TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

The Fantasy of Opting Out

243 pointsby Fiveplusabout 4 years ago

21 comments

simonhabout 4 years ago
This is silly, we are all observed by other people almost all of our lives, but that&#x27;s fine because they don&#x27;t conspire behind our backs to create a comprehensive record that&#x27;s handed over to the government. I don&#x27;t mind if the building security records me entering the building, or the bank records me using the ATM, or that London Transport videos me on the train. What I object to is if all of those are stitched together and handed over to advertising agencies or my employer.<p>Likewise I don&#x27;t care that Google knows what I searched for, or that Twitter knows what I tweeted, or that LinkedIn has my employment history. What I don&#x27;t want is all of that being sold to Cambridge Analytica to then aggregate and sell on to someone else for goodness knows what purposes.<p>An awful lot of my life and interests are easily searchable. My handle here is basically just my name, and I use the same handle or even more complete versions everywhere I can. When I&#x27;m out in public, the public can see me. When I post in public, the public can read what I say. That&#x27;s fine, that&#x27;s why I said it.<p>However my private correspondences with my wife and kids on iMessage or WhatsApp are nobody else&#x27;s business. My bank transactions and online shopping likewise, that latter is mainly between me and Amazon. Where I would get upset is if Amazon sold that data to Google to show me &#x27;relevant ads&#x27;, or show my purchases to my friends. Remember Facebook Beacon? There need to be clear, hard lines in the sand.
评论 #26181770 未加载
评论 #26183414 未加载
评论 #26186784 未加载
评论 #26182323 未加载
评论 #26183677 未加载
评论 #26184491 未加载
评论 #26184093 未加载
评论 #26182227 未加载
评论 #26187992 未加载
评论 #26190617 未加载
评论 #26184700 未加载
GCA10about 4 years ago
In today&#x27;s society, the desire to be noticed is easily 50x the level of anxiety about being in a surveillance state.<p>We could start with the nonstop, look-at-me nature of Instagram (or any other social site). They satisfy a deep craving that just keeps growing. We could marvel at the Jan. 6 rioters posting their moments in history for all to see. It&#x27;s endless, and it isn&#x27;t slowing down.<p>Yes, there&#x27;s a powerful argument to be made that nonstop surveillance could work out badly. But after 15 years of seeing such pieces thunder into obscurity, rehashing the same arguments in isolation seems futile.<p>Anyone who wants to contribute to the conversation needs to spend serious time thinking about the reasons why so many people want strangers to know about them. It&#x27;s a deep-felt desire. For a lot of people, the dread of being unknown&#x2F;un-noticed&#x2F;ignored is greater than the risks that come from being noticed. Once we understand why that&#x27;s so, we might be able to move forward.
评论 #26182237 未加载
评论 #26182154 未加载
评论 #26182545 未加载
评论 #26182398 未加载
评论 #26187339 未加载
评论 #26184129 未加载
评论 #26186547 未加载
kodahabout 4 years ago
Giving these big detailed anecdotes about how we&#x27;re actively in a surveillance state isn&#x27;t working. People don&#x27;t care. A lot of those same people have probably helped, in the form of public opinion solidarity, to make it this way. When you support or make excuses for engineering firms that engage in aggressive tracking, you give them clearance. When you constantly murmur about immigration or terrorism, it provides tools and reasoning for these systems to exist. If you fear monger about all the &quot;bad people&quot; on the internet, you create pathways for things like real name policies, sentiment analysis, or private data collection to prove who you are and what faith you come in. Then there&#x27;s people who will aid these people and say things like, &quot;Well those governments and companies aren&#x27;t quite sharing data yet!&quot; as if mass aggregation at a governmental level or through private partnerships isn&#x27;t already happening. When you put all this hand wringing together it forms a useful set of tools for governments and private companies to abuse or misuse. Privacy on the internet was never about one small thing, it was always about an aggregate of decisions that achieve an outcome.
