Why we should end the data economy • Hacker News Board

Re: Why we should end the data economy

#381

Post by dredmorbius » Sat, Jun 05, 2021, 11:04 PM UTC

xibalba wrote: post #173

cs702 wrote: post #54

No one sane would ever want their relatives, friends, work colleagues, and neighbors to be able to know (quoting from the OP): > who you sleep with because both you and the person you share your bed with keep your phones nearby > whether you sleep soundly at night or whether your troubles are keeping you up > whether you pick up your phone in the middle of the night and search for things like "loan repayment" > your…

Would you please demonstrate to me how I, Joe Q. Public, can find out, via collected data that I can access, with whom another person is sleeping with? Or, in lieu of that, walk me through how that would be done with Facebook's, Google's, or Apple's data via your first-hand knowledge of those data and where and how they are stored and accessed? These fear mongering comments about data collection have never demonstrat…

There was Uber's "God View" which showed travel history of customers, which was at one point available to anyone who could pass Uber's driver onboarding process.

Venture capitalist Peter Sims wrote about being tracked in a blog post this September. Back in 2011, he wrote, he was in an Uber car in Manhattan when he started receiving text messages from someone he barely knew telling him exactly where he was. That person later told him that she was at an Uber launch party in Chicago, where Sims' movements were being tracked via God View on a large public screen.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johanabhuiyan/uber-is-i...

https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/6/10726004/uber-god-mode-set...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/ypw5n7/ubers-god-view-was-on...

Re: Why we should end the data economy

#382

Post by Jorengarenar » Sun, Jun 06, 2021, 8:38 AM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #374

Jorengarenar wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you yourself said you are not an expert, then ask yourself, why do experts make security based on hidden passwords instead of focusing on creating those public-indifferent solutions? Could it be that passwords/PINS/secrets are one of the easiest, cheapest and reliable way of preventing unauthorized access since the ancient times?

There are tons of problem with secret being leaked, forgotten, thats why we should start figuring out a better way.

You know, before anybody starts working on something, they need to at least have a hint it may work and not be easily compromised - e.g. what's preventing hacker from just copying the expected data from facial recognition system and pasting it themselves since it's public?

You say "just fix it to detect whether it's legit data" - how? Deep fakes are getting better by the day, we already have problems with recognizing them ourselves.

Re: Why we should end the data economy

#383

Post by graphtrader » Sun, Jun 06, 2021, 11:55 AM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #255

choeger wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Add to this that no one cares about whether the data is even correct. A glitch in the location tracking and, bam, you have an affair. Some wrongly assigned search queries or speech requests and suddenly you are a pedophile. A terrorist selecting you as a cover identity and you wake up in Guantanamo.

Add to this that no one cares about whether the data is even correct. It's interesting how our culture has adopted the mantra that "computers are never wrong." Yet, every day in the media there are dozens or hundreds of articles about computers and systems making mistakes. I wish we could break that cycle of believing anything that comes off a screen. I fight my own minor battles against this weekly. As part of my jo…

Hopefully Daniel Kahneman's new book will spread the way people talking about bias is common now.

It couldn't be more timely as our society has no concept of measurement noise.

"What I read is 100% true and based on "science" so to have any uncertainty means you are anti-science".

There is an astounding number of people using that as their main heuristic.

Re: Why we should end the data economy

#384

Post by graphtrader » Sun, Jun 06, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

fuckyouriotshit wrote: post #220

paxys wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you use Facebook we will collect and sell all your data" "Okay, cool"

"If you don't use Facebook we will still collect[1] and sell all the data about you we can" "But I never agreed to that." "Too bad." Under what circumstances would you describe that as consensual? And that's not even getting into the concept of _informed_ consent; something that they clearly don't have given the amount of user anger that gets directed at Facebook every time when a new leak/breach/data collection meth…

It is just strange how you have people like paxys arguing bullshit that they don't believe themselves.

Just bored people trying to win an argument for fun.

