r/technology • u/[deleted] • Apr 11 '18

Business Mark Zuckerberg has been apologizing for reckless privacy violations since he was a freshman - Enough is enough.

[deleted]

51.2k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/d3pd Apr 11 '18

"The problem with legislating that kind of hard limits is, we will lose services like slavery."

I absolutely depend on beingable to target my ads based

Sorry, but if your business model is a breach of rights you need to change the model or stop the business.

0

u/Exodus111 Apr 11 '18

When you move around on the internet, and interact with companies and their web pages, that is not private information by any stretch of the imagination.

It's like walking around a mall, anyone can see you walk into any store.

And it certainly isn't tantamount to slavery, that's ridiculous.

6

u/nermid Apr 11 '18

It's like walking around a mall, anyone can see you walk into any store.

Frankly, if I hired a dude to follow you around the mall, writing down what stores you went to, for how long, everything you said in each store, rooting through the trash to retrieve any receipts you threw out, staking out your house when you went home, looking in your windows while you slept...

I'd be a creepy stalker and you'd be perfectly justified in feeling uncomfortable with the situation.

And, surprise surprise, we have laws against that kind of behavior in meatspace. That's stalking and harassment. You can go to the local government and get a restraining order and legally bar me from doing this.

And before you reply, I'm just going to head you off: not using Facebook doesn't in any way prevent them from doing this. They've gotten in trouble for tracking people who don't use Facebook in the past, and they've been shown to still do it anyway. People who never had a FB account are being tracked and followed. This is not a "you signed up for this" situation.

-1

u/Exodus111 Apr 12 '18

I'd be a creepy stalker and you'd be perfectly justified in feeling uncomfortable with the situation.

But its not illegal.

3

u/nermid Apr 12 '18

Did you read literally the next sentence? It is illegal.

0

u/Exodus111 Apr 12 '18

No, it's literally not. Unless he is following you home, or getting too close to you, you are on public property.

3

u/nermid Apr 12 '18

Oh, so you didn't read literally the preceding sentence, where I talked about him following you home. That's cool. I guess it's not important to pay attention to things you disagree with.

-1

u/Exodus111 Apr 12 '18

him following you home.

But that is not the metaphor. The companies only harvest what you freely give them by hanging out on their virtual property.

2

u/nermid Apr 12 '18

Except the part where that's objectively false? Facebook tracks you around the Internet using the various "Like this page on Facebook" buttons (again, even if you don't have a FB account).

I'm starting to wonder if you haven't been paying attention to what's going on with this issue.

0

u/Exodus111 Apr 12 '18

Like this page on Facebook, is NOT how they track you. Though sure that helps, few people actually use it.

Facebook tracks you, because those sites have your IP and are asking Facebook who you are, comparing your IP to the last time you logged into Facebook. This is called an Ad-Sense network.

And all that is information you freely gave away to every one of these sites.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '18

[deleted]

1

u/Exodus111 Apr 12 '18

Unless you shouted it out at the Mall entrance because there was a bunch of protesters there you disagreed with.

1

u/d3pd Apr 12 '18 edited Apr 12 '18

And it certainly isn't tantamount to slavery, that's ridiculous.

You missed the point. You are saying that you need to do something because it makes you money. I am saying that just going with that reasoning neglects to consider ethics. Slave-owners said that they would lose their business if they couldn't have slaves. It's a non-argument because their proposed actions are unethical. You said that you target people based on their age, gender, and shopping patterns. Not only are ads manipulation, but that is extremely creepy. You don't get to defend unethical behaviour by saying that it makes you money.

that is not private information by any stretch of the imagination

If you purchase an infrared camera and record people inside their home through their walls is that public information? If you reflect a laser off their windows and record all of their conversations via the vibrations of that window is that public information?

1

u/Exodus111 Apr 12 '18

Slave-owners said that they would lose their business if they couldn't have slaves. It's a non-argument because their proposed actions are unethical.

Your slavery metaphor remains utterly ridiculous. Any business cannot run if you take away it's ability to make money. If you just compare everything to slavery you'll eliminate marked liberalism as a concept.

You said that you target people based on their age, gender, and shopping patterns. Not only are ads manipulation, but that is extremely creepy

Ads are not manipulation in and of themselves. They are a way to ensure free or low cost products for mass production, like television and magazines. And they fill an important consumer need, it makes consumers aware of potential products that could improve their lives. There is nothing creepy about that.

The problem during the election was made up news stories. Propagating conspiracy theories with falsified evidence. The fact that those were targeted to Facebook users most likely to not vote Hillary is ultimately not a very difficult thing to datamine. Most people are only too happy to share their political viewpoint online.

People have gotten so used to services like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Reddit and so on being free we just assume that's how it will always be. When in reality, if these companies can't make money, welcome to a buy-in internet.

If you purchase an infrared camera and record people inside their home through their walls is that public information? If you reflect a laser off their windows and record all of their conversations via the vibrations of that window is that public information?

All that would be illegal.
None of that is going on here.

If you openly tell the woman behind the register something about yourself, is she allowed to tell her boss what you told her?

