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

A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 190 posts

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#131

Post by jack9 »

rayiner wrote: post #126
soylentcola wrote: post #31

"There’s irony in any tech company confronting the government on privacy matters, considering how much heat many take for mining their own customer information and using it for advertising and other profitable purposes." See, I don't find this very ironic. In fact, my only real issue with data mining and analysis by these sorts of companies is the way governments can demand this info without my approval. If Microsoft…

> But just because I agree to let Google read my location to send me traffic warnings before heading out to work doesn't mean I want the FBI to grab that data without my knowledge so they can determine if I might be a troublemaker Constitutionally, privacy is a pretty cut-and-dry concept. Information is either private or not. Private information isn't "information I don't want the government to have" it's "informatio…

> Constitutionally, privacy is a pretty cut-and-dry concept

You clearly don't understand the US Constitution or existing US law. Saying it's cut-and-dry doesn't make it so.

> Information is either private or not

I'm sorry, I made a mistake. You don't understand privacy as a concept at all. Privacy is about access controls.

What's more all this frothing about privacy is not the issue under consideration. The issue is about extranational data being subject to US law because the legal entity in control of the data, is a US company. Other countries have similar requirements (Want to run a cloud service in China? Set up shop in a chinese data center, no AWS for you), and it makes sense to me as a nationalistic interest. What's more, you have these companies deflecting HARD "timeless values should endure. Privacy is a timeless value" which is a red flag. I don't care that the French have a firm grasp of privacy, this is a US issue. These companies are free to leave the US if they really believe this is wrong (they wont).

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#132

Post by rayiner »

LordKano wrote: post #129
rayiner wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But just because I agree to let Google read my location to send me traffic warnings before heading out to work doesn't mean I want the FBI to grab that data without my knowledge so they can determine if I might be a troublemaker Constitutionally, privacy is a pretty cut-and-dry concept. Information is either private or not. Private information isn't "information I don't want the government to have" it's "informatio…

Constitutionally, privacy is a pretty cut-and-dry concept. Private information isn't "information I don't want the government to have" it's "information I don't want anyone else to have." You are incorrect. Your line of thinking runs in direct opposition to Roe V. Wade. You can share information with your doctor that you specifically do not want the government to have. There's nothing special about doctors, in a cons…

I'm talking about "privacy" in the 4th amendment sense.

The Griswold "privacy" line of cases is pretty much totally inapplicable outside the reproduction/sexual activity/family planning context, largely because they conjure up a "right to privacy" that doesn't really exist in the Constitution.

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#133

Post by belorn »

notahacker wrote: post #118
belorn wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In those countries that it is illegal to sell personal data, what kind of abuse are they intending to prevent? Any abuse which is possible by having direct access to private data is also possible to do by going through a intermediate which does the data mining for you.

If I've opted out of having my details passed on to third parties, I only have to opt out of receiving communications once . And since they're also not allowed to give the data away and can get into trouble for allowing it to be stolen or accidentally shared, my name and personal details are also somewhat less likely to crop up in an embarrassing public "people who subscribe to this service" list...

Do you mean like Ashley Madison hack?

Nothing in the ad-backed company model prevent someone sending a fake advertisement to the demographic who are likely involved in adultery. After that you publish a "people who subscribe to this service are ..." list based on who clicked on it.

The only question if someone could do this with Facebook/Google is if they provides targeted advertisement to that demographic or if you have to provide your own algorithm and combine different targeted advertisements with the available demographics.

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#134

Post by twblalock »

CosmicHorrorSam wrote: post #70
soylentcola wrote: post #31

"There’s irony in any tech company confronting the government on privacy matters, considering how much heat many take for mining their own customer information and using it for advertising and other profitable purposes." See, I don't find this very ironic. In fact, my only real issue with data mining and analysis by these sorts of companies is the way governments can demand this info without my approval. If Microsoft…

Hot dang, that last line is insightful. Some people will argue that whenever you let someone have data about yourself, you're implicitly giving access to practically everyone by virtue of often imperfect security. I believe that those people are full of shit.

A lot of people trusted Apple with their photos, and Apple did not release any photos, but that doesn't really matter because they were stolen.

A lot of people trusted Ashley Madison, and Ashley Madison did not release any data, but that doesn't really matter because it was also stolen.

Given that nobody has invented perfect security, it is reasonable to assume that any data anywhere can be stolen, and therefore you have no control over who accesses it.

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#135

Post by twblalock »

tajen wrote: post #113
orf wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> whenever you let someone have data about yourself, you're implicitly giving access to practically everyone I believe there is truth in that. The way I see it is you don't have much control over information entered into any computer. You can practice good security hygiene and that means you can trust information on your personal network, but that really that means you trust your combination of OS vendor, browser, an…

If we acknowledge contagion by imperfect security, then please acknowledge by law the right of entering false identites on facebook and false information by electronic means, as a means to protect our privacy.

Why should there be a law about this? If you don't like Facebook's rules, you don't have to use it. Nobody is forcing you to get an account.

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#136

Post by wtbob »

LordKano wrote: post #129
rayiner wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But just because I agree to let Google read my location to send me traffic warnings before heading out to work doesn't mean I want the FBI to grab that data without my knowledge so they can determine if I might be a troublemaker Constitutionally, privacy is a pretty cut-and-dry concept. Information is either private or not. Private information isn't "information I don't want the government to have" it's "informatio…

Constitutionally, privacy is a pretty cut-and-dry concept. Private information isn't "information I don't want the government to have" it's "information I don't want anyone else to have." You are incorrect. Your line of thinking runs in direct opposition to Roe V. Wade. You can share information with your doctor that you specifically do not want the government to have. There's nothing special about doctors, in a cons…

> You can share information with your doctor that you specifically do not want the government to have.