Good job paxys! You win. You are so smart! Here is pat on the back old chap.

Re: Why we should end the data economy

#385

Post by matz1 » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

fuckyouriotshit wrote: post #375

matz1 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Can you understand how a lack of the ability to have private conversations, relationships, etc. could cause serious problems for some people? Yes it could cause serious problem but not the privacy itself that the problem, its other people using it to harm other people is the problem. My conversation being public by itself is not a problem, the problem is when people use it to harm me. >but now you are seem to be imp…

> Yes it could cause serious problem but not the privacy itself that the problem, its other people using it to harm other people is the problem. So is it OK to advocate for the destruction of people's privacy in this situation or not? If it is, then you're admitting that you just don't care about the harm that could occur (and trying to minimize the responsibility you'd have by hand-waving the issue as being "other p…

>If it is, then you're admitting that you just don't care about the harm that could occur (and trying to minimize the responsibility you'd have by hand-waving the issue as being "other people")

No, to minimize harm is my eventual goal.

There are multiple way to achieve that.

You can try to by privacy or by fixing the actual issue.

I would much prefer the actual issue to be fixed.

When you fix the actual problem, the privacy become irrelevant.

>If it is not OK to destroy people's privacy in this situation, then your entire argument about how the coerced loss of privacy isn't a problem is contradictory

My argument is the loss of privacy by itself its not a problem.

Re: Why we should end the data economy

#386

Post by matz1 » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 1:30 PM UTC

Jorengarenar wrote: post #382

matz1 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are tons of problem with secret being leaked, forgotten, thats why we should start figuring out a better way.

You know, before anybody starts working on something, they need to at least have a hint it may work and not be easily compromised - e.g. what's preventing hacker from just copying the expected data from facial recognition system and pasting it themselves since it's public? You say " just fix it to detect whether it's legit data " - how? Deep fakes are getting better by the day, we already have problems with recognizi…

>You say "just fix it to detect whether it's legit data" - how? Deep fakes are getting better by the day, we already have problems with recognizing them ourselve

Again, I'm not the expert, every situation will may require its unique solution.

>You say "just fix it to detect whether it's legit data" - how

Yes this my attempt to at least give a hint with my far from expert knowledge.

My point is we should spend our effort to solve this instead of trying to make information private.

Re: Why we should end the data economy

#387

Post by Jorengarenar » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 4:43 PM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #386

Jorengarenar wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, before anybody starts working on something, they need to at least have a hint it may work and not be easily compromised - e.g. what's preventing hacker from just copying the expected data from facial recognition system and pasting it themselves since it's public? You say " just fix it to detect whether it's legit data " - how? Deep fakes are getting better by the day, we already have problems with recognizi…

>You say "just fix it to detect whether it's legit data" - how? Deep fakes are getting better by the day, we already have problems with recognizing them ourselve Again, I'm not the expert, every situation will may require its unique solution. >You say "just fix it to detect whether it's legit data" - how Yes this my attempt to at least give a hint with my far from expert knowledge. My point is we should spend our eff…

> Yes this my attempt to at least give a hint with my far from expert knowledge.

No, this isn't a hint, because I already stated why it wouldn't work: thief will just use publicly available data and create deep fake to mimic the owner of the bank account.

If we had technology which could magically determine whether received data is genuine, the only safety check would be "Are you an owner? [y/n]"

> My point is we should spend our effort to solve this instead of trying to make information private.

Again, nobody sane ever have spend any effort on something without even a hint for it being possible. I am asking: what's your argument to even think it's possible?

