161–170 of 359 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> I've seen no evidence of this Over 99% of Americans point a camera at themselves while they take a shit.
Earlier 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 here is a libertarian solution: https://qbix.com/blog/2019/03/08/how-qbix-platform-can-chang...
I love the cognitive dissonance on display within the federal government. One arm: "everyone is a criminal; spy on everyone" Other arm: "hey you shouldn't really harvest all of that data"
The cognitive dissonance is in the voters and users. Even right here on HN, where most people understand the issue, you'll see conversations and arguments in favor of letting companies vacuum up as much data and user info as they want (without consent or opt-in), while also saying it should be illegal for the government to collect the same data without a warrant. In practice, the corporations and government have foun…
People really need to learn to say “NO” even if that means an inconvenience “Your personal information might be shared with our business partners for metrics and a customer tailored experience” no thanks, “what is your phone number? so I can give you 10% discount” no thanks, “cash or credit?” Cash, thanks, “login with google/ apple/ blood sample” no thanks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because I don't want to be associated with companies that break the law and violate regulations knowingly. I've long had a reputation of integrity, and it's one of the few things I have left having almost nothing else.
So you would rather be known as someone who had an opportunity to report a violation, and chose not to? From my perspective it seem like you decided against acting with integrity in this situation - the moral thing would have been to report the violation, but you chose to look the other way and resign.
"these surveillance practices can endanger people’s privacy, threaten their freedoms, and expose them to a host of harms, from identify theft to stalking." Is there any evidence that any of these things have ever happened as a result of this sort of data collection? I'm not talking about data posted to social media, I'm talking about the specific data collection described in this FTC press release.
Not only is there evidence of harms, there are is a whole industry focused on fixing the problem for those wealthy enough or incentivized enough to care. Do a bit of googling, but ADINT and RTB tracking will get you there for search terms. Or, continue being confidently dismissive of something serious people are taking very seriously. I am sorry if this FTC report targeted the source of your RSUs or otherwise motivat…
I don't currently have any financial interest in any of these companies
> but ADINT and RTB tracking will get you there for search terms.
These are good things, do you have any examples of harm that has been caused by ADINT or RTB? Prosecuting criminals doesn't count for me
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> I've seen no evidence of this Over 99% of Americans point a camera at themselves while they take a shit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've seen no evidence of this Over 99% of Americans point a camera at themselves while they take a shit.
And I'd bet over 99% of those people have never once considered that said camera could even be capable of saving any data without them operating it.
They use the front-facing camera of their phone so often that the temporary inconvenience of removing a shade outweighs the long-term inconvenience of malware snapping an exposing photo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't think anything bad happens from personal data being accessed without one's consent, please reply to this comment and share: 1. Your full name 2. Your home address 3. Your social security number (if you're American) 4. Your mother's maiden name If you're right, then you have nothing to worry about.
None of this data is included in the FTC report. They are not talking about this. My full name is Michael Graczyk, I live in San Francisco, none of these companies know any more detail than that about the questions you asked
I suspect you mean that you haven't provided these companies with these details. What reason do you have to think they don't know those details?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> before anyone asks, "personalized advertisements" is not a good reason The good reason is growth. Our AI sector is based on, in large part, the fruits of these data. Maybe it's all baloney, I don't know. But those are jobs, investment and taxes that e.g. Europe has skipped out on that America and China are capitalising on. My point, by the way, isn't pro surveillance. I enjoy my privacy. But blanket labelling perso…