used shouldn't even be part of the transaction or part of the problem.
They call it "Identity Theft" instead of what it should be called: Bank fraud. The term "Identity Theft" 1. needlessly pulls an otherwise uninvolved person into the mix, suddenly making it their problem too, and 2. downplays the bank's negligence.
If someone uses my name to take out a loan, and the bank stupidly lets them, this shouldn't even remotely be my problem. I shouldn't even have to know about it. This is the bank's problem from their own stupidity.