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

We accepted surveillance as default

vivianvoss.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 159 posts

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#111

Post by rng-concern »

PaulHoule wrote: post #93

I 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…

I used to report scams to facebook, but they deny my claim and say the ads are fine. Seems like fake AI videos of celebrities/politicians asking you to invest in alt-coins is A-OK in facebooks... book.

It's infuriating.

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#112

Post by fsflover »

pizzly wrote: post #100
HWR_14 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU did that and people still bitch about GDPR banners on websites.

The law had good intention but bad implementation. Also the law takes so long to change. Once it became obvious that companies would bypass it by having clicking gymnastics they needed to quickly update the law saying that it should only take one click to opt out.

What is wrong with its implementation? All the cookie banners aren't in the law; their basically malicious compliance.

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#113

Post by gherkinnn »

PaulHoule wrote: post #93

I 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…

I have come to believe, based on little other than my limited experience, that the targeting does not matter.

Facebook provides users with virtual crack. User pays for the high with attention. This attention is sold off to the highest bidder.

The contents of the ad is irrelevant, the data harvested is used to make the crack ever more potent.

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#114

Post by ViscountPenguin »

QuantumFunnel wrote: post #97
pydry wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ive noticed that certain people are chronically incapable of recognizing this.

Many of them in this very forum

Hackernews is at its base a forum for startups. It's hardly surprising that people paid to make a thing might find it cognitively difficult to accepts its flaws.

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#115

Post by [deleted] »

StilesCrisis wrote: post #19
inventor7777 wrote: post #10

When Apple first released App Tracking Transparency, I immediately used it to block the trackers and I have not even thought about it since because it is so simple and useful. What a contrast to modern websites which require all sorts of weird clicking gymnastics to disable similar tracking.

Ironically Google couldn't disable third-party cookies even if they wanted to; it's seen as anti-competitive to other tracking networks and was blocked by the courts.

[deleted]

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#116

Post by loloquwowndueo »

tencentshill wrote: post #23
nickandbro wrote: post #2

Whenever I read your articles, I get distracted by the space invaders and just play that instead. Maybe this is a problem with me being a bit ADHD, but I feel like I am not the only one

If the author had something important to say, that really undermines it.

The so didn't, that they delegated the entire thing to an AI. That and the horrible horrible font.

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#117

Post by dotancohen »

nazgulsenpai wrote: post #58
jonahx wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I agree with you, and if you frequent tech circles you'd be under impression that the masses prioritize lack of surveillance and privacy. In my experience with IRL acquaintances, although anecdotal, exactly 0% of people I have spoken to where it's come up in conversation care at all about privacy or surveillance in general with the old "nothing to hide" fallacy.

  > exactly 0% of people I have spoken to where it's come up in conversation care at all about privacy or surveillance in general with the old "nothing to hide" fallacy.
But they do have something to hide.

Are they going to the toilet more often this week? Are they booking a flight for a funeral? Do they watch midget porn? Are they interested in science experiments that go boom? Did they just get a promotion at work? Did their car just fail the yearly inspection? Are they going on vacation and leaving the house empty for a week? Does their child have ADHD? Did their catalytic converter just get stolen? Is their phone model no longer receiving security updates? Is their child bullied at school? Did they have an abortion? Are they contemplating bankruptcy? Did they just start using a CPAP machine? Did they vote for an independent candidate? Do they listen to the local mosque's podcast? Do they smoke? Are they closet homosexual? Are they being sued? Did their dog just suffer liver failure? Did they put their teenage daughter's child up for adoption?

These are all things that your phone knows about you, which could lead to negative consequences if exposed - ranging from embarrasment to blackmail, higher prices to actual denial of services, scrutiny to arrest. Everyone has something to hide.

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#118

Post by dotancohen »

colesantiago wrote: post #86
wao0uuno wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they have to make money?

So that the website... stays online? Have you bought a domain before or anything online before?

My personal website has been up for over two and a half decades. I've paid for hosting and for the domain name. Never had an ad on the site.

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#119

Post by troupo »

cameronbrown wrote: post #63
inventor7777 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Do you have a link? That sounds very interesting and very frustrating. Regardless, because of such things I'm guessing the only ways to disable such tracking in the foreseeable future will still be 3rd party non-affiliated DNS/extensions or browsers such as Brave and Safari (to some extent).

https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/investigation-into-googles-priv... Disclosure: I worked on Privacy Sandbox.

Ironically Google is the world's largest advertising and tracking company and literally does everything in their power to trick users into tracking and surveillance. https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1908951546869498085 and https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1664682689591377923

The problem wasn't "Google can't remove third-party cookies", he problem is "too much power in the hands of Google" and "conflicts of interest". From the link you posted below:

--- start quote ---

The investigation concerns Google’s proposals to remove third-party cookies (TPCs) on Chrome and replace TPCs functionality with a range of ‘Privacy Sandbox’ tools, while transferring key functionality to Chrome.

The CMA is particularly interested to hear any views on whether the proposed commitments are sufficient to address the CMA’s competition concerns regarding:

- unequal access to the functionality associated with user tracking

- self-preferencing Google’s own ad tech providers and owned and operated ad inventory

- imposition of unfair terms on Chrome’s web users

--- end quote ---

Spin off your surveillance tech, and there will be no problem. Oh wait...

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#120

Post by Lerc »

CrzyLngPwd wrote: post #90
Lerc wrote: post #67

I once watched a news report about the then tail end of the Ceaușescu regime. One of the indicators of the level of oppression they described was that they had video cameras mounted on street lamps.

You watched some propaganda slop, since there is no evidence that the Romanian regime used video cameras on street lamps in the 1980's. Why would they need to invest such insane amounts of money to acquire such tech (video cameras, lol, on street lamps) when they had a thriving population of curtain twitchers and snitches?

To an extent it was propaganda. I'm not sure why you think something I saw some 40 years ago would meet any definition of slop that would still retain enough meaning for the word to be used in that context.

Nevertheless, the truth of whether they actually had video cameras on streetlamps is irrelevant to the point I was making. The point is that there was a time when media coverage depicted the notion of it happening as abhorrent.

Post reply on HN