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

The Fantasy of Opting Out

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 205 posts

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#81

Post by matz1 »

cousin_it wrote: post #22
onion2k wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one should spy on your life. Absolute statements are always wrong. ;) The problem with this way of thinking is that it's very hard to define what 'spying' is, and what 'your life' is. This is best illustrated with an example - when you read this comment you'll have loaded a page on HN. That means HN's server probably has a log of your IP address, browser agent string, etc. There's a complete history of every artic…

Grandparent's statement is pretty absolute, but I find myself in agreement with it. Data collection is the right place to intervene, because once collected, data can be copied and misused at any time in the future. > when you read this comment you'll have loaded a page on HN. That means HN's server probably has a log of your IP address, browser agent string, etc. Such logging isn't technically necessary to serve web…

Then its the misuse itself that need to be fixed.

Its like knife can be used to kill people, lets get rid of knife instead.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#82

Post by matz1 »

ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: post #61
onion2k wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one should spy on your life. Absolute statements are always wrong. ;) The problem with this way of thinking is that it's very hard to define what 'spying' is, and what 'your life' is. This is best illustrated with an example - when you read this comment you'll have loaded a page on HN. That means HN's server probably has a log of your IP address, browser agent string, etc. There's a complete history of every artic…

No, spying does not require malicious intent. If you look through your neighbours' blinds every night, just to ensure they're doing well, you're still invading their privacy and spying on them. By definition spying is to collect information furtively, which I think qualifies the behaviour of all internet trackers as 90% of the population is unaware of their existence and 99% of the population doesn't know the extent…

>neighbours' blinds every night, just to ensure they're doing well

What harm does it cause ?

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#83

Post by dsfyu404ed »

stereolambda wrote: post #79

This is one of the better articles on the subject, not written in inside-tech-bubble terms. I think they also describe something we may call "obfuscation of power": formally you can opt out, in practice you cannot, and people who have power over you are lost in a soup of legal entities. So first, you are alienated to face surveillance alone as an individual, taking all blame for losing your freedom because you "chose…

>The sooner it will be commonly framed as a question of freedom (i.e. absence of arbitrary power of other people above you [1]), and as a question in the interest of society as a whole, the better

I agree but I don't think I'd use the word "soon"

There's a reason this is an opinion piece by a person who specifically cares about these issues and not an article.

Things are going to have to get worse before they get better. Right now the slices of society closest to these issues (tech and academics) don't seem to care at all as long as it's not overtly being used to oppress the poors or some specific minority. Said slices of society are also mostly wealthy enough that they can comply with most laws most of the time, they're not gonna get robo-tickets for not having their car inspected. Nobody's gonna care until it hits them personally or has the potential to do so imminently.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#84

Post by ErikAugust »

mojuba wrote: post #23

What an irony that I open the page source of this article and see this literally on the second line: var mi_track_user = true Then there are all the usual suspects: Google Analytics, Facebook, Twitter and a few others at the bottom. Is this the price I should pay for reading this article for free?

No tracking on this: https://beta.trimread.com/articles/356

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#85

Post by SamuelAdams »

bananatron wrote: post #44

In Germany recording folks without their consent is illegal (or at least not admissible in courts) in many contexts. It is possible to build incentives that don't lead towards mass surveillance.

I think this is the correct solution. The author's recommendation - a cocktail of browser extensions and other technologies - is only a temporary fix. This needs to be fixed at an institutional level, but there are entire industries (facebook, other ad-service companies) that depend on bulk data collection so a bill like what Germany has will be fought against tooth and nail.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#86

Post by tomxor »

pdkl95 wrote: post #12

> Obfuscation may be our best digital weapon. From Dan Geer's talk "Cybersecurity as Realpolitik" (which everyone should hear[1]/read[2]): >> There are so many technologies now that power observation and identification of the individual at a distance. They may not yet be in your pocket or on your dashboard or embedded in all your smoke detectors, but that is only a matter of time. Your digital exhaust is unique hence…

> your definition of a state of privacy will be my definition: the effective capacity to misrepresent yourself.

This is true of the world we live in today, which comprises of almost completely centralised services. But in the future, I believe the second option will be: building and using local FOSS replacements for those services.

Many of those local replacements will need no communication at all - So many things that run off a server today have no functional need to, it's about control. Others are more difficult, because communication is inherent to the service, and centralization is the simplest and most obvious choice when being provided by a coorporation, so an infamous "decentralised" solution is needed, which are more difficult to create, organise and promote.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#87

Post by Merrill »

hrktb wrote: post #73
Merrill wrote: post #69

Security by obscurity is no security at all. What is needed is stronger individual rights to access, correct, delete, and control the use of any information collected about us, as well as strong prohibitions on the use of data against our individual and collective interests.

The point is not security though, but privacy. At its base privacy is obscurity. Also you seem to advocate for every single individual to run a race against the rest of the world to not misuse their data. We both wish there was decent safeguards, I am way more pessimistic about any effective rights regulation though (I think it’s just way too hard for any legislation body). Not saying nothing should be done on the el…

The problem with privacy by obscurity is that once broken it cannot be fixed. Once information is released and becomes public, there is no way to retrieve or expunge it from the public record. The only remedy is law, regulation, and a social compact that the continued dissemination and use against your interests is forbidden.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#88

Post by SysINT »

The use of the word Privacy is misleading the conversation. We should be setting the goal to make it illegal to collect. It should be illegal for commercial entities to collect information that can be considered personally identifiable information without explicit consent. Additionally, that should not be allowed within a commercial terms of service agreement, and if automated must also provide means to remove with the same timeliness of the automated subscription.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#89

Post by foxhop »

SysINT wrote: post #88

The use of the word Privacy is misleading the conversation. We should be setting the goal to make it illegal to collect. It should be illegal for commercial entities to collect information that can be considered personally identifiable information without explicit consent. Additionally, that should not be allowed within a commercial terms of service agreement, and if automated must also provide means to remove with t…

Additionally if we agree to have our data collected, we should still own that data, meaning the 3d x-ray that the othodontist generates is your data, and you should have access to it (from anywhere if digital, or a copy of it if physical), and the choice of it's removal, when said data no longer serves you.

Re: The Fantasy of Opting Out

#90

Post by guillim85 »

onion2k wrote: post #19
Altheasy wrote: post #11

The author: Privacy does not mean stopping the flow of data; it means channeling it wisely and justly to serve societal ends and values and the individuals who are its subjects, particularly the vulnerable and the disadvantaged. You are wrong, privacy mean stopping the flow of the data completely. No one should spy on your life.

No one should spy on your life. Absolute statements are always wrong. ;) The problem with this way of thinking is that it's very hard to define what 'spying' is, and what 'your life' is. This is best illustrated with an example - when you read this comment you'll have loaded a page on HN. That means HN's server probably has a log of your IP address, browser agent string, etc. There's a complete history of every artic…

> Absolute statements are always wrong. ;)

Love the irony here :)

Post reply on HN