# Libertarianism and Surveillance Capitalism



## @zwen (Oct 17, 2019)

This is a question for the libertarian audience; what is your response to corporate entities that become powerful enough to hire their own militaries? What about the lucrative market surrounding data mining and surveillance? Is lobbying for your special interests morally wrong or is it simply the next step in protecting one’s efforts and assets?


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Oct 17, 2019)

No, no, and no. Not trying to live in an Orwell novel.
No reason for private entities to have their own military. High-end, armed security? Sure. A military? Absolutely not. As for when an exceptionally large security team becomes a military, that's someone else's call. Apple being able to invade half the country doesn't exactly sound like something that would inspire personal liberty. Just a ridiculous concept that I don't think would work even in a hypothetical; you'd have a better chance at talking me into communism.

Data mining and surveillance is another big no; although with how entrenched it is in modern culture, there's no way in hell we're getting away from it. The NSA's logs are extremely unethical and it blows my mind that they get away with it. All of the big-brother style snooping that the government does on all private communications is excessive and unnecessary. The datamining industry is also upsetting, but not as much; since you're 'purchasing' a service with your data. The upsetting bit is that it isn't presented that way, people aren't aware (although awareness on this is increasing), and there's really no way to stop it. It's almost impossible to function in modern society without using some sort of service that collects your personal data. Even with something as stupid as _*Windows*_ now, you're trapped into telemetry and a loss of granular control over your own system. This one bothers me a lot.

Then the only fans of lobbying are lobbyists. I want my laws to be passed because the lawmakers were made aware of an issue and then crafted a solution that was researched, reviewed, debated, and then voted on; not because a talking head paid another talking head to put it on the floor and piggyback some other bullshit into it to make sure it gets passed. It's impossible for money to be involved and folks not to be influenced. Term limits for the House / Senate, anti-lobbying legislation, and (in a pipe-dream perfect world) some more ethical politicians and I'd be one happy camper. Until I find something else to get pissed about. Which usually doesn't take long.


----------



## @zwen (Oct 17, 2019)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Data mining and surveillance is another big no; although with how entrenched it is in modern culture, there's no way in hell we're getting away from it. The NSA's logs are extremely unethical and it blows my mind that they get away with it. All of the big-brother style snooping that the government does on all private communications is excessive and unnecessary. The datamining industry is also upsetting, but not as much; since you're 'purchasing' a service with your data. The upsetting bit is that it isn't presented that way, people aren't aware (although awareness on this is increasing), and there's really no way to stop it. It's almost impossible to function in modern society without using some sort of service that collects your personal data. Even with something as stupid as _*Windows*_ now, you're trapped into telemetry and a loss of granular control over your own system. This one bothers me a lot.



It’s become so invasive now that even if you are off of social media and the internet, they can learn everything about you from the others around you.

I think this is why everyday laymen should be armed. The monopolization of violence is never a good thing.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Oct 17, 2019)

@zwen said:


> It’s become so invasive now that even if you are off of social media and the internet, they can learn everything about you from the others around you.



I've steered clear of all of the social media nonsense. I don't have a twitter, facebook, any of that. Just never saw the appeal because when MySpace was taking off when I was a kid, all of my friends were the type of people that I could just swing by to talk to or call them whenever, so it just seemed dumb. Never got onto it.

And yet, about a year and a half ago, a friend of mine from YEARS back (10+) managed to track me down from across the country by using OTHER PEOPLE'S social media. Was able to figure out where I lived, worked, looked like, etc. Imagine what the state- who has a direct line to your information- has.


----------



## Drew (Oct 17, 2019)

Is this some wild, far-fetched libertarian wet dream/dystopian hypothetical, or has Facebook cowboyed up and brought in the shock troops since last I checked?


----------



## vilk (Oct 17, 2019)

All my ads used to be for penis pills, which I don't need.
Now all my ads are for guitar pedals, which I do need.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Oct 17, 2019)

Drew said:


> Is this some wild, far-fetched libertarian wet dream/dystopian hypothetical, or has Facebook cowboyed up and brought in the shock troops since last I checked?



Google's finally had enough of Microsoft and called in the drones to the Bing offices.


----------



## Demiurge (Oct 17, 2019)

It's interesting how for a while one of the big "modern dystopia" tropes was the Surveillance State. Somehow, instead, we (ok, maybe not everyone most) have simply decided to simply give up our privacy. People share everything online OR they'll go out of their way to "put on blast" everyone who wrongs them. Who knew? It's like guessing that the future of fishing was waiting for the fish to jump into the boat.


----------



## Adieu (Oct 17, 2019)

Private army may be a good thing.

When Trump was busy colluding with the Canadians to kidnap the daughter of some Chinese CEO for trade negotiation leverage (because cmon, really, that's what that was) like some sad comic book villain.... I was kinda wondering if he understood the maths behind pissing off somebody with $100 billion.

If that converts easily to 100,000 supersoldiers, 1 million noobs, or 10 million 3rd world militia, maybe even Trump would think twice


----------



## @zwen (Oct 17, 2019)

Adieu said:


> Private army may be a good thing.
> 
> When Trump was busy colluding with the Canadians to kidnap the daughter of some Chinese CEO for trade negotiation leverage (because cmon, really, that's what that was) like some sad comic book villain.... I was kinda wondering if he understood the maths behind pissing off somebody with $100 billion.
> 
> If that converts easily to 100,000 supersoldiers, 1 million noobs, or 10 million 3rd world militia, maybe even Trump would think twice



Alphabet Inc. already tells governments to fuck off when they get subpoenaed. Imagine the kind of power Amazon will have when they become the market itself and the only way to engage in commerce.


----------



## Randy (Oct 17, 2019)

vilk said:


> All my ads used to be for penis pills, which I don't need.
> Now all my ads are for guitar pedals, which I do need.



Joking aside, weaponizing of data has proven to already be a thing in the 2016, and Facebook has already shown their willingness to readily share that information with anyone for the right price regardless of their intentions.


----------



## @zwen (Oct 17, 2019)

Randy said:


> Joking aside, weaponizing of data has proven to already be a thing in the 2016, and Facebook has already shown their willingness to readily share that information with anyone for the right price regardless of their intentions.



Wait until the advertisers are able to accurately predict what we want before we even know it ourselves.


----------



## @zwen (Oct 17, 2019)

Demiurge said:


> It's interesting how for a while one of the big "modern dystopia" tropes was the Surveillance State. Somehow, instead, we (ok, maybe not everyone most) have simply decided to simply give up our privacy. People share everything online OR they'll go out of their way to "put on blast" everyone who wrongs them. Who knew? It's like guessing that the future of fishing was waiting for the fish to jump into the boat.



There will probably be kids in the near future that will exclaim, “You could be anonymous online!!???” when you tell them about the kind of web experience we have today.


----------



## narad (Oct 17, 2019)

@zwen said:


> There will probably be kids in the near future that will exclaim, “You could be anonymous online!!???” when you tell them about the kind of web experience we have today.



Complaining about the system? Sounds like these kids are itching for a few years in the iso cubes.


----------



## Adieu (Oct 18, 2019)

@zwen said:


> Wait until the advertisers are able to accurately predict what we want before we even know it ourselves.



Have Youtube Amazon and Netflix taught you nothing???

Hell even pron-tube sites now generally know your tastes better than you yourself do


----------



## diagrammatiks (Oct 18, 2019)

i like knowing that someday somewhere there's going to be a government employee whose only job will be to watch me masturbate.


----------



## Exchanger (Oct 18, 2019)

vilk said:


> All my ads used to be for penis pills, which I don't need.
> Now all my ads are for guitar pedals, which I do need.



Wait a few years until all your pedalboards are full and playing with all these useless fuzz pedals has rendered you impotent 



@zwen said:


> Wait until the advertisers are able to accurately predict what we want before we even know it ourselves.



They can already. Apperently google can already determine if a lady is in the early weeks of pregnancy based purely on her groceries list, even before she buys a pregnancy test or anything directly related.

Sadly yes, the trend is going towards more and more powerful companies and less state sovereignty. In a way it's a seductive idea especially for libertarians because companies seem to be less authoritarian or less prone to ideology than states (in short, if profit is the main goal, none really cares about race or nationality or gender, everyone is just a happy consumer...). But that's only an illusion if you ask me (none cares so it's just the law of the richest and these can align very well with fascists and other supremacists).


----------



## Drew (Oct 18, 2019)

@zwen said:


> Alphabet Inc. already tells governments to fuck off when they get subpoenaed. Imagine the kind of power Amazon will have when they become the market itself and the only way to engage in commerce.


Right, so this IS sensationalist fear-mongering? 

Alphabet fought back because the subpoena was on unclear constitutional and legal ground and would require them to violate thgeir terms of service and reasonable rights to privacy. Going to the courts when facing a subpoena you believe is issued illegally is absolutely a possible and allowable excuse. 

Also, asking libertarians to condemn a company because they didn't immediately roll over when the _government_ requested something is an.... interesting approach.


----------



## Drew (Oct 18, 2019)

diagrammatiks said:


> i like knowing that someday somewhere there's going to be a government employee whose only job will be to watch me masturbate.


4.5/10, you could last a little longer, that sock has seen better days, and your habit of yelling out "Yabba dabba doooo!!!!!!" at the top of your lungs mid-orgasm is a little disruptive.


----------



## coffeeflush (Oct 18, 2019)

I don't have social media
I use protonmail and independent services
Use signal for messaging mostly

I read lot of independent media and I've stopped fast media consumption. 

I don't want to worry about something that i cannot control, nor do I want to change the world and be a revolutionary.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 18, 2019)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> No, no, and no. Not trying to live in an Orwell novel.
> No reason for private entities to have their own military. High-end, armed security? Sure. A military? Absolutely not. As for when an exceptionally large security team becomes a military, that's someone else's call. Apple being able to invade half the country doesn't exactly sound like something that would inspire personal liberty. Just a ridiculous concept that I don't think would work even in a hypothetical; you'd have a better chance at talking me into communism.
> 
> Data mining and surveillance is another big no; although with how entrenched it is in modern culture, there's no way in hell we're getting away from it. The NSA's logs are extremely unethical and it blows my mind that they get away with it. All of the big-brother style snooping that the government does on all private communications is excessive and unnecessary. The datamining industry is also upsetting, but not as much; since you're 'purchasing' a service with your data. The upsetting bit is that it isn't presented that way, people aren't aware (although awareness on this is increasing), and there's really no way to stop it. It's almost impossible to function in modern society without using some sort of service that collects your personal data. Even with something as stupid as _*Windows*_ now, you're trapped into telemetry and a loss of granular control over your own system. This one bothers me a lot.
> ...



Here's my take on the data mining thing. If you're leveraging my data to make money, where's my cut? Its my data. I own it. Why do you get to keep all the money made from it and I don't get a penny?


----------



## jaxadam (Oct 18, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> Here's my take on the data mining thing. If you're leveraging my data to make money, where's my cut? Its my data. I own it. Why do you get to keep all the money made from it and I don't get a penny?



Then but stock in Apple/Microsoft/Google/Amazon/Sevenstring


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 18, 2019)

diagrammatiks said:


> i like knowing that someday somewhere there's going to be a government employee whose only job will be to watch me masturbate.



Yes, their suffering and self-loathing will make my life complete.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 18, 2019)

jaxadam said:


> Then but stock in Apple/Microsoft/Google/Amazon/Sevenstring



I shouldn't have to. This is intellectual property that they are exploiting for profit. Much like a record label does with music. That's my intellectual property they are using. I should get my cut right there.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Oct 18, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> I shouldn't have to. This is intellectual property that they are exploiting for profit. Much like a record label does with music. That's my intellectual property they are using. I should get my cut right there.



Your cut comes in the form of free access to their service. The privilege of using Facebook, Google, etc. It's big dumb, I know, but that's the principle behind it.
The problem is that now these services have become so entrenched into our daily lives that you basically can't escape them. Have fun buying a phone that doesn't run on an OS written by Apple or Google, lmao. Enjoy finding a job without the internet.