Re: Why we should end the data economy

#388

Post by fuckyouriotshit » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 6:24 PM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #385

fuckyouriotshit wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes it could cause serious problem but not the privacy itself that the problem, its other people using it to harm other people is the problem. So is it OK to advocate for the destruction of people's privacy in this situation or not? If it is, then you're admitting that you just don't care about the harm that could occur (and trying to minimize the responsibility you'd have by hand-waving the issue as being "other p…

>If it is, then you're admitting that you just don't care about the harm that could occur (and trying to minimize the responsibility you'd have by hand-waving the issue as being "other people") No, to minimize harm is my eventual goal. There are multiple way to achieve that. You can try to by privacy or by fixing the actual issue. I would much prefer the actual issue to be fixed. When you fix the actual problem, the…

So I gave you a real-world example of a situation where someone could be harmed by loss of privacy, and then asked if you thought it was OK to advocate the destruction of a person's privacy in that situation.

Your response was that you would "much prefer the actual issue to be fixed" and that "When you fix the actual problem, the privacy become irrelevant".

Which (presumably intentionally) sidesteps the question of whether you think it is reasonable to advocate for the destruction of someone's privacy when it is likely to cause them harm.

In your advocacy for the destruction of privacy in this thread, you haven't proposed anything which could minimize harm for people who rely on privacy; in fact you have taken great steps to even acknowledge that there are people who could be harmed by the destruction of their privacy.

At the same time, you're willing to acknowledge that you don't want to post comments here using anything other than a pseudonym because "the problem is right now I can't". So you are admitting that you'd prefer to keep some privacy around your identity.

This could be a reasonable position if you were willing to acknowledge that people (other than you) could be harmed by the loss of their privacy. You have refused to acknowledge this and so that argument is untenable.

Finally, you stated that your argument was that "the loss of privacy by itself is not a problem". You haven't provided any evidence nor explanation of why you believe this to be the case and have refused to acknowledge the value of privacy, despite multiple examples and the obvious hypocrisy of not "practicing what you preach" (though I'd be willing to accept this if you didn't claim that privacy has no value whatsoever)

I did give an example of a situation where someone could be harmed and you didn't bother to address it.

I think you're just being disingenuous and I don't see the point in engaging any further in this discussion.

Re: Why we should end the data economy

#389

Post by fuckyouriotshit » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

Jorengarenar wrote: post #387

matz1 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You say "just fix it to detect whether it's legit data" - how? Deep fakes are getting better by the day, we already have problems with recognizing them ourselve Again, I'm not the expert, every situation will may require its unique solution. >You say "just fix it to detect whether it's legit data" - how Yes this my attempt to at least give a hint with my far from expert knowledge. My point is we should spend our eff…

> Yes this my attempt to at least give a hint with my far from expert knowledge. No, this isn't a hint, because I already stated why it wouldn't work: thief will just use publicly available data and create deep fake to mimic the owner of the bank account. If we had technology which could magically determine whether received data is genuine, the only safety check would be "Are you an owner? [y/n]" > My point is we sho…

Unfortunately I don't think you'll get a genuine response.

It'd be fascinating to watch someone to try and recreate concepts from cryptography without the crypto though!

Re: Why we should end the data economy

#390

Post by everdrive » Wed, Jun 09, 2021, 1:50 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #380

SavantIdiot wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think HN rules are still behind the times. One of the rules discourages multiple accounts, in an attempt to create a community. OTOH: a longer paper trail means more easy to identify. This is why I create a new account every few months. Since I cannot delete old posts to "cover my tracks", I have no choice if I want to use the site. Maybe I just shouldn't use HN. I dunno. I learn a lot from discussions, but I don't…

I've got some sympathy with this viewpoint, and have used HN myself under a pseudonym I take pains not to associate with my real-world identity. But at the same time, the practice of regularly and routinely recycling user identities is ... well, it really does prevent the formation of a community. The most toxic community I'd ever encountered was a supposedly "kinder and gentler Reddit", the late and unlamented Imzy.…

On the other hand, Twitter may be one of the greatest evils with regard to social media, and is well populated with non-anonymous accounts.

And of course, HN stands at odds with this theory as well. No one "knows" me on HN. I don't have a reputation, or a real identity, and I'm cordial enough. (I hope) HN enforces conduct, and this enforcement is not defeated by anonymity.