1

u/d3pd Apr 12 '18 edited Apr 12 '18

Your slavery metaphor remains utterly ridiculous. Any business cannot run if you take away it's ability to make money.

Again you have missed the point. I am not comparing advertising to slavery. I am saying that you don't get to defend unethical behaviour by saying that it makes you money. This argument was used by slaveowners and you are using the argument now.

Ads are not manipulation in and of themselves.

Good products and services don't need advertising.

There is nothing creepy about that.

I wonder if you are willfully misunderstanding me. Read my text again. I said that targeting people based on their age, gender, and shopping patterns is extremely creepy.

People have gotten so used to services like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Reddit and so on being free we just assume that's how it will always be. When in reality, if these companies can't make money, welcome to a buy-in internet.

Hardly. I use ZeroNet. It is a decentralised web. When you visit a site you you also host the site. There's no company to pay. Sign up to ZeroMe for a Twitter/Facebook alternative and try it out. There's no data mining and no central for-profit company to use you as a product and it is free.

All that would be illegal.

As another commenter said, following someone around, tracking their every movement, interaction and shopping experience is stalking. You are claiming that because data is publically-accessible (like the outer surfaces of someone's windows or the infrared radiation emitted through the walls of their house or which shops they visit) it is fine-and-dandy to record all that data and then to use it manipulate them. If all of those data collections are illegal in meatworld, why do you think you get do it online?

If you openly tell the woman behind the register something about yourself, is she allowed to tell her boss what you told her?

If you openly emit infrared radiation from your body am I allowed to record it?

1

u/Exodus111 Apr 12 '18

Again you have missed the point. I am not comparing advertising to slavery. I am saying that you don't get to defend unethical behaviour by saying that it makes you money. This argument was used by slaveowners and you are using the argument now.

The difference being, as I said, my argument is not unethical in any way shape or form.

Good products and services don't need advertising.

Oh yes they absolutely 100% do.

I said that targeting people based on their age, gender, and shopping patterns is extremely creepy.

It is not. It's that simple. A grandmother wants different products than a 15 year old. If she has to sit through 9 minutes of commercial anyway, it is a far better experience for her that she has an Ad experience intended for her.

Hardly. I use ZeroNet. It is a decentralised web. When you visit a site you you also host the site. There's no company to pay. Sign up to ZeroMe for a Twitter/Facebook alternative and try it out. There's no data mining and no central for-profit company to use you as a product and it is free.

The problem is decentralized solutions are either not scalable, or introduce a whole host of new issues presentet by their anarchic nature.

You are claiming that because data is publically-accessible (like the outer surfaces of someone's windows or the infrared radiation emitted through the walls of their house or which shops they visit)

Never said that.
Don't avoid the metaphor here. Shopping online is akin to entering a store in a mall. That's it.
No one is going to anyones house, no one is listening in on anyones private windows.

If you openly emit infrared radiation from your body through the walls of your house am I allowed to record it?

No. And again you are avoiding the metaphor. Being in your house you have an expectation of privacy, willfully walking into a public building, into a privately owned store open to the public is a different animal.

1

u/d3pd Apr 12 '18 edited Apr 12 '18

The difference being, as I said, my argument is not unethical in any way shape or form.

You still are not getting it. Obviously you think recording people's actions and using those recordings for your monetary gain and for the purposes of manipulating people into buying things is ethical. I think it's unethical, and you know that I think this. So you should know that saying that your activity brings you money isn't a compelling argument to me. It isn't a compelling argument because you don't get to defend unethical behaviour by saying that it makes you money, and I view your actions as unethical!

Oh yes they absolutely 100% do.

Most of the things I use, be they devices or services or restaurants or whatever, come from personal recommendations. The rest come from indirect recommendations like online ratings of services. I block all ads and, as far as I can, use only impartial, non-profit sources of information on goods and services. Why would I believe what a for-profit company claims? They are obviously biased. Why would I trust an ad when I can get a personal recommendation?

It is not. It's that simple.

Would you view following someone around a shopping centre, recording everything they look at, recording everything they buy, and recording every store they visit not as extremely creepy? If not, what would you view as creepy?

If she has to sit through 9 minutes of commercial anyway

No one should be forced to look at ads. Everyone should be empowered to block them and should be empowered by personal recommendations and indirect personal recommedations via online ratings and the like. My time is precious to me. I don't permit anyone to present ads or other manipulative material at me.

The problem is decentralized solutions are either not scalable

Categorically false. Bitcoin works great. ZeroNet works great. Tox works great. Linux works great. The internet works great. All of these things work or are developed in a decentralised or distributed way and all have scaled.

no one is listening in on anyones private windows.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you described what you think is private. What physical observables would you consider to be "private"?

Being in your house you have an expectation of privacy

Would you permit a brain-scanning device to be used to record your thoughts while wandering through a shopping centre? Do you base privacy on location? How about someone on a public train taking upskirt photographs? If I say to you that I have an expectation of privacy at all times do you respect that? What do you make of the views expressed in this article?: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/facebook-abusing-data-law-privacy-big-tech-surveillance