That's the problem- it's not a "you scratch my back I scratch yours" arrangement anymore; these services are no longer optional or small scale. Now it's almost like a mob shakedown situation. You honestly don't have much of a choice but to pay your protection money in the form of your personal data.


----------



## _MonSTeR_ (Oct 18, 2019)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Your cut comes in the form of free access to their service. The privilege of using Facebook, Google, etc. It's big dumb, I know, but that's the principle behind it.
> The problem is that now these services have become so entrenched into our daily lives that you basically can't escape them. Have fun buying a phone that doesn't run on an OS written by Apple or Google, lmao. Enjoy finding a job without the internet.
> 
> That's the problem- it's not a "you scratch my back I scratch yours" arrangement anymore; these services are no longer optional or small scale. Now it's almost like a mob shakedown situation. You honestly don't have much of a choice but to pay your protection money in the form of your personal data.



Exactly right, 

"If you can't see the product, you *ARE *the product" 

"Them" gathering data on "us" is the price "we" pay to use their services. Google/facebook/whoever have to make their money from somewhere because the server farms don't run for free and real estate in silicon valley isn't cheap. So they make it from information.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 19, 2019)

_MonSTeR_ said:


> Exactly right,
> 
> "If you can't see the product, you *ARE *the product"
> 
> "Them" gathering data on "us" is the price "we" pay to use their services. Google/facebook/whoever have to make their money from somewhere because the server farms don't run for free and real estate in silicon valley isn't cheap. So they make it from information.



I understand that. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t get paid. That’s like telling a band that they don’t get to make any money off of their recordings because the label is providing them a service that the label is making money hand over fist on. Only in this case, the IP is INFINITELY more valuable. 

For what it’s worth, there are groups out there taking legal action to change this. Particularly with our medical data. The only reason it works the way it does is that they’ve convinced everyone that somehow the digital world of your personal data is somehow not intellectual property and that you somehow don’t own it. It takes one lawsuit. And how is access to the site adequate compensation for something so valuable to them. We should be making money from our search data, our personal data on facebook, and any medical data shared with any medicine related companies. It’s our data. Why do they get to make choices with it for us and get paid for it without sharing any of that incredible amount of cash. This data turned Google into one of the most successful companies on the planet in just a few years. It’s pretty clear that free email and web search functionality aren’t adequate compensation. Same goes to Facebook and it’s services.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 19, 2019)

For instance, if Google paid out per search since it averages .09/search in revenues. It could pay out to each user per search around if their margins are lower, then adjust it to 25% of whatever gross profit is.


----------



## _MonSTeR_ (Oct 19, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> I understand that. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t get paid. That’s like telling a band that they don’t get to make any money off of their recordings because the label is providing them a service that the label is making money hand over fist on. Only in this case, the IP is INFINITELY more valuable.
> 
> For what it’s worth, there are groups out there taking legal action to change this. Particularly with our medical data. The only reason it works the way it does is that they’ve convinced everyone that somehow the digital world of your personal data is somehow not intellectual property and that you somehow don’t own it. It takes one lawsuit. And how is access to the site adequate compensation for something so valuable to them. We should be making money from our search data, our personal data on facebook, and any medical data shared with any medicine related companies. It’s our data. Why do they get to make choices with it for us and get paid for it without sharing any of that incredible amount of cash. This data turned Google into one of the most successful companies on the planet in just a few years. It’s pretty clear that free email and web search functionality aren’t adequate compensation. Same goes to Facebook and it’s services.



But the Average Joe doesn't create any "data" _per se_, the search engines observe the users' behaviour and generate the data from there. It's less like a label interacting with a band and more like a pharmaceutical company getting patients in on a clinical trial. The patient might get pioneering lifesaving treatment, but in exchange the company gets blood samples and clinical data that lets them go to market. 

The reason it works the way it does isn't that the "companies" have convinced anyone of anything, it's because people are lazy, don't read the terms of service and don't realise the conditions of using a service they see as being "free". When someone asks Google to search for something, they've already agreed to let Google have that data, the second it hits the Google server it's not "the person's" data anymore, it's Google's data. You might not think you're getting paid enough, but you've agreed to the terms of the sale anyway. 

Turn it on its head - imagine if Google stopped selling user data and started making its money by charging users 0.09 per search in fees? Watch those typos!


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 19, 2019)

_MonSTeR_ said:


> But the Average Joe doesn't create any "data" _per se_, the search engines observe the users' behaviour and generate the data from there. It's less like a label interacting with a band and more like a pharmaceutical company getting patients in on a clinical trial. The patient might get pioneering lifesaving treatment, but in exchange the company gets blood samples and clinical data that lets them go to market.
> 
> The reason it works the way it does isn't that the "companies" have convinced anyone of anything, it's because people are lazy, don't read the terms of service and don't realise the conditions of using a service they see as being "free". When someone asks Google to search for something, they've already agreed to let Google have that data, the second it hits the Google server it's not "the person's" data anymore, it's Google's data. You might not think you're getting paid enough, but you've agreed to the terms of the sale anyway.
> 
> Turn it on its head - imagine if Google stopped selling user data and started making its money by charging users 0.09 per search in fees? Watch those typos!



I still disagree with the practice. One situation those individuals may earn longer life. That’s an actual pay off. However you look at it. The average Joe isn’t creating the data. They ARE the data, as it’s their behavior that gives the companies what they want. Basically a digital representation of them. It’s the same sort of data that Facebook leverages. I don’t have a problem with the usage, I have a problem with the data being their main source of profit and them not passing that on. Especially since I have to look at all of the ads.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 19, 2019)

I also think that if the government as a publicly owned entity that profits off of tariffs, international business, and such, should be entitled to pass some of those profits off to citizens.


----------



## jaxadam (Oct 19, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> I also think that if the government as a publicly owned entity that profits off of tariffs, international business, and such, should be entitled to pass some of those profits off to citizens.



Makin’ money while you sleep!


----------



## _MonSTeR_ (Oct 19, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> I still disagree with the practice. One situation those individuals may earn longer life. That’s an actual pay off. However you look at it. The average Joe isn’t creating the data. They ARE the data, as it’s their behavior that gives the companies what they want. Basically a digital representation of them. It’s the same sort of data that Facebook leverages. I don’t have a problem with the usage, I have a problem with the data being their main source of profit and them not passing that on. Especially since I have to look at all of the ads.



Remember, when it comes to Facebook... The data is their main source of profit, yes. And you have to look at adverts specifically based on your internet activity as they watch your every online move, yes. And Mark Zuckerberg made literally billions by working out that other companies would pay to know what people look at online, yes. 

BUT...

In exchange, you get to see what people you knew in high school had for dinner last night... 

You could always not use it


----------



## Vyn (Oct 19, 2019)

Drew said:


> 4.5/10, you could last a little longer, that sock has seen better days, and your habit of yelling out "Yabba dabba doooo!!!!!!" at the top of your lungs mid-orgasm is a little disruptive.



Oh god, imagine that combined with China's social credit system...


----------



## c7spheres (Oct 19, 2019)

If you read all the terms and conditions of all the agreements and contracts you sign, combined with state and federal laws, we really don't techincally own anything at all, we only take ownership of liability and responsibility. It's all an illusion. In reality, "they" can take whatever they want whenever they want, especially via civil forfieture laws. We already live in an authoritarian police state type society. People are just in denial or they aren't. If you're not in denial and make it known, you're now a target. Problem is that becomes apparent before you even know it. They already got you figured out before you did. Just my opinion. Don't want to argue.


----------



## narad (Oct 19, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> I still disagree with the practice. One situation those individuals may earn longer life. That’s an actual pay off. However you look at it. The average Joe isn’t creating the data. They ARE the data, as it’s their behavior that gives the companies what they want. Basically a digital representation of them. It’s the same sort of data that Facebook leverages. I don’t have a problem with the usage, I have a problem with the data being their main source of profit and them not passing that on. Especially since I have to look at all of the ads.



I think this is a weird way of looking at it. Users aren't the data -- that gets tossed around a lot but isn't very accurate -- the data is derived via the user interacting with the platform. By saying "a digital representation of them" you make it sound like some Black Mirror sort of thing, when really if the platform didn't exist, your interactions with it are not valuable. And data isn't their main source of profit -- advertising is. Big difference.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 19, 2019)

narad said:


> I think this is a weird way of looking at it. Users aren't the data -- that gets tossed around a lot but isn't very accurate -- the data is derived via the user interacting with the platform. By saying "a digital representation of them" you make it sound like some Black Mirror sort of thing, when really if the platform didn't exist, your interactions with it are not valuable. And data isn't their main source of profit -- advertising is. Big difference.



Have you used Facebook’s business interface? Those ads are using your data to target you. That’s what companies want access to.

Related to a different response: if you think Facebook doesn’t have an algorithm that can accurately predict your activity on their medium based on your data you’re mistaken. They absolutely do. And there are plenty of people who will pay for access to that as well.


----------



## narad (Oct 19, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> Have you used Facebook’s business interface? Those ads are using your data to target you. That’s what companies want access to.
> 
> Related to a different response: if you think Facebook doesn’t have an algorithm that can accurately predict your activity on their medium based on your data you’re mistaken. They absolutely do. And there are plenty of people who will pay for access to that as well.



Of course advertisers want their ads to hit relevant audiences, but it's still the ad that generates revenue, not data. It should generally be a win-win. When Spotify tells me a band I like is playing nearby, that's a win for both of us. I always thought, hey, I'm thankful that I haven't seen a tampon commercial since I ditched cable and targeted advertising became reasonably effective. Now people should be compensated for not being shown irrelevant ads? A weird world.

And people act like they deserve an appreciable amount of money simply for existing as a 22-year-old heterosexual male that likes Marvel movies and the Yankiees, and voted democratic. It's useful to advertisers to know that, but yet there's still no value intrinsic in simply being that.

And at the same time, it's aggregate data analysis that allows services to be sufficiently useful. You're free to use some other search service that doesn't leverage this information, but it's going to be way worse at giving you relevant documents, so no one uses it, so it doesn't get better.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 19, 2019)

I prefer to tell people what I want and go do the work and research to find it for myself. The ads aren’t convenient, and neither is my data out there. I don’t personally use it. But I don’t mind them using mine as a statistic. I just think that since those services are not used by people across the board, are often found to be annoying, and they make money from it, it’s only fair. I’m only on Facebook because that’s where local bands and businesses are and I don’t really have a choice. If I could get away with not using it I would. I already use Google as little as possible.


----------



## zappatton2 (Oct 19, 2019)

My personal preference is that corporations be legally bound to keep all data they collect atomized. A difficult task, considering private companies are duty bound to target individuals to tailor tastes and clientele, but that part of the deal should be explicit in an easy-to-read click option. Even atomized data (removing all individual identifiers to preserve anonymity, like many federal statistical agencies) could be of value to corps to gauge general market trends, so it seems a reasonable compromise to me.


----------



## narad (Oct 19, 2019)

zappatton2 said:


> My personal preference is that corporations be legally bound to keep all data they collect atomized. A difficult task, considering private companies are duty bound to target individuals to tailor tastes and clientele, but that part of the deal should be explicit in an easy-to-read click option. Even atomized data (removing all individual identifiers to preserve anonymity, like many federal statistical agencies) could be of value to corps to gauge general market trends, so it seems a reasonable compromise to me.



Anonymized?


----------



## Adieu (Oct 20, 2019)

Please Scan Forehead QR Code & Click ACCEPT PRIVACY RELEASE to continue


----------



## _MonSTeR_ (Oct 20, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> I’m only on Facebook because that’s where local bands and businesses are and I don’t really have a choice. If I could get away with not using it I would. I already use Google as little as possible.



You do have a choice though, don't see local bands, use word of mouth to find local businesses, use a separate PC for different aspects of your life, switch addresses and move internet providers often, dress in shades of black and dark grey, blend in, grow your own food, make cash only transactions


----------



## Adieu (Oct 20, 2019)

_MonSTeR_ said:


> You do have a choice though, don't see local bands, use word of mouth to find local businesses, use a separate PC for different aspects of your life, switch addresses and move internet providers often, dress in shades of black and dark grey, blend in, grow your own food, make cash only transactions



so basically, you wanna live in a tent and sling dope on a corner by the local 7-11?