评论 #26180471 未加载
pdkl95about 4 years ago
&gt; Obfuscation may be our best digital weapon.<p>From Dan Geer&#x27;s portentous talk <i>&quot;Cybersecurity as Realpolitik&quot;</i>[1][2]:<p>&gt;&gt; Privacy used to be proportional to that which it is impossible to observe or that which can be observed but not identified. No more -- what is today observable and identifiable kills both privacy as impossible-to-observe and privacy as impossible-to-identify, so what might be an alternative? If you are an optimist or an apparatchik, then your answer will tend toward rules of data procedure administered by a government you trust or control. If you are a pessimist or a hacker&#x2F;maker, then your answer will tend towards the operational, and your definition of a state of privacy will be my definition: <i>the effective capacity to misrepresent yourself</i>.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=nT-TGvYOBpI" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=nT-TGvYOBpI</a><p>[2] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;geer.tinho.net&#x2F;geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;geer.tinho.net&#x2F;geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt</a>
评论 #26181702 未加载
评论 #26181034 未加载
choegerabout 4 years ago
The issue will become obvious rather soon. It won&#x27;t be the state that uses the surveillance like Stasi or Gestapo would have (although, it might come closer with excuses like IP or public health). Instead my bet is on online shopping.<p>Right now dynamic pricing is still asynchronous. If They do it, They have a model of you that fits some marketeers understanding of people. And this model suggests a price increase or maybe even a decrease.<p>But what <i>will</i> happen is real-time data exchange. Say you booked a nice hotel for your vacation and now search for flights. Wonder why your prices are 50% higher? Say your TV just broke, or your car didn&#x27;t start this morning, or you mentioned on whatsapp how you need new sports equipment. Basically whenever you will <i>need</i> something, you will pay a Premium. No matter where the data comes from. That&#x27;s the price of giving up privacy.
germinalphraseabout 4 years ago
There will be a great spookiness to augmented reality.<p>Already, we invite soft surveillance into our private spaces, but will we agree to having those spaces mapped to the millimeter, our objects tracked in kind and location, our private actions (in addition to our words) persistently noticed, considered and logged?
评论 #26180311 未加载
antattackabout 4 years ago
I view it as a done deal, there&#x27;s no escape and we need to plan for the future:<p>Our current laws are not very detailed, often times they are overly severe to serve as a determent and&#x2F;or make assumptions based on available evidence (which was less before).<p>As we know more and more of an individual (due to gadgets, online activity, and cashless transactions)- laws and punishment need to take it all into account and be more tailored to actual crime and make less assumptions because there&#x27;s plenty of evidence to go by.<p>Another important issue is that we should not allow those in power shield themselves from surveillance and accountability under a guise of safety or security.
jpm_sdabout 4 years ago
David Brin covered this topic in a 1996 Wired article [1] and a follow-on 1998 book [2]. So far, we&#x27;re not doing great on the &quot;Accountability&quot; part.<p>Bruce Schneier disagreed with him in 2008 [3] (and probably still does).<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;1996&#x2F;12&#x2F;fftransparent&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;1996&#x2F;12&#x2F;fftransparent&#x2F;</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.davidbrin.com&#x2F;transparentsociety.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.davidbrin.com&#x2F;transparentsociety.html</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;2008&#x2F;03&#x2F;securitymatters-0306&#x2F;amp" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;2008&#x2F;03&#x2F;securitymatters-0306&#x2F;amp</a>
keiferskiabout 4 years ago
I’m sure I’ll be called crazy for this, but the true solution to oppressive societal forces is personal space travel and colonization. When it becomes possible for a small group of people to fund their own “opt out” and escape into outer space, individuals will regain some bargaining power.<p>Obviously this won’t happen for centuries. But on the timeline of “future human existence”, it’s really not very long at all. I see this as an inevitable outcome of technological development, even if the Private Ownership of Spacecraft War of 2346 is bloody. That gives me hope for the future.
