Targeted advertising is a good thing. It lets people who make stuff more efficiently connect with people who want that stuff. The FTC chair is complaining that companies "monetize that data to the tune of billions of dollars a year," but all this means is that this service is tremendously valuable. The Internet's targeted advertising system is a major achievement of modern information technology and data science, and…
FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
261–270 of 359 posts
Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
#262To 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.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/how-to-freeze-cre...
Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
#263Ever stop and think it's funny that Meta, Google, etc. are worth billions because they figured out how to legally fill a database with information about you? In any other time in history some might call it spying, but well they figured out how to do it legally, and it's worth billions. Meanwhile from a technical standpoint, remotely logging your data is a trivial thing, with consent of course. It's like, we made this…
Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone choosing an action does not at all mean it's the right choice for them.
I believe we are talking two separate things. You appear to be talking about the external consequences of choices, while I am talking about them making a choice based on what they believed was the inner rightness of their choice. They did not want to be associated with a company like that, so they made the choice to not be -- because it aligned with their inner knowing of not wanting to be a part of that company. The…
Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
#265Ever stop and think it's funny that Meta, Google, etc. are worth billions because they figured out how to legally fill a database with information about you? In any other time in history some might call it spying, but well they figured out how to do it legally, and it's worth billions. Meanwhile from a technical standpoint, remotely logging your data is a trivial thing, with consent of course. It's like, we made this…
Why do people keep saying social media is just a database?
Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe we are talking two separate things. You appear to be talking about the external consequences of choices, while I am talking about them making a choice based on what they believed was the inner rightness of their choice. They did not want to be associated with a company like that, so they made the choice to not be -- because it aligned with their inner knowing of not wanting to be a part of that company. The…
But they left the vast majority of the morality on the table. They even talked to a lawyer to avoid reporting. So in the sense of making the choice that aligns with inner rightness and makes them moral, they still made a bad choice.
Again, I am talking about -- them -- not anyone one else or what anyone else thinks of it outside of them. I am not talking about "inner rightness" in general, I am talking "what they believed was the inner rightness of their choice" -- Their inner rightness. You seem to be talking about what -- you and/or others -- may believe from an outside perspective. My outside perspective is they made the choice that did not align with integrity. But that does not mean that was not the right choice for them.
And again, they made the right choice, for them -- at that time. How that plays out after is neither here nor there and in your labeling it a "bad" choice for them is akin to saying that they have no real agency over their choices, and we outside of them are the final say in what is good or bad for that person.
Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> I've seen no evidence of this. People mostly either don't understand it for feel powerless against it.
Isn't feeling powerless and being ok with it, ultimately the same thing: Complacency
Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
#268Earlier 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. You’ve already signaled that you’re ready and willing to dismiss any of the many obvious reasons why this is bad. But let’s flip it. What intellectually honest reason do you have for why it would be wrong if I’m watching you while you sleep? If I inventory…
> What intellectually honest reason do you have for why it would be wrong if I’m watching you while you sleep? If I inventory your house while you’re away, and sell this information to the highest bidder? This is an interesting idea, but it's a pretty far analogy from app telemetry or ad data collection. If you're really saying, "would it be wrong for me as a camera app developer to collect the videos end users recor…
You can’t even rent a hotel room without giving them an email and a phone number they don’t need, and are looking to sell. If this works for you.. the person at the counter probably faked it rather than arguing with you. Some people will be happy when menus disappear and you need to install an app. What happens when you can’t check out of the grocery store without the requisite likes-and-subscribes? What happens when your flashlight app has 37 page ToS that says they reserve the right to steal your contact list for the purposes of selling flashlight apps? All is well because you can see in the dark, and no one makes you choose anything? Well I hope there’s healthy competition amongst the manufacturers of your pacemaker, and they don’t inform your insurance company that your health is deteriorating..
If you’ve got no sense of right or wrong beyond what is legally permissible, just exercise your imagination a bit to look at the likely future, and ask yourself if that’s how you really want to live.
Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you're not aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management...
Very aware of that. That to me seemed like a targeted attack by a tracked APT group. What I’m referring to above is that the more vanilla attacks (ex: popular online mattress store gets popped) actually have national security implications, despite seeming like just an inconvenience
— George Washington.
Re: FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
#270Ever stop and think it's funny that Meta, Google, etc. are worth billions because they figured out how to legally fill a database with information about you? In any other time in history some might call it spying, but well they figured out how to do it legally, and it's worth billions. Meanwhile from a technical standpoint, remotely logging your data is a trivial thing, with consent of course. It's like, we made this…
Spying is done without consent. Why do people keep saying social media is just a database?
All of the UX of online consent forms exists to misinform, trick, and get users used to agreeing to sell their digital soul.