----------



## narad (Oct 20, 2019)

Dope or data. Make your choice.


----------



## _MonSTeR_ (Oct 20, 2019)

Adieu said:


> so basically, you wanna live in a tent and sling dope on a corner by the local 7-11?



What, the actual f*ck?

No.

I'm talking about self sufficient farming, i.e. a small holding and you're on about being a drug dealer?!!?


----------



## Adieu (Oct 20, 2019)

You can't possibly farm off the grid, not unless you're living half dead hand to mouth somewhere in Kenya

And even then, much worse off than your fellow impoverished Kenyan peers. Because they're all more "mobilized" than we are these days, they do everything with cellphones there these days.

ESPECIALLY the farmers


----------



## _MonSTeR_ (Oct 20, 2019)

My wife’s family are dairy farmers, I can confirm that whilst all of the younger generation in their 20s have Facebook, the older generations who actually own the farm, believe it or not, don’t use Facebook, and the animals still get fed, the milk goes out, the tractors are maintained, and Mark Zuckerburg is fine with that.

I’m not saying live off the grid. I’m saying that if you are worried that Zuck is trying to mind control you or, if you think you are owed money because even though you agreed to their cookie policy you aren’t going to take it anymore, then you don’t _actually _need Facebook.


----------



## Drew (Oct 21, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> I understand that. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t get paid. That’s like telling a band that they don’t get to make any money off of their recordings because the label is providing them a service that the label is making money hand over fist on. Only in this case, the IP is INFINITELY more valuable.


You ARE getting paid, is the thing, though. If you prefer, think of it as if Facebook DID charge a membership fee,. say, $5.99 a month, but in return for the ability to use user data in aggregate, they also credit you a $5.99 payment every month. It nets out to zero, but it still flows both ways - you get a social media platform that you value provided to you at no cost, and in return that platform enables advertisers to place ads to very carefully targeted demographics. 

I'd *personally* be happier about this arrangement if there was an alternative where you could pay a monthly fee and in return your user data was not available (again, in aggregate, and not personally identifiable) to advertisers, but I suspect even in that scenario, the vast majority of users would choose the free service. 

Heck, there are some platforms where I'm actually pretty stoked about how they use my data. I'm a bit of a Strava junkie, and there are two ways they use my personal data on that site (well, three, including segment leaderboards by age, sex, weight, etc). First, all activities tagged "commute" are available in a separate commute-only database, and Strava sells access to that database to municipalities who want better information about how people bike or walk to work - peak times, preferred routes, how these have changed over time, if recently implimented policies have had any measurable impact, etc. Second, they have a route-building tool that uses their full database of where people have historically ridden, to automatically peice together a route from one point to another, based on how popular to ride or run on various roads are in their database. I think that kind of stuff is cool, and even though I pay a monthly fee for expanded analytic data on their platform, I'm happy to have my data used for these purposes.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 21, 2019)

Drew said:


> You ARE getting paid, is the thing, though. If you prefer, think of it as if Facebook DID charge a membership fee,. say, $5.99 a month, but in return for the ability to use user data in aggregate, they also credit you a $5.99 payment every month. It nets out to zero, but it still flows both ways - you get a social media platform that you value provided to you at no cost, and in return that platform enables advertisers to place ads to very carefully targeted demographics.
> 
> I'd *personally* be happier about this arrangement if there was an alternative where you could pay a monthly fee and in return your user data was not available (again, in aggregate, and not personally identifiable) to advertisers, but I suspect even in that scenario, the vast majority of users would choose the free service.
> 
> Heck, there are some platforms where I'm actually pretty stoked about how they use my data. I'm a bit of a Strava junkie, and there are two ways they use my personal data on that site (well, three, including segment leaderboards by age, sex, weight, etc). First, all activities tagged "commute" are available in a separate commute-only database, and Strava sells access to that database to municipalities who want better information about how people bike or walk to work - peak times, preferred routes, how these have changed over time, if recently implimented policies have had any measurable impact, etc. Second, they have a route-building tool that uses their full database of where people have historically ridden, to automatically peice together a route from one point to another, based on how popular to ride or run on various roads are in their database. I think that kind of stuff is cool, and even though I pay a monthly fee for expanded analytic data on their platform, I'm happy to have my data used for these purposes.



I understand what you're saying. But I think that if they passed on some of the profits, they'd get more willing participants and better quality data, rather than people attempting to duck their system in whatever way possible. Facebook didn't start as a platform for monetization. It was optimized for that after its basic idea was implemented. You have other indie platforms that have attempted to buck that system in a different place, but the masses have chosen their place to gather. Any platform that had that many people sharing data on it was going to get monetized. How that platform chose to do that wasn't exactly up to the users. No one was really asked. It was done and then Facebook made a feeble apology and then moved on as if nothing happened. If Facebook had issued an email to its users that said something to the affect of, "Hey, we'd like to try something now. We want to sell your data to third parties. And in turn for selling your data, we'd like to split the profits with you since its essentially data pertinent to you and your children's lives and daily activities that we're granting access to", they'd have gotten a metric tonne more buy-in from the public. Instead, they've done a bunch of shitty, underhanded, double dealing in order to obfuscate what they really do to the general public for as long as possible. They've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar with our data more than once in the last several years. Our legislative bodies don't have people intelligent enough to understand the far reaching implications of what all of this stuff means. Which is made all too clear every time Zuckerberg testifies in front of someone. Same thing Gates ran into with the Antitrust case. Lawyers and congressmen don't have the understanding of data, technology, and IP that they need to litigate and legislate this stuff.

For what its worth, as soon as something you write, or create becomes fixed in tangible media, it is protected by copyright law as intellectual property. Meaning as soon as you type something out and save it somewhere, do something based on your own volition, or take a picture of something, regardless of where that image is reproduced, you own it. All you've given Facebook the right to do is reproduce that image on servers and other people's displays. As the owner of said information, you are entitled under copyright law, to any money made from reproductions of your intellectual property. You could go to Facebook and claim that your online persona there IS a piece of art, including all of the generated data based on your activity, as it was a calculated piece of art. The point I'm making is that this is the wild west as far as how we know how to deal with it legally. We can legislate it going forward however we want. If we want to check the power of Facebook and Google over our data and privacy, then we hit them in the pocketbook rather than tie them up in Legal BS that they'll find a loophole in.


----------



## Drew (Oct 21, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> I understand what you're saying. But I think that if they passed on some of the profits, they'd get more willing participants and better quality data, rather than people attempting to duck their system in whatever way possible.


Ok, but understand this is basically a discussion about how much two intangible things are worth, at the end of the day. 

One one hand is the question of how much access to a social media platform that sort of functions like a blog with unlimited file storage and the ability to network and automatically share with other users is "worth" and what that access should "cost." 

On the other side is how much aggregated anonymous user data should be "worth" and how much you should be compensated for, say, a company being able to cross-tab a number of demographic features and target an ad only to users who are between 18-35, like the band Periphery, and are located in a geographic area with median household income above $75,000. 

If you're saying you should be compensated for the anonymized use of your data, then you're basically arguing item B is worth more than item A. That's certainly possible, but making that argument is a little more involved than saying "they should pass on part of their profits." Looking at Wordpress as an alternative, you're looking at between $5 and $25 a month depending on features and hosting, so that's about where I'd start setting a range for the value of the service, while on the other it looks like Facebook ads cost about $0.27 per click or about $7.18 per thousand impressions, on the other. So, online ad markets are absolutely not my area of expertise, but hitting the midpoint there it would seem like the breakeven would be in a world in which you see about 2,000 facebook ads a month. I'd hazard that even a heavy user sees less than that, but that's no more than a gut feeling. Call it 1500 ads a month, if we settle in at around a $9.99 monthly fee figuring on the whole most users would be fine with a more "basic" service level, though of course some sort of tiered pricing plan would probably be where we'd end up, with increasingly high priced plans for either storage space/file size increases, greater privacy/fewer ads, or both. 

Idunno. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, I just think what we're talking about here is a far more complex marketplace than you're giving it credit for.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 21, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> But I think that if they passed on some of the profits, they'd get more willing participants and better quality data


A few more maybe, but the complaint I'm hearing more often is that this type of data collection is an invasion of privacy, not that it's an unfair distribution of the profits. It doesn't bother me that someone makes money off of my usage of their platform - it bothers me when a huge wealth of data about me is being accumulated without being able to be fully aware of what is recorded, when, how it's used, etc. Like when I realized that all your google assistant queries are kept and can be downloaded and played back - including accidental triggering of google home devices, etc. I've got random snippets of private conversations sitting on google servers that I'd much rather they not have. I don't want money, I want some amount of privacy.



Thaeon said:


> How that platform chose to do that wasn't exactly up to the users. No one was really asked.


Realistically.... is this not in the terms of using any of these services? You know, that stuff that nobody reads? If it's not, feel free to correct me. You are asked to agree with those terms or discontinue use of the service. 



Thaeon said:


> Lawyers and congressmen don't have the understanding of data, technology, and IP that they need to litigate and legislate this stuff.


I'm with you on this one. Too many people have noooo idea what they're talking about when it comes to anything online.



Thaeon said:


> money made from reproductions of your intellectual property.


Except that this is not how targeted advertisement works. They aren't sending your photos and posts to advertisers. None of your intellectual property (and it's a stretch to call it that) is being reproduced in order to facilitate this process, as far as I understand it.



Thaeon said:


> your online persona there IS a piece of art


I think you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone of this.


----------



## Drew (Oct 21, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Realistically.... is this not in the terms of using any of these services? You know, that stuff that nobody reads? If it's not, feel free to correct me. You are asked to agree with those terms or discontinue use of the service.


While Facebook has gotten into a bit of trouble for exceeding the permissible usage in their terms of service (the Cambridge Analytica saga is worth mentioning here, where they were given access to more data than they should have been), you're correct, and this is 100% explicit in their terms of service, as you describe it.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 21, 2019)

Drew said:


> the Cambridge Analytica saga is worth mentioning here


It's THIS kind of stuff that worries me about data collection, and definitely not the getting paid for it part.


----------



## _MonSTeR_ (Oct 21, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> For what its worth, as soon as something you write, or create becomes fixed in tangible media, it is protected by copyright law as intellectual property. Meaning as soon as you type something out and save it somewhere, do something based on your own volition, or take a picture of something, regardless of where that image is reproduced, you own it. All you've given Facebook the right to do is reproduce that image on servers and other people's displays. As the owner of said information, you are entitled under copyright law, to any money made from reproductions of your intellectual property. You could go to Facebook and claim that your online persona there IS a piece of art, including all of the generated data based on your activity, as it was a calculated piece of art. The point I'm making is that this is the wild west as far as how we know how to deal with it legally. We can legislate it going forward however we want. If we want to check the power of Facebook and Google over our data and privacy, then we hit them in the pocketbook rather than tie them up in Legal BS that they'll find a loophole in.



Unfortunately, I think the $1000 dollar an hour lawyers that Facebook retain probably have scooped whatever copyrights and intellectual property they need from you via the terms of service. As soon as you click "I agree" without having read the terms of service or even having read then and said "f*ck it i'll agree anyway" you give away the rights that Facebook want from you, most websites even TELL you when they're updating the terms of service and people agree without reading them, again and again. to that end, you could indeed go to them and say "my online persona is art" to which they'd legally be able to say "Yes, we know, and you signed it over to us when you agreed to the terms of service using our website/app"...


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 21, 2019)

TedEH said:


> A few more maybe, but the complaint I'm hearing more often is that this type of data collection is an invasion of privacy, not that it's an unfair distribution of the profits. It doesn't bother me that someone makes money off of my usage of their platform - it bothers me when a huge wealth of data about me is being accumulated without being able to be fully aware of what is recorded, when, how it's used, etc. Like when I realized that all your google assistant queries are kept and can be downloaded and played back - including accidental triggering of google home devices, etc. I've got random snippets of private conversations sitting on google servers that I'd much rather they not have. I don't want money, I want some amount of privacy.



