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

281–290 of 359 posts

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

#281

Post by Dylan16807 »

1659447091 wrote: post #266
Dylan16807 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 outsi…

Again, I am talking about things internal to that specific person just as much as you are. Not external anything.

You are trying to focus on what they believed in that moment, but I see no reason to use that in an analysis of whether their actions fit their own morals. Sometimes people make mistakes even by their own rules. If we only care about what someone thought right in the heat of the moment, that category of mistake would be impossible, and it's not impossible. Saying that mistakes are possible is not overriding agency.

The core of it is in this line "the choice was what they seemed to think was right, for them, at the time. Thus it was the right choice for them". I don't agree with that logic at all. Humans are not good enough at following their own motivations and principles. They are impulsive and bad at analysis. You can't assume that their choices will always be consistent with their personal parameters of right and wrong.

Also, saying I think someone made a mistake is not denying agency. Don't be so melodramatic. Nowhere am I claiming to have the final say. I merely have the right to an opinion.

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

#282

Post by wwmiller3 »

runjake wrote: post #262
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.

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...

Unfortunately, that isn’t enough to mitigate identity theft. Someone leveraging the recent National Public Data breach opened a checking and savings account using my identity (no credit checks are performed in doing so) then committed wire fraud using accounts.

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

#283

Post by Clubber »

dialup_sounds wrote: post #189
Clubber wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You are dense. Well, maybe you're one of those propagandists. If you can't attack the idea, attack the person, right? Hand waves, nothing new to see here, carry on. The bills aren't what were exposed, it was more the techniques and scope. Like PRISM and XKeyScore and circumventing laws by sharing intelligence on US citizens with allies who aren't restricted by US laws. Spying on allied governments, etc. You know, th…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_SHAMROCK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_and_Mitchell_defection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON Et cetera. These aren't new issues. The obsession with Snowden as a messianic figure is unhelpful in contextualizing the information.

>The obsession with Snowden as a messianic figure is unhelpful in contextualizing the information.

Damn the gall, give it a rest. Again, methods and scope. Which one of those exposes PRISM, XKeyScore and the NSA infiltrating Google servers? Which one of those exposes the companies that willingly "integrated" with the NSA?

Which of those exposes US government spying on allied governments, recording private conversations, etc?

Saying Snowden didn't reveal anything is a silly hill to die on. What is your prerogative in minimizing the exposure? Do you work for one of the companies implicated in participating in prism or something?

Microsoft joined PRISM on 9/11/2007 (fitting)

Yahoo joined PRISM on 3/12/08

Google joined PRISM on 1/4/09

Facebook joined PRISM on 6/3/09

YouTube joined PRISM on 9/24/10

Skype joined PRISM on 2/6/11

AOL joined PRISM on 3/11/11

Apple, the last holdout on the list, joined PRISM 10/12 (after Jobs died).

OP, this is why it seems nobody cares, there's plenty of people trying to sway public opinion on the matter by minimizing it. Nobody wants to believe their government would do things like this, so when someone offers that, "hey it's not so bad," they want to believe it. We've always been at war with Eastasia.

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

#284

Post by negativeonehalf »

ickelbawd wrote: post #261
negativeonehalf wrote: post #238

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.

I am saying that we should not destroy a major source of prosperity. Targeted advertising is far more effective than untargeted because it lets you show ads to people who might have any interest in what you're selling.

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

#285

Post by ale42 »

itronitron wrote: post #98
jlarocco wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And in Europe, everyone and their dog uses WhatsApp

Not everyone but almost... and it's the same in other places (was already the case in Buenos Aires when I went there a few years ago). And of course when you tell people that there are better alternatives, many of them don't want "another app"... (but then they install one full of trackers to hope get some kind of prize at the local supermarket).

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

#286

Post by pc86 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #99
pc86 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it's pretty clear that you are directly harmed if someone takes naked photos of you without your knowledge or consent and then keeps them. It's not a good analogy so if we want to convince people like the GP of the points you're making, you need to make a good case because that is not how the law is currently structured. "I don't like ads" is not a good reason, and comments like this that are seething with rag…

> it's pretty clear that you are directly harmed if someone takes naked photos of you without your knowledge or consent and then keeps them Sure. In those cases, there are damages and that creates liability. I'm not sure what damages I've ever faced from any leak of e.g. my SSN.

The real kicker is trying to prove which leak your SSN came from. If your SSN gets leaked by 3 different companies, and 6 months later someone uses your identity to commit some crime, you can't have each company share 1/3 of the blame.

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

#287

Post by pwillia7 »

bilekas wrote: post #172
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 t…

Through civil disobedience is the only way stuff like this happens in America. You're right about the incentives to those in power, but how do you think we got emancipation2, women's suffrage, organized labor rights, prohibition and the end to prohibition?

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

#288

Post by soylentcola »

justapassenger wrote: post #258
gopkarthik wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Mid-sized/smaller players are the places which have very poor data & security practices. Especially when they require PII as part of their operations. Meta, Google are much better stewards of their users data. One misconception I see is claiming these companies sell user data. I'd instead say that they sell user attention.

They don’t sell user data for a very simple reason - it’s a crappy business, as you can charge much much more with to recurring sales for heavily obfuscated access to the data than just one off selling of said data. When you think about it - initiatives are kind of aligned with user privacy (kind of, as there’s much more to the story than this simplistic point of view)

The way I've always seen it is that they'd never directly sell user data because that is their most valuable and prized asset. It's what allows them to sell targeted access to users for so much money.

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

#289

Post by Eumenes »

xhevahir wrote: post #248
cynan123 wrote: post #95

Lina Khan has been on a tear. She actually seems to care about online human rights.

I will be surprised if she's still there six months from now. Trump will remove her if he becomes president; whereas if Harris wins, and the GOP take the Senate--a pretty likely scenario--I fear Harris won't hesitate to use Khan as a bargaining chip to gain confirmation of her appointments.

She is friends with JD Vance apparently

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

#290

Post by pwillia7 »

Aerroon wrote: post #234
bilekas wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

> There could be a regulating body which could determine the risk to people's mental health for example from 'features' of tech companies etc. I think ideas like this is why it's not going to happen. Our understanding of mental health is garbage. Psychiatry used to be full of quackery and very well still might be. Treatment for something like depression boils down to "let's try drug in a random order until one works"…

Psychiatry is useful in the way Statistics is useful for math models we don't fully understand. Statistics let's us get at answers with enough data even though we don't really understand the underlying model at play.

There a whole host of 'sciences' that are kind of 2nd tier like this, Psychiatry being one of them. Once we understand enough Neuroscience, it's likely to me Psychiatry will get consumed by Neuroscience which will splinter into more useful for day to day life categories as it grows (like a psychiatrist)

Super book on the subject and also talks about the rising bar for individual culpability as we understand more about the brain: https://www.amazon.com/Incognito-Secret-Lives-David-Eagleman...

Post reply on HN