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

FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 359 posts

Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies

#171

Post by in2thec »

ranger_danger wrote: post #114
kibwen wrote: post #63

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…

>I neither consented to allowing these companies to have my data, nor benefit from them having my data. I think both of those are debatable.

[flagged]

Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies

#172

Post by bilekas »

srndsnd wrote: post #31

To 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.

> To me, what's missing from that set of recommendations is some method to increase the liability of companies who mishandle user data.

As nice as this is on paper, it will never happen, lobbyist exists. Not to be tinfoil hat but why would any lawmaker slap the hand that feeds them.

Until there is an independent governing body which is permitted to regulate over the tech industry as a whole it wont happen. Consider the FDA, they decide which drugs and ingredients are allowed and that's all fine. There could be a regulating body which could determine the risk to people's mental health for example from 'features' of tech companies etc. But getting that body created will require a tragedy. Like why the FDA was created in the first place. [1]

That's just my 2cents.

1 : https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history/milestones-us-food....

Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies

#173

Post by StanislavPetrov »

brookst wrote: post #115
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get a feeling that liability is the missing piece in a lot of these issues. Section 230? Liability. Protection of personal data? Liability. Minors viewing porn? Liability. Lack of liability is screwing up the incentive structure.

I think I agree, but people will have very different views on where liability should fall, and whether there is a malicious / negligent / no-fault model? Section 230? Is it the platform or the originating user that's liable? Protection of personal data? Is there a standard of care beyond which liability lapses (e.g. a nation state supply chain attack exfiltrates encrypted data and keys are broken due to novel quantum…

>Protection of personal data? Is there a standard of care beyond which liability lapses (e.g. a nation state supply chain attack exfiltrates encrypted data and keys are broken due to novel quantum attack)?

There absolutely should be, especially for personal data collected and stored without the express written consent of those being surveilled. They should have to get people to sign off on the risks of having their personal data collected and stored, be legally prevented from collecting and storing the personal data of people who haven't consented and/or be liable for any leaking or unlawful sharing/selling of this data.

Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies

#174

Post by in2thec »

simoncion wrote: post #145
drawkward wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the harm? It is not obvious to me, if the victim is unaware...unless you are alleging simply that there is some ill-defined right to privacy. But if that is so, why does it apply to my crotch and not my personal data?

These are exactly my questions. If I never, ever know about those pictures and never, ever have my life affected by those pictures, what is the actual harm to me? If the answer to them ends up being "Well, it's illegal to take non-consensual nudie pictures.", then my follow-up question is "So, why isn't the failure to protect my personal information also illegal?". To be perfectly clear, I do believe that the scenari…

[flagged]

Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies

#175

Post by doctorpangloss »

arminiusreturns wrote: post #122
doctorpangloss wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn’t a single intellectually honest harm associated with the majority of app telemetry and for almost all ad data collection. Like go ahead and name one. Once you say some vague demographic and bodily autonomy stuff: you know, if you’re going to invoke “voters,” I’ve got bad news for you. Some kinds of hate are popular. So you can’t pick and choose what popular stuff is good or what popular stuff is bad. It ha…

The intelligence agencies literally use ad data to do "targeted killing" what are you even talking about? Ex-NSA Chief: 'We Kill People Based on Metadata'...

Can you define a harm suffered by the people that the FTC represents? What about the EU beneficiaries of the GDPR? This is sincere, it is meant to advance to a real and interesting conversation.

Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies

#177

Post by doctorpangloss »

janalsncm wrote: post #120
doctorpangloss wrote: post #102

Simple questions: Should ad prices be lower or higher? Should YouTube be free for everyone, or should it cost money?

Those are useful questions but I don’t think they’re the only ones that matter. Here’s another one for consideration: What is the minimum level of privacy that a person should be entitled to, no matter their economic status? If we just let the free market decide these questions for us, the results won’t be great. There are a lot of things which shouldn’t be for sale.

> What is the minimum level of privacy that a person should be entitled to, no matter their economic status?

This is an interesting question: maybe the truth is, very little.

I don't think that user-identified app telemetry is below that minimum level of privacy. Knowing what I know about ad tracking in Facebook before Apple removed app identifiers, I don't think any of that was below the minimum level.

This is a complex question for sort of historical reasons, like how privacy is meant to be a limit on government power as opposed to something like, what would be the impact if this piece of data were more widely known about me? We're talking about the latter but I think people feel very strongly about the former.

Anyway, I answered your questions. It's interesting that no one really wants to engage with the basic premise, do you want these services to be free or no? Is it easy to conceive that people never choose the paid version of the service? What proof do you need that normal people (1) understand the distinction between privacy as a barrier to government enforcement versus privacy as a notion of sensitive personal data (2) will almost always view themselves as safe from the government, probably rightly so, so they will almost always choose the free+ads version of any service, and just like they have been coming out ahead for the last 30 years, they are likely to keep coming out ahead, in this country?

Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies

#178

Post by layer8 »

srndsnd wrote: post #31

To 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.

I’m completely sympathetic to making companies more liable for data security. However, until data breaches regularly lead to severe outcomes for subjects whose personal data was leaked, and those outcomes can be causally linked to the breaches in an indisputable manner, it seems unlikely for such legislation to be passed.

Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies

#179

Post by 93po »

DaleNeumann wrote: post #133

"According to one estimate, some Teens may see as many as 1,260 ads per day.200 Children and Teens may be lured through these ads into making purchases or handing over personal information and other data via dark patterns" There is a long trail of blood behind google and facebook, amazon... Etc...

Even with ad blockers, we still see tons of ads. Corporate news like CNN constantly has front page stories that are just paid promotion for some product or service wrapped in a thin veil of psuedo journalism. Product placement is everywhere too. Tons of reddit front page content is bot-upvoted content that is actually just a marketing campaign disguised as some TIL or meme or sappy story.
Post reply on HN