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

301–310 of 359 posts

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

#301

Post by mistrial9 »

lesuorac wrote: post #72
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 don't think thats a proper parallel. I think a better example would be You (AirBnB Host) rent a house to Person and Person loses the house key. Later on (perhaps many years later), You are robbed. Does Person have liability for the robbery? Of course it also gets really muddy because you'll have renting the house out for those years and during that time many people will have lost keys. So does liability get divided…

> You (AirBnB Host) rent a house to Person

this is outrageously incorrect analogy.. you ASSUME property ownership in the first statement. Where are personal legal records analogous to owned property? by whom?

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

#302

Post by 1659447091 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #281
1659447091 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I was never talking about if they made a mistake or not. That is after the fact and outside the scope of what I have been saying. I know it matters, but that is not within the scope of my first comment that started this.

I took the little information they gave and from that the only true logical conclusion was they made the right choice for them at that moment. Full Stop.

You’re the one bringing the extra opinions into the matter and reading into a simple thing far too much. Most of the above I agree with you on outside of this particular thread. It has nothing to do with the very narrow scope of my original comment and attempted clarification.

Neither of us can know 100% what was right or wrong for them in that moment, but based on the information of A. no longer feeling right about being associated with a place for reasons that they deemed important enough to come to this conclusion — and B. aligning actions with that inner knowledge; makes it the right action (choice) for that person. If they changed their mind later, it does not change the immutable facts of that moment. It simply provides a new set of choices and options that is outside the scope of my original comment.

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

#303

Post by brookst »

malfist wrote: post #183
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a solvable problem. Like most tech problems it's political, not technical. There is no way to balance the competing demands of privacy, security, legality, and corporate overreach. It might be solvable with some kind of ID escrow, where an independent international agency managed ID as a not-for-profit service. Users would have a unique biometrically-tagged ID, ID confirmation would be handled by the agency,…

> It's not a solvable problem Lawnmower manufacturers said the same thing about making safe lawnmowers. Until government regulations forced them to

Well, perpetual motion is also considered unsolvable. Perhaps the right regulation would make it happen?

Or... maybe that line of reasoning isn't super strong.

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

#304

Post by mistrial9 »

soylentcola wrote: post #288
justapassenger wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

sort-of agree .. the accuracy, timeliness and completeness of any real-world data will change.. many comments assume some kind of perfect knowledge, which is never the case. Selling snapshots of current profile understanding is not only better business, but can also evolves with the enterprise over years; meanwhile selling raw user profiles as a whole is more like "damaged goods at a discount" for quick profit maximizers. This said, "surveillance capitalism" is rife and inherently a step backwards from a democratic society IMHO due to information asymmetry, secrecy and income generation.

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

#305

Post by fred_bellows »

from the report: "While the Order did not explicitly request that the Companies report all the types of Personal Information collected.." Why wouldn't they ask for all the personal information that they collect? Can anyone explain this?

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

#306

Post by malfist »

brookst wrote: post #303
malfist wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not a solvable problem Lawnmower manufacturers said the same thing about making safe lawnmowers. Until government regulations forced them to

Well, perpetual motion is also considered unsolvable. Perhaps the right regulation would make it happen? Or... maybe that line of reasoning isn't super strong.

There's a big difference between breaking the physical laws of the universe and Big Tech not wanting to spend money on moderators.

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

#307

Post by malfist »

Aerroon wrote: post #237
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://i.imgur.com/mXU28ta.jpeg Specifically, 1970.

Well, something to consider is that part of why everything is so much expensive these days is that a lot of the solutions to those problems add costs. That cost needs to be absorbed by the price. One of the reasons it's so expensive to build a house is safety regulations. They exist for a reason, but they nevertheless add a substantial cost to building a house. If you had mandated such a cost to people living in 1870…

Building codes are written in blood.

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

#308

Post by ToucanLoucan »

malfist wrote: post #307
Aerroon wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, something to consider is that part of why everything is so much expensive these days is that a lot of the solutions to those problems add costs. That cost needs to be absorbed by the price. One of the reasons it's so expensive to build a house is safety regulations. They exist for a reason, but they nevertheless add a substantial cost to building a house. If you had mandated such a cost to people living in 1870…

Building codes are written in blood.

In fact you can say that about most regulations of any sort, this seems to hit people's brains in the same way as how anti-vaxxers are so cavalier about things like Measles because we effectively eradicated it via vaccination (except it's now making a comeback thanks to anti-vaxxers) and people have forgotten how horrible it is, in the same way people forget, sure, houses used to be cheaper to build. And they also burned down a hell of a lot more, or were constructed poorly and not to code, or were built too close together, etc. etc. etc.

Just about every regulation that exists for every product or thing or way of doing something was written not even after a death, that's usually not enough, it needs to be a substantial number of deaths that can be directly linked to the thing the regulation covers and only then does it become law.

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

#309

Post by Dylan16807 »

1659447091 wrote: post #302
Dylan16807 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was never talking about if they made a mistake or not. That is after the fact and outside the scope of what I have been saying. I know it matters, but that is not within the scope of my first comment that started this. I took the little information they gave and from that the only true logical conclusion was they made the right choice for them at that moment. Full Stop. You’re the one bringing the extra opinions in…

> I was never talking about if they made a mistake or not. That is after the fact and outside the scope of what I have been saying. I know it matters, but that is not within the scope of my first comment that started this.

When I say mistake here, I specifically mean "mistake as far as their goal of making the right choice". And I mean that in the moment, using knowledge they have at that time, just like you're defining "right choice". Nothing after the fact nor outside the scope.

> I took the little information they gave and from that the only true logical conclusion was they made the right choice for them at that moment. Full Stop.

I don't see how they gave enough information to be sure, but more importantly you seemed to make a generic statement that anyone making a choice like that would be making the right choice, and that's what I really object to.

> You’re the one bringing the extra opinions

I am not! Please stop misreading me! Why won't you listen to what I'm saying about my own argument?

> Neither of us can know 100% what was right or wrong for them in that moment,

Please explain how "neither of us can know 100%" can be true at the same time as "only true logical conclusion was they made the right choice for them at that moment. Full Stop."

> A, B

Remember that not reporting the company was also part of the choice they made. The basic description of the choice was to report, quit, both, or neither, and they chose to quit.

> If they changed their mind later, it does not change the immutable facts of that moment. It simply provides a new set of choices and options that is outside the scope of my original comment.

I'm not talking about whether someone might change their mind later with new information, per se. I'm making the objectively true claim that people don't always think things through, meaning their choice might fail to represent the knowledge and priorities they had at the time.

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

#310

Post by tombrossman »

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...

YMMV indeed.

Since moving overseas 15 years ago, I tried numerous times and it simply is not possible. All the forms require a U.S. mailing address to register. Same for online access to your Social Security account.

There are an estimated 10 million Americans living overseas. Taken together, we are the equivalent of the 11th largest state. All of us completely blind to what is happening with our credit record and Social Security account.

At this point I think the only way this gets fixed is massive fraud/exploitation by organized crime, so these organizations finally address the problem.

Post reply on HN