This is precisely why I want to make money off of the content. Consider it insurance against personal damages that might happen as a result of negligent practices.




TedEH said:


> Realistically.... is this not in the terms of using any of these services? You know, that stuff that nobody reads? If it's not, feel free to correct me. You are asked to agree with those terms or discontinue use of the service.



Sure, for new users. What about for those of us that have been using the services since 2007? They update the ToS, but do you think they keep your data private until you agree? Not likely. More likely, your data up to that point is available. Everything after you shut off your account is obviously not going to exist on that medium. 




TedEH said:


> I'm with you on this one. Too many people have noooo idea what they're talking about when it comes to anything online.



And these people who have no idea how anything works online are making far reaching legal decisions about what to do with your data, your privacy, your access to information, others' access to your information, and they honestly don't know what the hell they're doing. I think that tech people need to start running for office in order to curb some of this stuff. Legal, and Government specialists are no longer completely equipped to do it and understand how their decisions are going to affect the entire world. Not just their own citizens. Aside from the environment, technology is one of the single biggest issues on our plate right now and our policy makers have no idea what is coming with automation. Especially the current administration.




TedEH said:


> Except that this is not how targeted advertisement works. They aren't sending your photos and posts to advertisers. None of your intellectual property (and it's a stretch to call it that) is being reproduced in order to facilitate this process, as far as I understand it.



The problem with all of this, is you're sort of beholden to the medium going forward. Facebook and Twitter distribute as much news as nearly any other source and there are checks in place on the medium and let you know how accurate the information might be. It functions as an aggregate, a filter, and a distribution point for all of it. Its a turn key solution. To address your response specifically, Facebook mines your address book for data on other users who have denied it access. Meaning, they are using your permission to violate another's right to privacy. I'm not suggesting that the data you generate is patently your's, rather, I'm suggesting that its a very grey area and that if we want our privacy, then we need to take action and legally possess our online data, and charge for it. Currently its a cash grab, because the same data can be sold over and over and over again, because its randomized and anonymous. They could be selling you to the same company 3 times for 3 different add campaigns. The way to making them stop is to make them pay for it rather than making it about digital privacy. Make it like Digital Likeness Rights. Only your digital likeness isn't your picture, its that AND all of your online behaviors and activities. We already have likeness rights. Thank Crispin Glover for that.




TedEH said:


> I think you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone of this.



Yoko Ono, Marilyn Manson, and Andy Kaufman are prime examples of how a persona can be a work of art. Stretching that into the digital world is just that. Acting a part online. Plenty of Trolls do it to great effect. They're no different than Andy Kaufman was.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 21, 2019)

The thing is that you're not making the distinction between the performative part of what you do online (being a character/influencer/artist/etc) from the statistical data being collected about you. Sure, you can make the argument that your character as an influencer on the platform could have some value as intellectual property, but that same value doesn't exist in something like that statistics gathered about how many people click on guitar related ads crossed with how many people live in a certain town crossed with age and sex etc. THAT's the stuff being sold to advertisers. They don't care about anything specific about you, or any of your own intellectual property, what they care about is that the platform can guarantee a high return on their ad dollars by promising it'll be put in front of a higher percentage of people who are likely to care about whatever is being sold.

It would be like saying that you should be able to charge a venue for counting that you walked through the door so that they can know how many people are inside. Or trying to charge for a speed camera picking up how fast you were going. You don't "own" how fast you drove. You don't "own" the number of people who entered a venue. That information is valuable to someone in some context, but it's otherwise worthless.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 21, 2019)

Drew said:


> Ok, but understand this is basically a discussion about how much two intangible things are worth, at the end of the day.
> 
> ...
> 
> Idunno. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, I just think what we're talking about here is a far more complex marketplace than you're giving it credit for.



The market decides how much something is worth. For me it isn't about getting paid. Its about what it costs someone else to share my data without consulting me first. I may want to share my data with one group, but I have a moral objection to sharing it with another group. I don't get that choice. Someone (again, not me) has decided that the dollar is what makes that decision for me. Well, lets assist in that decision. My data should be mine to control, and being a business partner with those sharing that data seems to me the best way of doing that since our government seems to want to decide what is best for us based on what is the most financially viable option. There's a lot of talk about our public health here and our responsibility as a nation to guarantee that to citizens. What about the health of our identities? What policies and practices are guaranteeing those and are protecting us from digital predators? I include Facebook and Google in that group.


----------



## Drew (Oct 21, 2019)

TedEH said:


> It's THIS kind of stuff that worries me about data collection, and definitely not the getting paid for it part.


Same here - not the terms of service themselves, but firms that violate their own terms. And there are existing processes that deal with companies who violate contracts.



Thaeon said:


> The problem with all of this, is you're sort of beholden to the medium going forward. Facebook and Twitter distribute as much news as nearly any other source and there are checks in place on the medium and let you know how accurate the information might be. It functions as an aggregate, a filter, and a distribution point for all of it. Its a turn key solution. To address your response specifically, Facebook mines your address book for data on other users who have denied it access. Meaning, they are using your permission to violate another's right to privacy. I'm not suggesting that the data you generate is patently your's, rather, I'm suggesting that its a very grey area and that if we want our privacy, then we need to take action and legally possess our online data, and charge for it. Currently its a cash grab, because the same data can be sold over and over and over again, because its randomized and anonymous. They could be selling you to the same company 3 times for 3 different add campaigns. The way to making them stop is to make them pay for it rather than making it about digital privacy. Make it like Digital Likeness Rights. Only your digital likeness isn't your picture, its that AND all of your online behaviors and activities. We already have likeness rights. Thank Crispin Glover for that.


With all due respect, I don't think you actually understand how Facebook uses user data. 

It's not like your user data specifically is a commodity that's sold, so if a company wants they can buy the rights to your posts, your pictures, etc. They don't sell "you." They have companies who want to advertise to targeted demographics, so Facebook lets them specify which traits they want to target, and will in turn display that ad to a random set of users who meet the specified criteria.

And your point about how "you're sort of beholden to the medium going forward" is exactly why free access to said medium itself has value.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 21, 2019)

^^ This reminds me of Canada wanting "internet money" on South Park.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 21, 2019)

TedEH said:


> The thing is that you're not making the distinction between the performative part of what you do online (being a character/influencer/artist/etc) from the statistical data being collected about you. Sure, you can make the argument that your character as an influencer on the platform could have some value as intellectual property, but that same value doesn't exist in something like that statistics gathered about how many people click on guitar related ads crossed with how many people live in a certain town crossed with age and sex etc. THAT's the stuff being sold to advertisers. They don't care about anything specific about you, or any of your own intellectual property, what they care about is that the platform can guarantee a high return on their ad dollars by promising it'll be put in front of a higher percentage of people who are likely to care about whatever is being sold.
> 
> It would be like saying that you should be able to charge a venue for counting that you walked through the door so that they can know how many people are inside. Or trying to charge for a speed camera picking up how fast you were going. You don't "own" how fast you drove. You don't "own" the number of people who entered a venue. That information is valuable to someone in some context, but it's otherwise worthless.



I'm aware of that. But that's not the extent of the information that people are collecting. Reread what facebook is doing with contact information. This stuff is valuable in the right context. But a LOT of people don't want to participate to a certain degree and at least want some transparency about who its being shared with and why. Companies like Facebook have been lying about this stuff when asked and then get caught later and just refuse to say anything. The truth is, the service WAS social media. Now its only a vehicle for data scraping and selling it for profit. Having and maintaining a social media platform is comparatively not expensive. Technically, this site is a form of social media. Its a lead discussion for the most part. But people gather here to communicate and share. This on a user scale the size of Facebook still wouldn't be the business that facebook is. It could be turned into that sure. I don't think it would be though, because it would corrupt the community. I think it would look a lot more like Reddit. Which can be its own kind of cesspool. For the most part, you know what you're getting into there though.

And I disagree about ownership of behavior. You have to pay for bad behavior either socially or criminally. When you get caught speeding, that behavior is tied to your identity and a record is kept. You have to pay restitution for it. If you are charged for your behavior, you can certainly be compensated for it as well.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 21, 2019)

Drew said:


> Same here - not the terms of service themselves, but firms that violate their own terms. And there are existing processes that deal with companies who violate contracts.
> 
> 
> With all due respect, I don't think you actually understand how Facebook uses user data.
> ...



I know exactly how it works because I have a Facebook business account. I wanted to know how it worked. Again, its not so much about what data is shared for ads, its about regaining some control before big internet business gets everything it wants. The best way to do that is to make exploiting the user more costly. Mostly, I use Facebook as an example because its one of the biggest aggregates and most people know it. What Cambridge Analytica was up to among others is more scary for sure.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 21, 2019)

_MonSTeR_ said:


> Unfortunately, I think the $1000 dollar an hour lawyers that Facebook retain probably have scooped whatever copyrights and intellectual property they need from you via the terms of service. As soon as you click "I agree" without having read the terms of service or even having read then and said "f*ck it i'll agree anyway" you give away the rights that Facebook want from you, most websites even TELL you when they're updating the terms of service and people agree without reading them, again and again. to that end, you could indeed go to them and say "my online persona is art" to which they'd legally be able to say "Yes, we know, and you signed it over to us when you agreed to the terms of service using our website/app"...



There are plenty of situations where legal contracts are found to be predatory and are dissolved in civil cases. Just because there is a contract and you agreed to it, doesn't mean you're fucked. I've had a lawyer friend assist me with a non-compete once.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 21, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> Having and maintaining a social media platform is comparatively not expensive.


Compared to what? Gonna need some kinda citation before I'd believe that one anyway. I have trouble believing that facebook is not an insanely expensive platform to keep running, even without the ads part.



Thaeon said:


> You have to pay for bad behavior either socially or criminally.


There is a HUGE difference between "owning your behaviour" as in "I will own up to something I did" and saying "the knowledge that this happened belongs to me as property". Paying a fine is not ownership (as in property) of the knowledge of the speed you went.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 21, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Compared to what? Gonna need some kinda citation before I'd believe that one anyway. I have trouble believing that facebook is not an insanely expensive platform to keep running, even without the ads part.
> 
> 
> There is a HUGE difference between "owning your behaviour" as in "I will own up to something I did" and saying "the knowledge that this happened belongs to me as property". Paying a fine is not ownership (as in property) of the knowledge of the speed you went.



Knowledge of? No, but it does become a part of your public persona (record), which you have to live with from that point forward and is a part of how the public perceives you from that point forward. There are two identities of a person. Who they see themselves to be and who the world sees them as. Both are real, and both are owned by the individual. Again, you're missing my point. This isn't exactly about ownership. Its about not letting big businesses get everything they want when they want it, especially when these big internet businesses are so poorly regulated. They don't listen to anything but money on that size.

My comments about the running of a social media platform weren't just directed at Facebook. Of course Facebook is expensive. Because of what it has become. It also had really humble beginnings. My point is that Reddit exists and other platforms like it, that are every bit social media. And they cost way LESS THAN FACEBOOK to run (this was the actual point I was trying to make, not that Facebook should be cheap).


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 21, 2019)

Let me try to reframe my whole perspective. I'm NOT interested in getting any actual compensation. What I AM interested in, is making data scraping way less appealing to people wanting to trade in data. Particularly those who have trouble being transparent about what their practices are, or have been outright dishonest about them. I don't trust that regulation is going to work as the government is going to let anything that engenders profits get off easy. Thus allow the profits but make getting said profits have slimmer margins.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 21, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> you're missing my point


Admittedly, yeah, I am. Charging for your data isn't going to put you in control of it, it's just adding another layer to an existing system. Is Facebook suddenly going to treat your data more ethically because they paid something for it? I mean - do you really think there was zero money spent on getting that data in the first place? If you want to throw money at the problem, then you effectively just have to turn the service into a paid platform. Do you want to pay a monthly fee to access facebook? And then again, even that probably wouldn't work. You would need to eliminate the value of that data in the first place.



