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

Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 97 posts

Re: Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

#41

Post by rfnslyr »

pearjuice wrote: post #24
rfnslyr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bit off topic, but I actually just disabled all my social media, and you know what? I don't miss a single soul and I feel really good again, more energetic and enthusiastic even. I just realized I really only do have about 5 people I should keep in contact with. Everyone else was a relationship that was kept up just from virtue of existing, relationships that would never make it into real life. I feel free. For the f…

Problem is that even though you visually deleted all that social stuff, the data still exists. There is no escape.

You're able to "delete" your profile now, so that you have to create a new one and re-add everything if you want to go back. You have the option of deleting after two weeks of deactivation. Whether it is truly deleted on their servers is up for debate.

Re: Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

#42

Post by rfnslyr »

computer wrote: post #27
rfnslyr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bit off topic, but I actually just disabled all my social media, and you know what? I don't miss a single soul and I feel really good again, more energetic and enthusiastic even. I just realized I really only do have about 5 people I should keep in contact with. Everyone else was a relationship that was kept up just from virtue of existing, relationships that would never make it into real life. I feel free. For the f…

The irony of course being that Hackernews too is social media, and you still just "bragged" about the experience you had!

Not at all. It's "social media" in that there's a comments page that you can interact with others yes but not much more than that. It's just a link aggregation and I don't know any of you even remotely intimately.

Re: Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

#44

Post by Zigurd »

diminoten wrote: post #38
joosters wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you're buying alcohol for a party. Or all that fatty food you purchased on your credit card was because you get shopping for a friend. But the anonymous algorithms won't know this, and you will pay for their assumptions. How is that fair? It's little relief to me if these systems are only mostly correct.

You're focusing on the specific example, rather than the general idea that your purchase history indicates your riskiness, and an insurance company who has that data available to them will adjust your policy based on your behavior. And why shouldn't they? It's the same concept as you indicating whether or not you smoke, how much you drive to/from work daily, how many driving tickets you have, etc. Questions you willf…

Aaaand that is why single payer means more freedom and not less, as the tinfoil/tebag axis would have it.

Re: Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

#45

Post by ihsw »

diminoten wrote: post #16
Dirlewanger wrote: post #8

Ritter, for instance, recently met an insurance executive who always pays for meals with cash because he believes some day that data will be linked to his coverage. “I’m not saying this is a definite thing that happens,” Ritter says. “but I don’t see any definite reason why it couldn’t." Don't let it stop there. Buying a six pack for the weekend? Watch your healthcare premium go up by like 0.001% or something like th…

Are they wrong? Did you not just increase their liability by 0.001%? I guess I'm still having a hard time squaring personal responsibility with this idea of complete anonymity. It's not that we shouldn't be able to hide anything, but like the article said, it's just not possible (or even reasonable to expect) to hide everything. Existing in society leaves a footprint, especially in cases like license plates - they're…

Because it can then be used for deception -- I can buy healthy food with my credit cards and buy shitty food with cash. Net outcome is my insurance rates go down but my actual risk goes up.

Re: Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

#46

Post by bch »

diminoten wrote: post #16
Dirlewanger wrote: post #8

Ritter, for instance, recently met an insurance executive who always pays for meals with cash because he believes some day that data will be linked to his coverage. “I’m not saying this is a definite thing that happens,” Ritter says. “but I don’t see any definite reason why it couldn’t." Don't let it stop there. Buying a six pack for the weekend? Watch your healthcare premium go up by like 0.001% or something like th…

Are they wrong? Did you not just increase their liability by 0.001%? I guess I'm still having a hard time squaring personal responsibility with this idea of complete anonymity. It's not that we shouldn't be able to hide anything, but like the article said, it's just not possible (or even reasonable to expect) to hide everything. Existing in society leaves a footprint, especially in cases like license plates - they're…

> Are they wrong? Did you not just increase their liability by 0.001%?

Not if you bought the 6 pack for the contractors working on your fitness room.

Re: Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

#47

Post by diminoten »

ihsw wrote: post #45
diminoten wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they wrong? Did you not just increase their liability by 0.001%? I guess I'm still having a hard time squaring personal responsibility with this idea of complete anonymity. It's not that we shouldn't be able to hide anything, but like the article said, it's just not possible (or even reasonable to expect) to hide everything. Existing in society leaves a footprint, especially in cases like license plates - they're…

Because it can then be used for deception -- I can buy healthy food with my credit cards and buy shitty food with cash. Net outcome is my insurance rates go down but my actual risk goes up.

You can also lie about how many tickets you've gotten, accidents you've been in, existing conditions, etc.

These kinds of things are traditionally called insurance fraud, and even if it's not illegal (buying food with cash won't ever be illegal, let's be honest with ourselves), it'll be accounted for by the insurance companies.

And if your technique for "sticking it to the man" is to eat yourself into unhealthiness, then... I guess you win. Congratulations.

Re: Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

#49

Post by [deleted] »

rsync wrote: post #39
toufka wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is illegal to defraud and impersonate. There's nothing illegal about using multiple names (again, so long as there is no intent to defraud or impersonate).

I'd be very careful there ... the notion of "structured transactions"[1] is about as wide-reaching as a RICO indictment, and can be used for just about anything. Even a sniff of a notion that you did that to avoid any kind of tax[2] categorizes it as a "structuring" which "may be punished by a fine or up to five years in prison, or both." [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring [2] Regardless of whether that's t…

[deleted]

Re: Think You Can Live Offline Without Being Tracked? Here's What It Takes

#50

Post by diminoten »

bch wrote: post #46
diminoten wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they wrong? Did you not just increase their liability by 0.001%? I guess I'm still having a hard time squaring personal responsibility with this idea of complete anonymity. It's not that we shouldn't be able to hide anything, but like the article said, it's just not possible (or even reasonable to expect) to hide everything. Existing in society leaves a footprint, especially in cases like license plates - they're…

> Are they wrong? Did you not just increase their liability by 0.001%? Not if you bought the 6 pack for the contractors working on your fitness room.

Like the other guy did, you're focusing on the specific example, when the question and debate revolves around the general concept.

But if you really must play this game, then perhaps the fact that you believe a 6 pack to even be a worthy gift is telling of your lifestyle enough to determine risk. Maybe it doesn't matter if you give it to someone else or not, just the fact that you purchase beer a certain amount of times in a given time interval has shown to increase your likelihood of injury.

Or not, I don't know. The point is, they would figure that out. We don't need to hash out a full implementation of this technology to understand it'd be possible.

Post reply on HN