Surveillance has always been baked into consumerism similar to foreign aid. A large part of foreign relations is capital and rhetoric.
We accepted surveillance as default
101–110 of 159 posts
Re: We accepted surveillance as default
#102I wanted to read, but my cursor was a hungry monster and so I chased after things to eat. After I played this for a while I had to close the tab. I think if you have something to say, having a cursor with an animation is a bad idea. It distracts from the content.
I found it delightful at first then afterwards slightly distracting. The current state of websites on average is very boring even if practical.
Re: We accepted surveillance as default
#103Sorry to nitpick but tracking and surveillance are not the same thing. Go back to the last century for a second, before all this 21st-century tech came along. Just because your cell phone and towers would be able to track what rough region (let's call it "site") you were visiting, that doesn't mean they were surveilling you. Surveillance implies things about bith intended usage and actual usage, etc. that -- simply p…
"Sorry to nitpick but tracking and surveillance are not the same thing. Go back to the last century for a second, before all this 21st-century tech came along. Just because your cell phone and towers would be able to track what rough region (let's call it "site") you were visiting, that doesn't mean they were surveilling you."
Buddy, that's exactly how they are blowing people up with drones these days
Re: We accepted surveillance as default
#104The government is going to surveil. That's not going to change. It's whether or not warrantless searches are admissible; and they generally arent.
There's also the issues of geo-fenced warrants and the FISA courts in the U.S. Warrant processes and issuance should not be secret nor generic enough to allow for "blanket" hoovering of Personally Identifiable Information.
I tend to agree but fear that people will value 'safety' over personal freedom. If these acts prevent x crimes, allow people to walk the streets, etc then people will think 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear'. We as a society will have to accept more deaths and crimes by not implementing total surveillance. Its going to be hard to convince people of that if governments can demonstrate the benefits.
Re: We accepted surveillance as default
#105I know there is evidence like Apple ATT (iOS 14.5, April 2021). 15-25% opt-in. -$10B Meta revenue in 2022 (CFO David Wehner) But it sure looks to me like personalized ads are a paper tiger. I mean it seems like 30% of the ads I see on Facebook and YouTube are just transparent scams that they could serve me without any profiling. For instance for a week I have been in heavy rotation of an ad on Facebook which obviousl…
10% of meta earnings last year were from scammers using their AI on meta users through ads. It doesn't make sense that they are allowing it, except it is making them billions. So what if millions of americans lose everything? Shareholder algo bots like the way it looks
Re: We accepted surveillance as default
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
They'll still surveil even if you pay for the product. Why wouldn't they? It's an additional income stream.
> Why wouldn't they? It's an additional income stream. If customers cared, the additional income from being someone who didn't surveil could outstrip the income stream from surveilling.
That's almost never the sole or core differentiator though. And getting customers to all coordinate and care is much more difficult than getting a couple CEOs to just decide to surveil.
Re: We accepted surveillance as default
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
maybe we're better off without websites that only exist to make money.
How do website owners pay for server costs if you think they shouldn't make money? Should everyone be in a loss when they run a website?
I think if everyone with a website made a small financial loss on it, the web would be immeasurably better.
Re: We accepted surveillance as default
#108Sorry to nitpick but tracking and surveillance are not the same thing. Go back to the last century for a second, before all this 21st-century tech came along. Just because your cell phone and towers would be able to track what rough region (let's call it "site") you were visiting, that doesn't mean they were surveilling you. Surveillance implies things about bith intended usage and actual usage, etc. that -- simply p…
"Sorry to nitpick but tracking and surveillance are not the same thing. Go back to the last century for a second, before all this 21st-century tech came along. Just because your cell phone and towers would be able to track what rough region (let's call it "site") you were visiting, that doesn't mean they were surveilling you." Buddy, that's exactly how they are blowing people up with drones these days
> Buddy, that's exactly how they are blowing people up with drones these days
And... your point is what? Tracking can't be used to kill people? Anything that kills people is by definition "surveillance"?
Re: We accepted surveillance as default
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its amusing that Apple itself is one of the biggest ad companies that exists, fed entirely from their own users private data. Yet by simply pointing the finger away from themselves and helping their customers block other ad companies efforts, they seem to have gained complete trust of all their users and most dont even know how much Apple are making in ad revenue from their own data. https://appleinsider.com/articles…
The article you cite refutes your claim, explicitly bringing up the lack of access to user data. I frankly don’t care if the App Store has advertisements. I would care if my data is (1) available to Apple to read by virtue of not being e2e encrypted, and (2) used to train models and target those advertisements.
> I would care if my data is (1) available to Apple to read by virtue of not being e2e encrypted, and (2) used to train models and target those advertisements.
Here we go:
Apple fined $8.5M for illegally collecting iPhone owners' data for ads (gizmodo.com)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34299433
Keeping your data from Apple is harder than expected (aalto.fi)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39927657
Apple silently uploads your passwords and keeps them (lapcatsoftware.com)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42014588
Watchdog ponders why Apple doesn't apply its strict app tracking rules to itself (theregister.com)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43047952
Apple memory holed its broken promise for an OCSP opt-out (lapcatsoftware.com)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41184153
Google collects 20 times more telemetry from Android devices than Apple from iOS (therecord.media) [but Apple still collects a lot!]
Re: We accepted surveillance as default
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also the issues of geo-fenced warrants and the FISA courts in the U.S. Warrant processes and issuance should not be secret nor generic enough to allow for "blanket" hoovering of Personally Identifiable Information.
I tend to agree but fear that people will value 'safety' over personal freedom. If these acts prevent x crimes, allow people to walk the streets, etc then people will think 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear'. We as a society will have to accept more deaths and crimes by not implementing total surveillance. Its going to be hard to convince people of that if governments can demonstrate the benefits.
Show me where these have done any good at stopping crime. Seriously. The prism program director testified infront of congress that they didn't stop any attacks and wouldn't be able to because it was a needle in a hay stack