Thaeon said:


> And they cost way LESS THAN FACEBOOK to run


Because they're much smaller than facebook in terms of users and feature set.


----------



## _MonSTeR_ (Oct 21, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> There are plenty of situations where legal contracts are found to be predatory and are dissolved in civil cases. Just because there is a contract and you agreed to it, doesn't mean you're fucked. I've had a lawyer friend assist me with a non-compete once.



And plenty more cases where contracts are found to be valid. Just because you don’t like what the terms of service that you have agreed to says, and have a buddy who’s a lawyer, doesn’t mean that legal agreement is wrong. It means if you want to take on Facebook, they’ll see you in court, if it gets that far...

They pay their very expensive lawyers a lot of money to make sure that the terms of service are as watertight as possible.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying from what I’ve seen in court cases I’ve observed in my area of work, which are admittedly usually technicalities or litigation cases, _usually_ the side with the most expensive legal team _usually_ wins, not always, but _usually_.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 21, 2019)

_MonSTeR_ said:


> And plenty more cases where contracts are found to be valid. Just because you don’t like what the terms of service that you have agreed to says, and have a buddy who’s a lawyer, doesn’t mean that legal agreement is wrong. It means if you want to take on Facebook, they’ll see you in court, if it gets that far...
> 
> They pay their very expensive lawyers a lot of money to make sure that the terms of service are as watertight as possible.
> 
> I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying from what I’ve seen in court cases I’ve observed in my area of work, which are admittedly usually technicalities or litigation cases, _usually_ the side with the most expensive legal team _usually_ wins, not always, but _usually_.



I don't doubt that. And that's how most case law becomes slanted towards companies rather than people. It has to be pretty blatantly predatory. What I'm trying to say, is that case law right now is what is directing future legislation here. It seems like the response of most people is just to say, well, that's the agreement, and they have a big legal team, so they must be doing the right thing. The law is often wrong, and sometimes immoral. It's up to people to change it by putting pressure on the companies taking people for fools just because there isn't enough regulation, or understanding of the subject. Most of this will come out in the wash and balance itself. I'd just like to see tech companies get it right the first time rather than letting profits be what guides them until the laws change the situation. That's unfair to everyone but the people making choices for us. Which, I think is wrong anyway. No one should be making choices for anyone who is perfectly capable of making their own choices.


----------



## c7spheres (Oct 21, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> For what its worth, as soon as something you write, or create becomes fixed in tangible media, it is protected by copyright law as intellectual property. Meaning as soon as you type something out and save it somewhere, do something based on your own volition, or take a picture of something, regardless of where that image is reproduced, you own it.



This is true, but not on pretty much any other companies website like Facebook. You basically relinquish your rights in the terms and they can use it however they want limited to the scope of the terms of use, so basically for thier companies use in advertisingg promotions etc. They likely can not repackage and sell you're Intelliectual property etc. though in some cases may profit from it in which case they don't really own you anything unless they agreed to some other terms from you're person/company. It's really lame though, but that's why I think it's misleading when all these companies say something is free when in reality it's an exchange. This account/ service in return for your information and any further information you provide or that they collect.


----------



## Exchanger (Oct 22, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> And in turn for selling your data, we'd like to split the profits with you since its essentially data pertinent to you and your children's lives and daily activities that we're granting access to"



If you're worried about them sharing these informations, then don't put them out there. I use FB to keep in touch with people I don't see often, follow bands and other musicians, share funny pictures, but never share any personal details, let alone someone else (I don't have any, but you mentionned children).


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 22, 2019)

I don't know why Facebook is the hill everyone wants to die on when it comes to data. 

There are plenty of structures within society that are far more powerful and far more difficult to avoid. For instance: credit bureaus. 

The likes of Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax have tons of data on you and also sell it.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 22, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't know why Facebook is the hill everyone wants to die on when it comes to data.


Seems to me like it's because it's the one you can sort of see and feel the impact of. It "feels" invasive because it's not transparent. And because of the nature of the details we put on there.

I'd also argue that there's a feeling of surprise sometimes with tech that tracks you that suddenly becomes very noticeable. Like the last time I got a new phone, I started getting notifications that were generated out of the _content_ of my emails. Like reminders of when bills were due, or certain events happening, etc. Things that would only happen if Google was interpreting the content of my emails rather than just telling me that I have unread messages. It's that "woah, hold on a second, someone or something is reading my messages?" kind of uncomfortable.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 22, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Seems to me like it's because it's the one you can sort of see and feel the impact of. It "feels" invasive because it's not transparent. And because of the nature of the details we put on there.
> 
> I'd also argue that there's a feeling of surprise sometimes with tech that tracks you that suddenly becomes very noticeable. Like the last time I got a new phone, I started getting notifications that were generated out of the _content_ of my emails. Like reminders of when bills were due, or certain events happening, etc. Things that would only happen if Google was interpreting the content of my emails rather than just telling me that I have unread messages. It's that "woah, hold on a second, someone or something is reading my messages?" kind of uncomfortable.



I get that it's low hanging fruit, but your credit info is serious business. It might not be something that you think of all the time, but it has a larger impact on your life than just about anything you casually post to Facebook or shoot off on GMail. 

It's not exactly transparent what info they have and share either.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 22, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's not exactly transparent what info they have and share either.


That's what I mean though -> I'm not making any point of how serious that information is, because I entirely agree that the credit info is MUCH more serious than anything facebook has you on - but it doesn't _feeeeeel_ invasive because you don't see it every day. It's almost deceptive that way. People go after facebook not because it's the biggest deal, or the most serious offender, but instead because it's the one put in front of their eyes the most often.

I honestly don't care about what facebook does with the data I put on there. I don't care if they sell my preferences to someone to serve ads. If that facilitates a useful platform, then I'm ok with it.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 22, 2019)

I don't post any sort of data about my kids on facebook, other than meme worthy parent conversations. IG gets location-less pictures, only sometimes and because no one can see my content that I don't allow. Facebook is the low hanging fruit. Its the obvious conversation starter, everyone has at least a little information, and an opinion. I'm more concerned about the transfer of my data without my knowledge than I am with any sort of compensation for its usage. 

I will say this. If you have kids, keep your social media private and don't post anything identifying where your kids spend time while not in your presence. Human Traffickers use that data to target people. Specifically children.


----------



## Adieu (Oct 22, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> I will say this. If you have kids, keep your social media private and don't post anything identifying where your kids spend time while not in your presence. Human Traffickers use that data to target people. Specifically children.



Human Traffickers? Targeting random people's kids on Facebook? In trigger- and capital-punishment-happy TEXAS????

Come oooon.... there's far lower hanging fruit for predators, and far higher value targets for kidnapping industry profiteers.

PS now if you got personal crap like psycho stalkers or nasty custody disputes, maybe. But NO, random criminals are probably NOT using your baby pics as a kidnapping catalogue if you're just some random dude... and if you're rich/famous/notorious/shady enough to rationally be wary of such things, you really ought to have a chauffeur/goon bodyguard follow your kids everywhere anyway


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 22, 2019)

Adieu said:


> Human Traffickers? Targeting random people's kids on Facebook? In trigger- and capital-punishment-happy TEXAS????
> 
> Come oooon.... there's far lower hanging fruit for predators, and far higher value targets for kidnapping industry profiteers.



Sure are. But that's not all that industry is about. Both my mother and I have assisted with safe houses for victims recovered from traffickers.


----------



## Adieu (Oct 22, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> Sure are. But that's not all that industry is about. Both my mother and I have assisted with safe houses for victims recovered from traffickers.



Yes and there's also school shootings, pervert teachers, and unlucky loose bricks or roofing that can kill you dead.

BUT there's likely sh!t and there's highly improbable sh!t. You're better off teaching your kids to stay the hell off their phones on crosswalks, avoid getting bullied at school, and stay the hell away from druggies.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 22, 2019)

That's an interesting take. Do you have statistics to back up how unlikely that is? Maybe start with the Polaris Project or Thorn.


----------



## Drew (Oct 22, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> I know exactly how it works because I have a Facebook business account. I wanted to know how it worked. Again, its not so much about what data is shared for ads, its about regaining some control before big internet business gets everything it wants. The best way to do that is to make exploiting the user more costly. Mostly, I use Facebook as an example because its one of the biggest aggregates and most people know it. What Cambridge Analytica was up to among others is more scary for sure.


Great. Go buy my personal information, then. Mine specifically. Try to do it multiple times, too, since you're concerned about, and I quote, "...your data being sold three times to the same company for three different ad campaigns." Let me know how that goes for you.


----------



## @zwen (Oct 23, 2019)

Drew said:


> Right, so this IS sensationalist fear-mongering?
> 
> Alphabet fought back because the subpoena was on unclear constitutional and legal ground and would require them to violate thgeir terms of service and reasonable rights to privacy. Going to the courts when facing a subpoena you believe is issued illegally is absolutely a possible and allowable excuse.
> 
> Also, asking libertarians to condemn a company because they didn't immediately roll over when the _government_ requested something is an.... interesting approach.



This is exactly where I begin to have issues with libertarianism as an ideology; they are willing to decry government abuse, but will seemingly accept it from multi-national corporations that control major chokeholds of power. It’s like an enabling tool for oligarchy.


----------



## Drew (Oct 23, 2019)

@zwen said:


> This is exactly where I begin to have issues with libertarianism as an ideology; they are willing to decry government abuse, but will seemingly accept it from multi-national corporations that control major chokeholds of power. It’s like an enabling tool for oligarchy.


Weird, isn't it? It's almost as if libertarians believe that the government should intervene as little as possible and instead allow the market to sort things out.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 23, 2019)

This is illustrating my point.


----------



## narad (Oct 24, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> This is illustrating my point.




What point is that? You can't have a cell phone that simultaneously works as a phone and isn't connected to cell towers, and by virtue of that, isn't traceable to your location. This all sounds too "have your cake and eat it too."


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 24, 2019)

Did you miss Snowden's point about why people need ownership of that data? Law enforcement don't have to ask you in order to track you. Facebook, AT&T, Apple, Google, etc. own that data and can give that data to law enforcement, or any government agency whenever they want, and for whatever reason. No reasonable suspicion. No warrant. Not even as a collection of evidence for a case. None of these companies have any real reason to protect that data for you and will hand it over in the interests of avoiding conflict. Its morally wrong.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 24, 2019)

Its also technically illegal to surveil anyone without a warrant.


----------



## Exchanger (Oct 24, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> Its also technically illegal to surveil anyone without a warrant.


If the state agencies asks them for it, they would be stupid to refuse. And both entities, state agencies and companies can easily disregard the law in practice. It would be naive to think otherwise. Hell, if Snowden can call himself a whistleblower it's precisely because what the NSA did was illegal to some degree. Yet they still got away with it. 
As to morally wrong, maybe it is, but you're totally free to not use these services if you think they're amoral. Sure, you can advocate for more transparency, for governments and consumer associations to put pressure one them, but I wouldn't keep my hopes too high.


----------



## narad (Oct 24, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> Did you miss Snowden's point about why people need ownership of that data? Law enforcement don't have to ask you in order to track you. Facebook, AT&T, Apple, Google, etc. own that data and can give that data to law enforcement, or any government agency whenever they want, and for whatever reason. No reasonable suspicion. No warrant. Not even as a collection of evidence for a case. None of these companies have any real reason to protect that data for you and will hand it over in the interests of avoiding conflict. Its morally wrong.



a.) that's some corner case stuff. Like I can imagine some dystopian world where the government is out for me, and needs to track me down, or find out my rebel plans that I've been talking about on Facebook. But I don't. I do mundane things. I talk about mundane things on Facebook. As far as Snowden's example, I would say if you want to creep around on girls, you should be as off the grid as possible. To me that guy getting tracked down seems like a good outcome (barring the inadmissibility of the method in court).

b.) you sign up for these things. You bought a phone and a phone plan. You signed up for Facebook. How is this morally wrong? You are willingly participating in these things.

c.) you're going to get hacked at some point. Try not to do anything particularly incriminating on any online platform. Someone can log into your facebook and request a dump of all your data. Blackmail you or send it to your friends just to cause emotional distress, who knows. I'd be much more worried about that than these places giving information to the government.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 24, 2019)

Exchanger said:


> If the state agencies asks them for it, they would be stupid to refuse. And both entities, state agencies and companies can easily disregard the law in practice. It would be naive to think otherwise. Hell, if Snowden can call himself a whistleblower it's precisely because what the NSA did was illegal to some degree. Yet they still got away with it.
> As to morally wrong, maybe it is, but you're totally free to not use these services if you think they're amoral. Sure, you can advocate for more transparency, for governments and consumer associations to put pressure one them, but I wouldn't keep my hopes too high.



