Live data from Hacker News

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

ftc.gov

261–270 of 359 posts

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

#261

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…

Really? Peril? We’ll be in perilous danger if we don’t maintain targeted, invasive ad tracking? Get a grip.

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

#262
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.

YMMV, but it took me 15 minutes start to finish to freeze my credit with the 3 bureaus using the following instructions.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/how-to-freeze-cre...

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

#263

Ever 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…

they are valuable b/c they built something billions of people use. I suspect the revenue loss from every one of these FTC recommendations being implemented would not have a material impact on either of the businesses you mentioned

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

#264

Earlier 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…

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.

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

#265

Ever 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?

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

#266

Earlier 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.

> making the choice that aligns with inner rightness

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

#267
post #89

Earlier 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.

>> 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.

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

#268

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. 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…

So basically your argument is everything is fine because consumers can opt out. Another tired old argument where even the people saying it don’t really believe it.

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

#269
post #235

Earlier 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

> Even minutiae should have a place in our collection, for things of a seemingly trifling nature, when enjoined with others of a more serious cast, may lead to valuable conclusion.

— George Washington.

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

#270

Ever 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?

The consent you give to web services isn't much better than if an electrician said "hey, can you tap this button to give me consent to work on your house?" and then installed undetectable hidden microphones inside every surface in your apartment.

All of the UX of online consent forms exists to misinform, trick, and get users used to agreeing to sell their digital soul.

Post reply on HN