Sure, you can—and your doctor will reveal that information to the government if required to do so by mandatory-reporting laws.

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#137

Post by bad_user »

rayiner wrote: post #126
soylentcola wrote: post #31

"There’s irony in any tech company confronting the government on privacy matters, considering how much heat many take for mining their own customer information and using it for advertising and other profitable purposes." See, I don't find this very ironic. In fact, my only real issue with data mining and analysis by these sorts of companies is the way governments can demand this info without my approval. If Microsoft…

> But just because I agree to let Google read my location to send me traffic warnings before heading out to work doesn't mean I want the FBI to grab that data without my knowledge so they can determine if I might be a troublemaker Constitutionally, privacy is a pretty cut-and-dry concept. Information is either private or not. Private information isn't "information I don't want the government to have" it's "informatio…

You're talking about secrecy, privacy is not secrecy and I don't think you understand what privacy is.

Are you a homosexual or a transgender? Did you ever have an extramarital affair? Do you have HIV, or diabetes? Do you have a criminal record? Are you a muslim or a jew? Have you been abused as a child? Do you have a history of drug usage? Are you in a lower caste? Are you a war veteran? Have you ever spoken against your government to your peers? Have you ever gotten drunk at parties? If you have kids, have you ever taken pictures of them naked?

Depending on context, like the community you leave in, or the mood of your government, there is plenty of criteria for discrimination. In the right context, some of these can get you fired, some can get you killed.

And privacy is not secrecy, but rather the right to not be monitored. By not being monitored, even though you cannot hide your identity, you can control what facets of yourself people see. Privacy is about having control. On the other hand by being monitored, you're on file and likely to get fucked in the future by traits that today may be innocuous, as history shows. And you can also be blackmailed. And skipping the doomsday scenarios, most government institutions are filled with incompetents and do you really, really trust those incompetents to handle that data? I could tell you stories.

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#138

Post by lotyrin »

joesb wrote: post #121
CosmicHorrorSam wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hot dang, that last line is insightful. Some people will argue that whenever you let someone have data about yourself, you're implicitly giving access to practically everyone by virtue of often imperfect security. I believe that those people are full of shit.

That's like saying that, by letting the bank hold your money, you're implicitly giving bank robbers the access to the money, by virtue of imperfect security. And since your own house's security is also imperfect, you are also giving everyone access to your house and properties.

Not that I agree with them, but this analogy doesn't hold. What if the bank in question is in a nation where criminals vastly outnumber and over-power public and private security?

The matter really is quite a bit different when dealing with information than with tangibles (or mutable information representing scarce quantities) because of how easily information can be copied and how you can't recover privacy. (e.g. how silly it is to say that "Our legal counsel is working to ensure that all copies of these photos are deleted from the internet.")

If you start with the reasonable premises of "Information can be copied" "I cannot trust the information security of a third party to be perfect" you only need to add a dash of absolutism ("imperfect security may as well be no security") to get to "Information I cannot risk certain third parties having is information I cannot risk any third parties having". I don't think you're advocating for swapping that with "imperfect security is all that can possibly exist so is by definition good enough" but in the case you are, that's equally absolute and incorrect.

Absolutism with information-theoretical assessment of security risk is pretty common (for good reason) in corners of industry so it should be expected as guaranteed that in discussions people will express that kind of position (on top of the human tendency for absolutism in general).

The difference is simply that when making practical choices about behavior, you must employ cost benefit analysis with expected values.

Will I avoid using services that track my usage? No. Would I while I'm doing something illegal? Probably, if its not very inconvenient. Will I encrypt a private key before I upload it to my backup host? Yes. Will I revoke that key if I find out my backup hosting is breached? Probably. I'd have to do the math on how likely I think it is attackers have the key, will expend effort to brute force it, will succeed vs the pain it'll be to rotate that key.

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#139

Post by warfangle »

task_queue wrote: post #104
warfangle wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And because tech workers see unions as evil....

I'm a 10x unicorn making 1x salary. I don't need a union.

Heh.

While OP was talking about salary setting as cartel behavior, what also comes to my mind is the video game industry. Devs/artists are so fucking exploited there.

There's a reason production crew on multi-million-dollar hit-driven products are usually unionized (see also: film).

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#140

Post by xorcist »

soylentcola wrote: post #31

"There’s irony in any tech company confronting the government on privacy matters, considering how much heat many take for mining their own customer information and using it for advertising and other profitable purposes." See, I don't find this very ironic. In fact, my only real issue with data mining and analysis by these sorts of companies is the way governments can demand this info without my approval. If Microsoft…

Sure you can, and that behaviour is rather mainstream by now, but it wasn't long ago it was considered very egoistical.

Every time you install an app and you agree to upload your contact list to someone? That data was not yours to share.

Every time you put a little tracking script on your web page in exchange for traffic graphs it is your customers data you sell. Not your.

Every time you email me everything I write ends up indexed under my email address, to be sold to another company and cross referenced. I didn't agree to this.

That like button you put up that reports all your visitors behaviours? Not your data.

Post reply on HN