This is all I'm doing. Talking about what they do makes people have more understanding of what they are agreeing to. The fact that these companies can change the agreement without your consent at any time is duplicitous on top of it. I'm not doing anything anyone should find interesting, unless the normal practices of a late 30's single father is something they find fascinating. I don't have a criminal record. I don't have anything stressful in my life other than not enough money, and an intractable ex-wife. Do I think my ire on the subject is going to do much more than annoy people who already understand it and accept it or make other people mad that its happening? No. But its still worth talking about because its an invasion.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 24, 2019)

Exchanger said:


> If the state agencies asks them for it, they would be stupid to refuse.



Apple did refuse information to the FBI. They claimed that undermining the security of customer's data would damage public trust of the company, and that once a cracked version of their software was out there, it's out there. Pandora's box is open. All it takes is the right cracker getting a copy.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 24, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> This is all I'm doing. Talking about what they do makes people have more understanding of what they are agreeing to. The fact that these companies can change the agreement without your consent at any time is duplicitous on top of it. I'm not doing anything anyone should find interesting, unless the normal practices of a late 30's single father is something they find fascinating. I don't have a criminal record. I don't have anything stressful in my life other than not enough money, and an intractable ex-wife. Do I think my ire on the subject is going to do much more than annoy people who already understand it and accept it or make other people mad that its happening? No. But its still worth talking about because its an invasion.



Is it really an invasion if consent is given? 

I don't like my in-laws, but when I married my wife I understood that I couldn't pretend they don't exist. When they visit, I let them in the house. They are a nuisance, and I rather they didn't, but they're not "invading".


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 24, 2019)

Just because you agreed to their presence doesn't mean you have to put up with poor behavior. Could also be why I've been divorced twice before 40. I just don't suffer BS easily. TYPICALLY, I'm on the side of tech companies. Most of the time they do things that I think are the right thing. This is one area I think they are wrong. I know that its sort of the legal rules. But the law isn't always right. That's why we can change it in this country when it becomes oppressive. The ability for people to see what you do, even when you specifically tell them not to track your location, is an issue of trust. I don't have anything to worry about because I don't do anything that would mean I should need to worry. But that doesn't mean I want them to have the ability to look without any sort of legal paperwork for why they need to.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Oct 24, 2019)

narad said:


> a.) that's some corner case stuff. Like I can imagine some dystopian world where the government is out for me, and needs to track me down, or find out my rebel plans that I've been talking about on Facebook. But I don't. I do mundane things. I talk about mundane things on Facebook. As far as Snowden's example, I would say if you want to creep around on girls, you should be as off the grid as possible. To me that guy getting tracked down seems like a good outcome (barring the inadmissibility of the method in court).



So, you're using the "if you have nothing to hide..." argument? 
What if I'm just a normal vanilla milk-toast guy that's really uncomfortable with the notion of all my stuff being out there? 



> b.) you sign up for these things. You bought a phone and a phone plan. You signed up for Facebook. How is this morally wrong? You are willingly participating in these things.



Dude, the notion that you can function successfully in the modern world without a phone is absolute fantasy.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 24, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> Just because you agreed to their presence doesn't mean you have to put up with poor behavior. Could also be why I've been divorced twice before 40. I just don't suffer BS easily. TYPICALLY, I'm on the side of tech companies. Most of the time they do things that I think are the right thing. This is one area I think they are wrong. I know that its sort of the legal rules. But the law isn't always right. That's why we can change it in this country when it becomes oppressive. The ability for people to see what you do, even when you specifically tell them not to track your location, is an issue of trust. I don't have anything to worry about because I don't do anything that would mean I should need to worry. But that doesn't mean I want them to have the ability to look without any sort of legal paperwork for why they need to.



Then perhaps divorce yourself from these companies. 

I guess that's the part that I don't understand. I think Twitter is stupid, so I don't have one. I think Facebook is boring, a I don't have one. If I thought this website, which I like, was violating my rights or trust, I'd dump it.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> So, you're using the "if you have nothing to hide..." argument?
> What if I'm just a normal vanilla milk-toast guy that's really uncomfortable with the notion of all my stuff being out there?



Then don't put it out there. 



> Dude, the notion that you can function successfully in the modern world without a phone is absolute fantasy.



I completely 100% agree, which is why phones and internet access should be provided to those who can't afford them on their own.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 24, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I completely 100% agree, which is why phones and internet access should be provided to those who can't afford them on their own.



If I could audibly clap on here, I would.

I'm going to bow out of the debate on privacy from the perspective of agree to disagree at this point, no one is changing anyone's minds on it here. I just don't think it should be so black and white that, if the community is in a place, you have to agree to that place's ridiculous practices regarding their observation and recording of your every move even when not actively using the service. Especially when concerning just a cellular device without regard to social media. Its a service you literally need to survive in the modern world, so your hands are tied. You either agree to it and use the device or disagree and sign anyway, because you need the device.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Oct 24, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Then don't put it out there.
> [...]
> I completely 100% agree, which is why phones and internet access should be provided to those who can't afford them on their own.



Max, I'm all for simple answers as much as the next guy, but this is not a simple answer exercise. 
It isn't as simple as 'then just don't put it out there.' You even seem to acknowledge this in your own post, you can't just say "well then just don't use the internet then LOL," because that's not the way the world works in [current_year]. The internet is everywhere. You can't even apply for a job without the internet now. We aren't talking about _just_ Facebook, it isn't _just _Facebook that's doing this; they _*all*_ are. I shouldn't be forced to become some kind of modern pseudo-hermit just because I want some token level of digital privacy. 

I also think Twitter, Facebook, etc are all dumb and don't use them. I likely wouldn't use them even if they were privacy saints. But they aren't the entire internet. 
What about those credit bureaus? What's the ticket out of that? It's just all too much, privacy just isn't respected anymore and I think all of the information harvesting needs to be dialed back a little bit.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 24, 2019)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Max, I'm all for simple answers as much as the next guy, but this is not a simple answer exercise.
> It isn't as simple as 'then just don't put it out there.' You even seem to acknowledge this in your own post, you can't just say "well then just don't use the internet then LOL," because that's not the way the world works in [current_year]. The internet is everywhere. You can't even apply for a job without the internet now. We aren't talking about _just_ Facebook, it isn't _just _Facebook that's doing this; they _*all*_ are. I shouldn't be forced to become some kind of modern pseudo-hermit just because I want some token level of digital privacy.
> 
> I also think Twitter, Facebook, etc are all dumb and don't use them. I likely wouldn't use them even if they were privacy saints. But they aren't the entire internet.
> What about those credit bureaus? What's the ticket out of that? It's just all too much, privacy just isn't respected anymore and I think all of the information harvesting needs to be dialed back a little bit.



I draw a line in the sand between information that can be scraped from participating in the modern world, and willfully participating in a platform for leisure. 

So credit bureaus, yes. Facebook, no.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Oct 24, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I draw a line in the sand between information that can be scraped from participating in the modern world, and willfully participating in a platform for leisure.
> 
> So credit bureaus, yes. Facebook, no.



Fair enough- but what about the fact that it's becoming standard practice? 
I had the same mentality in the earlier days of all of this; back when it wasn't so widespread and pervasive, it wasn't so all-encompassing, and the companies involved at least _seemed_ more...ethical. But now that the practice has spread to the point where it's everywhere, it's growing more and more difficult to avoid willfully participating without impacting your ability to participate in the modern world. 

I'll own it, I stumped for Google _*hard*_ in the 2000s- I acknowledge the value of consumer data and the positive impact that it can have on any number of things. All I'm saying is that some regulation to help keep things sane would be a good idea.


----------



## Drew (Oct 24, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> Did you miss Snowden's point about why people need ownership of that data? Law enforcement don't have to ask you in order to track you. Facebook, AT&T, Apple, Google, etc. own that data and can give that data to law enforcement, or any government agency whenever they want, and for whatever reason. No reasonable suspicion. No warrant. Not even as a collection of evidence for a case. None of these companies have any real reason to protect that data for you and will hand it over in the interests of avoiding conflict. Its morally wrong.


That's hardly new, though. 

_With a warrant_, law enforcement has always been able to pull your phone records, to see what numbers you were calling and receiving calls from. _With a warrant_, when we moved to cell phones, they've also been able to pull a record of texts sent and received, and from what numbers. _With a warrant_, they can now also provide law enforcement agencies with a record of roughly where a cell phone was for a period of time, triangulated from what towers its connected to. 

What you're referring to, near as I can tell (and it's blurry because you're using "data" so nebulously - you seem to be using the term in a different sense, when you're talking about Apple protecting data, than you're talking about Facebook tracking it, since in the case of Apple it was a FBI request to unlock a shooter's phone after a mass shooting event, that they denied, and full access to an individual's phone is a very different thing than knowing that individual is between 18-35, male, lives in Burbank CA, and checked in at a Starbucks two weeks ago), is something altogether different. First, you seem to be suggesting that companies could hand over information that they DON'T have authorization to harvest - AT&T providing the content of encrypted messages, for example - to law enforcement officers. Second, you seem to be ignoring the fact that due process is in play here. Sure, my cell phone provider could provide a record of known locations of my phone to law enforcement agents, to determine whether or not I was at the scene of a crime. However, in order to do that, they have to get a judge to sign off on a warrant to allow them to request (and the provider to release) that information, and to get a judge to do so they have to be able to make a reasonable case that the request is justified and I'm believed to be a suspect. Frankly, if I'm believed to, say, have murdered someone, and law enforcement is trying to determine if I was at the scene of the crime, if there's credible evidence that I was the murderer, I'm not so sure this is a bad thing.

I get that you're worried about data protection. We all are. But you're making arguments here that are going deeper and deeper into crackpot territory, and are eroding what credibility you might have. And, this all started with your belief that you should be "paid" by Facebook for your data, which kind of makes this whole debate look like increasingly outlandish justifications for naked self-interest.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 24, 2019)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Fair enough- but what about the fact that it's becoming standard practice?
> I had the same mentality in the earlier days of all of this; back when it wasn't so widespread and pervasive, it wasn't so all-encompassing, and the companies involved at least _seemed_ more...ethical. But now that the practice has spread to the point where it's everywhere, it's growing more and more difficult to avoid willfully participating without impacting your ability to participate in the modern world.
> 
> I'll own it, I stumped for Google _*hard*_ in the 2000s- I acknowledge the value of consumer data and the positive impact that it can have on any number of things. All I'm saying is that some regulation to help keep things sane would be a good idea.



I don't know what's so unethical if you're informed before hand, even if unavoidable. Additionally, as of yet, the tracking data used is pretty abstract and benign. So it's more of being spooked out about the future of this form of information gathering and marketing than a direct threat. 

While I agree that some guidelines would be ideal, it's hard to quantify what that would look like right now. 

Not to mention that's a very "big government" concept, which is another complication in the vein of the reason for this thread: is unchecked business good? 

If we're going to regulate based on our fears, what do we do when business are actually doing things that harm us?


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 24, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't know what's so unethical if you're informed before hand, even if unavoidable. Additionally, as of yet, the tracking data used is pretty abstract and benign. So it's more of being spooked out about the future of this form of information gathering and marketing than a direct threat.
> 
> While I agree that some guidelines would be ideal, it's hard to quantify what that would look like right now.
> 
> ...



I'm NOT a libertarian by any stretch. So heavy regulation on business is not a scary thing to me. I don't think that people are informed enough, nor do they care enough for the market to correct for these things. There's also the issue of large companies towing the monopoly line as closely as they can making it harder and harder to not support what you don't agree with if you are informed enough. Take ethical chocolate for instance. There's only a very small handful of companies that are somewhat safe. Then there's the bigger question... Do you stop supporting a restaurant because they try to be ethical but can't source some ingredients ethically? There's almost no way that you can take a hard stance on any of this stuff and have anything left that you can feel good about supporting. How can such a market right itself when most people only have the choice between necessary evils? There's only as ethical as possible, and that requires more energy and awareness than the average person can give and also care about the other meaningful things in their lives. I guess my questions are more philosophical ones in general. We have a bit of a gordian knot, but the rules are you have to untangle it without cutting anything.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Oct 26, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Is it really an invasion if consent is given?
> 
> I don't like my in-laws, but when I married my wife I understood that I couldn't pretend they don't exist. When they visit, I let them in the house. They are a nuisance, and I rather they didn't, but they're not "invading".




That's why I've got my very own room that I can retreat to when they come over.


----------



## jaxadam (Oct 26, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> When they visit, I let them in the house.



Mine come and stay with us 3 months out of the year from ~Nov to ~Feb.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 26, 2019)

jaxadam said:


> Mine come and stay with us 3 months out of the year from ~Nov to ~Feb.



My condolences.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Oct 26, 2019)

jaxadam said:


> Mine come and stay with us 3 months out of the year from ~Nov to ~Feb.




Christ dude, I am sorry.


----------



## iamaom (Oct 26, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Additionally, as of yet, the tracking data used is pretty abstract and benign.


Except when certain social media companies use it to manipulate politics.


----------



## jaxadam (Oct 26, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> My condolences.



It’s like having two teenagers, they just go out every night and sneak back in when we’re asleep.


----------



## Politics of Ecstasy (Oct 26, 2019)

@zwen said:


> This is a question for the libertarian audience; what is your response to corporate entities that become powerful enough to hire their own militaries? What about the lucrative market surrounding data mining and surveillance? Is lobbying for your special interests morally wrong or is it simply the next step in protecting one’s efforts and assets?


Interesting question. I think something to consider is that you’ve informed us that they are hiring said mercenaries, hackers, and security companies. If you can afford it, and it’s legal, what’s wrong with protecting your own interests in anyway as long as no one is harmed?


----------



## Drew (Oct 28, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> Apple did refuse information to the FBI. They claimed that undermining the security of customer's data would damage public trust of the company, and that once a cracked version of their software was out there, it's out there. Pandora's box is open. All it takes is the right cracker getting a copy.


I think this is a point we need to address a little more explicitly, since we hit it in passing, but I think there's an important distinction you're missing.

Apple has the right to collect certain personal information from their iPhone users, and additionally users can opt in to share additional information for the sake of software updates, bug tracking, version tracking, etc.

Apple does NOT have the right to access all of the data on the phone - your text messages, the _content_ of any apps, passwords you use, etc. 

The situation you're referring to was the FBI had the phone of a workplace shooter who had died in the process of being arrested, and wanted to access the shooter's text messages to see if they could learn anything about motives or accomplices from them. To reiterate, Apple does NOT obtain this kind of information from users as part of the course of doing business, and what the FBI was asking them to do wasn't "provide user data" in the sense that Facebook collects data, but rather was asking Apple to break or bypass their password encryption, or give them the user's passcode. This is a WHOLE different level than the level of user data Facebook routinely collects to help target advertising.

I'm not sure how exactly I can make an analogy for this difference, but it's probably loosely akin to my knowing your address, and my knowing your address and having a copy of your house key and car keys and your checking account passcode. Apple was absolutely right to not work with the FBI here, because what the FBI was looking for was not user data they routinely collect as part of their business operations.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 29, 2019)

Drew said:


> This is a WHOLE different level than the level of user data Facebook routinely collects to help target advertising.


Your whole comment reminds me of a video I saw a while ago (posted by that Tom Scott guy who always wears red shirts) that went into some of the marketing and sponsorship stuff behind VPNs - and talked a lot about how a lot of people don't really understand computer/online security at all. I think a lot of this thread continues to demonstrate that a lot of users are really unaware of what their computers are really doing, and who has access to what. 

I don't mean that to fault anyone, because it's not realistic to expect every end user to understand the black box that is computers and the internet. But it makes conversations about data and security really difficult to have because you have no idea what level of knowledge anyone else has.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 29, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Your whole comment reminds me of a video I saw a while ago (posted by that Tom Scott guy who always wears red shirts) that went into some of the marketing and sponsorship stuff behind VPNs - and talked a lot about how a lot of people don't really understand computer/online security at all. I think a lot of this thread continues to demonstrate that a lot of users are really unaware of what their computers are really doing, and who has access to what.
> 
> I don't mean that to fault anyone, because it's not realistic to expect every end user to understand the black box that is computers and the internet. But it makes conversations about data and security really difficult to have because you have no idea what level of knowledge anyone else has.



Agreed. For instance. I am a Network and Systems admin.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 29, 2019)

I feel like there's also a whole category of people who know just enough to be very opinionated, but not enough to really have an informed point of view on the matter. There are so many people are think I "work in IT", and that's nowhere near what I do.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 29, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I feel like there's also a whole category of people who know just enough to be very opinionated, but not enough to really have an informed point of view on the matter. There are so many people are think I "work in IT", and that's nowhere near what I do.



And just because you understand the nuts and bolts of it, doesn't mean you're going to agree on policy. A conversation between people who know what they are talking about and have a deep understanding of the subject who don't agree can be overheard by people who don't have that experience or knowledge, but still have an opinion. Doesn't change the validity of the opinion, but it is funny when they mistake your position for lack of understanding.


----------



## Drew (Oct 29, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> And just because you understand the nuts and bolts of it, doesn't mean you're going to agree on policy. A conversation between people who know what they are talking about and have a deep understanding of the subject who don't agree can be overheard by people who don't have that experience or knowledge, but still have an opinion. Doesn't change the validity of the opinion, but it is funny when they mistake your position for lack of understanding.


But at the same time, you're trying to draw a connection between the information Facebook is able to gather and use for advertising purposes, and Apple being asked to crack their encryption protocol for the FBI.

Those two scenarios are so radically different they're essentially unrelated. You either know this, and are intentionally using "data" generically to blur this distinction, or somehow don't, which frankly would be a little concerning.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 29, 2019)

i mean, anyone can have an opinion. That's the whole point of an opinion. But I'd much rather that decision making be informed by a reasonably deep understanding of the topic at hand, and not just guesses and anecdotes.

Take for example, some family members of mine who use their laptops (or any computer) so infrequently that they gather dust. But they still keep tape over their webcams and such, in case a hacker might remotely turn their laptop on and spy on them while they do their daily chores. There is zero reason for them to have any security concern on a laptop that gets turned on maybe twice a year, has zero personal data on it, no reason to be targeted by anyone etc. They might have very strong opinions about "data security" if you ask them. I have zero doubts some of them think Facebook is "spying" on them. This is not the kind of person I want to be making any decisions regarding how data is handled online.


----------



## Drew (Oct 29, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Take for example, some family members of mine who use their laptops (or any computer) so infrequently that they gather dust. But they still keep tape over their webcams and such, in case a hacker might remotely turn their laptop on and spy on them while they do their daily chores. There is zero reason for them to have any security concern on a laptop that gets turned on maybe twice a year, has zero personal data on it, no reason to be targeted by anyone etc. They might have very strong opinions about "data security" if you ask them. I have zero doubts some of them think Facebook is "spying" on them. This is not the kind of person I want to be making any decisions regarding how data is handled online.


That's awesome.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 29, 2019)

TedEH said:


> i mean, anyone can have an opinion. That's the whole point of an opinion. But I'd much rather that decision making be informed by a reasonably deep understanding of the topic at hand, and not just guesses and anecdotes.
> 
> Take for example, some family members of mine who use their laptops (or any computer) so infrequently that they gather dust. But they still keep tape over their webcams and such, in case a hacker might remotely turn their laptop on and spy on them while they do their daily chores. There is zero reason for them to have any security concern on a laptop that gets turned on maybe twice a year, has zero personal data on it, no reason to be targeted by anyone etc. They might have very strong opinions about "data security" if you ask them. I have zero doubts some of them think Facebook is "spying" on them. This is not the kind of person I want to be making any decisions regarding how data is handled online.



Its like you've met my mom.

In all seriousness. I know I'm of little interest because I don't do anything interesting. I just don't like it. I don't trust big business or the government. I don't have to defend my distrust because both groups of people have any number of well documented public showings of why I should distrust them. Especially when it all overlaps in a person like the orange haired danger noodle in the white house.


----------



## narad (Oct 30, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> Its like you've met my mom.
> 
> In all seriousness. I know I'm of little interest because I don't do anything interesting. I just don't like it. I don't trust big business or the government. I don't have to defend my distrust because both groups of people have any number of well documented public showings of why I should distrust them. Especially when it all overlaps in a person like the orange haired danger noodle in the white house.



I don't have any protest with your distrust of them. Simply that with tech, you opt in. If you distrust them, you don't have to use those services. And I think the bar has moved in this thread in ways that feels like a disingenuous take on the issue:

-- tech companies should pay us for our data (in addition to providing the service) because they use that information (which you agree to in their ToS) to create profit.

-- cell towers can locate your position and that's dangerous??

-- tech companies give this data to the government, and Apple is the good guy. Except that either any release of such data is covered under the same ToS (like FB giving to the government a list of your friends -- just hypothetically), or is something that tech companies aren't doing (like FB giving to the government your private chat history). Companies discuss this very openly, and it's worth noting that people that work at this companies are often at the front line of these issues:



> *Does Google give governments direct access to user data?*
> 
> We require that requests for user data be sent to Google directly and not through any sort of "back door" direct access by the government. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process. We have taken the lead in being as transparent as possible about government requests for user information.


https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/7381738?hl=en

There's a whole page of this. Apple, FB, MS, etc., have similar. If you want to focus on government distrust, that's a different issue, but not the one immediately raised in that discussion of getting paid (more) for your data.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 30, 2019)

I don't just distrust the government. I distrust the companies themselves. I want some control without having to sacrifice connecting to anything. Any ideas of ownership or compensation is to that end. Not because I want the money itself.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 30, 2019)

You do have some control though -> You can opt not to give information you deem valuable to anyone you don't trust. Don't want Google to know where you are? Turn location services off of your phone. Don't want Facebook to know your shopping habits? Don't have a Facebook account. Don't want anyone to see what you look like? Don't upload photos of yourself.

I know it's not perfect, but there's only so much you can can realistically expect to be in constant control of.


----------



## Thaeon (Oct 30, 2019)

TedEH said:


> You do have some control though -> You can opt not to give information you deem valuable to anyone you don't trust. Don't want Google to know where you are? Turn location services off of your phone. Don't want Facebook to know your shopping habits? Don't have a Facebook account. Don't want anyone to see what you look like? Don't upload photos of yourself.
> 
> I know it's not perfect, but there's only so much you can can realistically expect to be in constant control of.



I understand this. But that doesn't prevent others from attaching photos of me to their accounts. I can untag myself, or prevent people from tagging me, but that doesn't prevent the facebook app from looking at all of the data in their phone that is related to me based on their contact data. Which facebook does. It doesn't matter if I have not given facebook my phone number. They can look at contact info in someone's phone that matches my email address. And they're allowed to do that because the person has authorized them to. We've been over this though. In my particular case, I wouldn't have one if not for having little other means of staying connected to friends and family now that I live nearly 10 hours away from the closest of them. I've turned Google's tracking off. Granted, that really only means they aren't suggesting ads to me anymore, not that they aren't looking at the contents of my email and searches for demographic information. Most of their stuff for me is really inaccurate though. It supposedly thinks I'm 30 years older than I am. Good. The reality is that there needs to be more regulation on what businesses are allowed to do on and with the web. We're still sorting all of this out because its relatively new and there has been nothing like it in human history really. So there's going to be growing pains. I just think that when people are advocating for this or that, in the case of big business and the web, we need to err on the side of protecting individuals and not on the side of protecting business interests.


----------



## narad (Oct 31, 2019)

Thaeon said:


> I understand this. But that doesn't prevent others from attaching photos of me to their accounts. I can untag myself, or prevent people from tagging me, but that doesn't prevent the facebook app from looking at all of the data in their phone that is related to me based on their contact data. Which facebook does. It doesn't matter if I have not given facebook my phone number. They can look at contact info in someone's phone that matches my email address. And they're allowed to do that because the person has authorized them to. We've been over this though. In my particular case, I wouldn't have one if not for having little other means of staying connected to friends and family now that I live nearly 10 hours away from the closest of them. I've turned Google's tracking off. Granted, that really only means they aren't suggesting ads to me anymore, not that they aren't looking at the contents of my email and searches for demographic information. Most of their stuff for me is really inaccurate though. It supposedly thinks I'm 30 years older than I am. Good. The reality is that there needs to be more regulation on what businesses are allowed to do on and with the web. We're still sorting all of this out because its relatively new and there has been nothing like it in human history really. So there's going to be growing pains. I just think that when people are advocating for this or that, in the case of big business and the web, we need to err on the side of protecting individuals and not on the side of protecting business interests.



So to get specific, the problem is that Facebook can have your phone number because your friend gave it to them? Sounds like a problem with your friend. They should have turned their share contacts setting off. I mean, if you gave your friend your social security number and posted it on SSO, is it SSO's problem?


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Oct 31, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Your whole comment reminds me of a video I saw a while ago (posted by that Tom Scott guy who always wears red shirts) that went into some of the marketing and sponsorship stuff behind VPNs - and talked a lot about how a lot of people don't really understand computer/online security at all. I think a lot of this thread continues to demonstrate that a lot of users are really unaware of what their computers are really doing, and who has access to what.
> 
> I don't mean that to fault anyone, because it's not realistic to expect every end user to understand the black box that is computers and the internet. But it makes conversations about data and security really difficult to have because you have no idea what level of knowledge anyone else has.



Now think about all of the boomers in government trying to legislate it all


----------



## tedtan (Oct 31, 2019)

narad said:


> So to get specific, the problem is that Facebook can have your phone number because your friend gave it to them? Sounds like a problem with your friend. They should have turned their share contacts setting off. I mean, if you gave your friend your social security number and posted it on SSO, is it SSO's problem?



To play devil's advocate, how many actually know to turn those features off? And how many times are new features rolled out that default to being on until turned off?


----------



## Drew (Oct 31, 2019)

tedtan said:


> To play devil's advocate, how many actually know to turn those features off? And how many times are new features rolled out that default to being on until turned off?


I think it's more users not thinking through the implications of decisions. I remember, distantly, the setup process from the Facebook app, and there's a definite step where it asks if it can have access to your contacts so that it can use them to suggest friends. It's an opt-in, not opt-out feature, and I suspect the vast majority of people opt in simply for the convenience. 

At the same time, while Facebook may use phone numbers to suggest friends, it's also not like they're turning around and selling phone numbers to telemarketers, so I think again it's important to be realistic about what exact data they're collecting to monetize vs. what they have but don't have user authorization to monetize.


----------



## narad (Oct 31, 2019)

tedtan said:


> To play devil's advocate, how many actually know to turn those features off? And how many times are new features rolled out that default to being on until turned off?



Yea, I get that it takes a little situational awareness and most people are going to install the mobile app version and synch it with their contacts, etc. But I think that's tangential, because some people will choose to do so anyway. But it doesn't have to synch. The app could even ask, "Would you like to enter the names, numbers, and email of people you know?"


----------



## TedEH (Oct 31, 2019)

I don't think it's realistic to expect to have a very high level of control over all data that pertains to you at all. Nor do I think that the mere knowledge of your existence and a handful of data points that are probably not even directly linked to you really present much of a threat/risk to the average person.

There are definitely discussions to be had about the ethical use of data - but I don't exactly see telemarketing or targeted ads as this big invasion of privacy. Something like voter manipulation via facebook needs to be a very different discussion than "I feel mildly uncomfortable with how well these ads can target me because of browser cookies".


----------



## narad (Nov 22, 2019)

https://www.wired.com/story/billion-records-exposed-online/

All that fuss about what Facebook does with your data, when pretty much all the example data mentioned in this thread was always easily scrape-able.


----------



## c7spheres (Nov 22, 2019)

narad said:


> https://www.wired.com/story/billion-records-exposed-online/
> 
> All that fuss about what Facebook does with your data, when pretty much all the example data mentioned in this thread was always easily scrape-able.


 This is great news! Down with everyone's data! Down with the system! Well, I mean, except for my data, right? I figure they already have it but can't do much with mine because I ruined it for them long ago. Always thinking ahead, you know? Just kidding. This really sucks man.
- "They" already have everything because the gov't, schools, medical people and bankers share it anyways. Wether they should or not. I kept all my data private, never agreed to share it and it's still out there illegally. It's a scam. I think the entire system needs a reset. I say level the playing field. Maricopa county here in AZ was found guilty of illgal cell phone tapping and warantless searches that Verizon was willingly sharing with them anways. After they got caught, not only did nothing happen and nobody was prosecuted, they still openly do it and nobody cares or will prosecute. Just another major problem that was a blip on the news and nobody mentioned again. The system is rigged. You can actually hear it when they tap in on what's called a Stingray device. There's a little wierd beepy thing. If you talk about it to anyone who hasn't been harassed by them they think you're crazy or a big conspiracy theorist, even though the gov;t openly admits to breakingthe law and invasion of privacy. Problem is no DA's will allow any cases to go to court. So what's that Constitution Bullshit I keep hearing about? Oh, yeah, just some bullshit to pass the time. I'm outta hear before I get upset. Gotta go play guitar, go to bar, get girl, forget about this and tell myself it's all gonna be ok.


----------



## Politics of Ecstasy (Nov 24, 2019)

The libertarian approach to dealing with this is:
1)grab your iphone
2)power it off
3) unscrew the screen from the body chassis
4) pull out the battery

Grab your Ethernet line/router and power it down and unplug it

PROBLEM SOLVED!


----------



## McKay (Jan 30, 2020)

Demiurge said:


> It's interesting how for a while one of the big "modern dystopia" tropes was the Surveillance State. Somehow, instead, we (ok, maybe not everyone most) have simply decided to simply give up our privacy. People share everything online OR they'll go out of their way to "put on blast" everyone who wrongs them. Who knew? It's like guessing that the future of fishing was waiting for the fish to jump into the boat.



It was never a decision, most people only fully realised the extent to which they'd already been tracked extensively years after the fact.


----------



## TedEH (Jan 30, 2020)

I want to make the argument that people should have known better than to post everything they do online before freaking out that everything they do is online but.....
Some combination of "people aren't very bright" and "people don't generally understand the technology they use".

I honestly don't think much has changed in that regard. People still don't understand the things they use. Some legitimate problems with how information is used aside, a lot of the things people freak out about concerning "being tracked" are much more benign (IMO) than some would like to believe. Getting an ad for something you looked up recently is a far stretch from someone actively monitoring your life.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Jan 30, 2020)

TedEH said:


> Some legitimate problems with how information is used aside, a lot of the things people freak out about concerning "being tracked" are much more benign (IMO) than some would like to believe. Getting an ad for something you looked up recently is a far stretch from someone actively monitoring your life.


 
This is true, but most of the support in the....I guess you'd call it a 'privacy movement' that is voicing concerns on these things is mostly on principle alone. I don't think many folks genuinely believe even for a moment that there's a man in a cubicle somewhere invested in figuring them out specifically. Some people just feel violated by the fact that a lot of what makes them them is being collected and sold as a commodity.

I take pains to avoid any Alexa-style home assistant voice activated shit, I try to exclude all of that stuff from my life as much as possible. Shoot, if I want to search for a product, I'll open a sandboxed browser window to make that search so that I don't have to stare at it on every webpage I go to for the next two weeks. I _*still *_occasionally get tons of ads popping up out of nowhere for _*the exact*_ product I just mentioned to my friend in an in-person conversation hours earlier, without ever looking it up or searching for it in any way. I know the reality is that this is a speculative advertising algorithm just doing its job very well, but that kind of shit is still extremely unsettling and just feels...creepy.


----------



## TedEH (Jan 30, 2020)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> a lot of what makes them them


I mean... "what makes them them" is not their shopping habits or a random string of hardware IDs used for fingerprinting, etc. People are not their google searches. People are not their interests. If you delete your search history, you still are the same person you were. In most cases, a bunch of data points somewhere don't really amount to any significant representation of the whole of a person.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> open a sandboxed browser window


This makes me think of those VPN ads you see everywhere. There's sooooo much fear-driven pushing of VPN products that don't actually make anyone any safer than they were before. The average person doesn't need a VPN. All those youtube channels that say "you're using the internet wrong if you don't have a VPN" really annoy me. If you don't know what a VPN is, it's very likely you don't need one (outside of it making piracy a lot easier).


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Jan 30, 2020)

TedEH said:


> I mean... "what makes them them" is not their shopping habits or a random string of hardware IDs used for fingerprinting, etc. People are not their google searches. People are not their interests. If you delete your search history, you still are the same person you were. In most cases, a bunch of data points somewhere don't really amount to any significant representation of the whole of a person.



Respectfully, that's just, like, your opinion, man. You say people are not their Google searches, but if you had unfettered access to someone's search history? Sweet christ, you'd be able to learn a _*lot*_ about them.
My office recently hired a new staff member and I was able to accurately predict a lot of key aspects of this person's personality based on the way they constructed their resume. Just a resume. I agree that people are definitely much more complicated than a collection of data points, but I don't think it's such a far reaching notion that some people find that idea uncomfortable.

I mean, how much do you think you'd be able to learn about me just by seeing a log of what threads on this forum I bother to read? Not to mention post in. 



> This makes me think of those VPN ads you see everywhere. There's sooooo much fear-driven pushing of VPN products that don't actually make anyone any safer than they were before. The average person doesn't need a VPN. All those youtube channels that say "you're using the internet wrong if you don't have a VPN" really annoy me. If you don't know what a VPN is, it's very likely you don't need one (outside of it making piracy a lot easier).



To clarify, I'm not deluded enough to think that incognito mode is putting on your hackerman costume and saving you from big tech. I was a computer science student. I know everything still gets scraped. The point is that it's more 'anonymous' and not tied in with my accounts so I don't have to deal with any browser intrusions stemming from some stupid question I had about a product I saw in the store earlier. You know what I'm talking about, the whole thing where if you click one cat video on youtube your feed gets taken over with cat videos for the next 6 days.

Same on the VPN shills though. Especially when they're shilling a provider that's based in a five-eyes country. Always a hearty chuckle.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 30, 2020)

The basic tennant of Libertarianism is that you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do whatever they want. There are more different flavours of libertarians beyond that than there are jelly beans, so I don't think there are universal positions on digital privacy.


----------



## c7spheres (Jan 30, 2020)

This stuff is such a waste of their time. They already got everything on me, against my will, and they still can't sell me anything. I don't care how many times you shove that Alexa, Siri, and other AI shit in my face. I'm not buying it, and if you give it to me for free I'm selling it. If I can't sell it then I'm dissecting it for practice at surface mount soldering. A turd is still a turd no matter how you packge it.


----------



## TedEH (Jan 30, 2020)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I mean, how much do you think you'd be able to learn about me just by seeing a log of what threads on this forum I bother to read? Not to mention post in.


Not much of any meaning, I wouldn't think. But I mean that in the same sense that I can be talking to someone every day and still not really understand them on much more than a surface level. I suppose I don't put much stock in the idea of "data points" on a person. Even having seen you around the forum a fair bit, I have no real mental picture of who you are. I'm confident if I met anyone from here in person I'd learn just how wrong a lot of my own assumptions are.

I get what you mean though. Just looking at it from a different, and maybe simplistic, angle.


----------