评论 #26181386 未加载
评论 #26185980 未加载
评论 #26180932 未加载
评论 #26186614 未加载
评论 #26182044 未加载
ThrustVectoringabout 4 years ago
&gt; If the apparatus of total surveillance that we have described here were deliberate, centralized, and explicit, a Big Brother machine toggling between cameras, it would demand revolt, and we could conceive of a life outside the totalitarian microscope.<p>Really not sure how to turn this into actionable legislation, but the fundamental problem isn&#x27;t the data <i>collection</i>. Rather, it&#x27;s the massive reduction in cost in organizing and querying the data. The laws and norms were set up when the only way to tell if someone had walked down a specific street was to pay someone to watch or to knock on doors and talk to people with faulty memories. Cameras couldn&#x27;t store years of footage, databases weren&#x27;t invented yet, and machine facial recognition was pure fantasy.<p>Like, in the 19th century it&#x27;d be absolutely <i>ridiculous</i> to insist that you have a right of &quot;privacy&quot; that means that people can&#x27;t recognize you when you&#x27;re walking around in public. And for a long time, pointing a camera outside your window was basically just like looking out it, and it got treated that way. A database of camera footage looking out at a majority of public streets, recording 24&#x2F;7 with 5 years of back footage, indexed by time + location + facial recognition match, on the other hand, exploits people&#x27;s privacy in a way that is <i>far</i> more than the sum of parts.<p>Essentially, my view is that some databases are repugnant to public policy and should be illegal to build and to query. GDPR has well shown the problems involved in legislating this, and there&#x27;s a massive free speech argument that torpedoes the whole thing anyhow, so I&#x27;m pessimistic about actually fixing things.
eternalbanabout 4 years ago
Brunton &amp; Nissenbaum describe some of the features and mechanics of the panopticon -- &quot;the apparatus of total surveillance&quot; -- but do not comment on the <i>psychological effects</i> of &quot;total surveillance&quot; on collective and individual behavior.<p>Foucault on &#x27;Panopticism&#x27; addresses that far important aspect. Psychologically defeated people will <i>not</i> seek to &quot;opt out&quot;. Opting out is the analog of escaping from prison: most prisoners do not seriously entertain such notions, much less act on them. &quot;A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious relation.&quot;<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;foucault.info&#x2F;documents&#x2F;foucault.disciplineAndPunish.panOpticism&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;foucault.info&#x2F;documents&#x2F;foucault.disciplineAndPunish...</a><p>&quot;Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers. To achieve this, it is at once too much and too little that the prisoner should be constantly observed by an inspector: too little, for what matters is that he knows himself to be observed; too much, because he has no need in fact of being so. In view of this, Bentham laid down the principle that power should be visible and unverifiable. Visible: the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower from which he is spied upon. Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so. In order to make the presence or absence of the inspector unverifiable, so that the prisoners, in their cells, cannot even see a shadow, Bentham envisaged not only venetian blinds on the windows of the central observation hall, but, on the inside, partitions that intersected the hall at right angles and, in order to pass from one quarter to the other, not doors but zig-zag openings; for the slightest noise, a gleam of light, a brightness in a half-opened door would betray the presence of the guardian. The Panopticon is a machine for dissociating the see&#x2F;being seen dyad: in the peripheric ring, one is totally seen, without ever seeing; in the central tower, one sees everything without ever being seen.<p>It is an important mechanism, for it automatizes and disindividualizes power. Power has its principle not so much in a person as in a certain concerted distribution of bodies, surfaces, lights, gazes; in an arrangement whose internal mechanisms produce the relation in which individuals are caught up. The ceremonies, the rituals, the marks by which the sovereign’s surplus power was manifested are useless. There is a machinery that assures dissymmetry, disequilibrium, difference. Consequently, it does not matter who exercises power. Any individual, taken almost at random, can operate the machine: in the absence of the director, his family, his friends, his visitors, even his servants (Bentham, 45). Similarly, it does not matter what motive animates him: the curiosity of the indiscreet, the malice of a child, the thirst for knowledge of a philosopher who wishes to visit this museum of human nature, or the perversity of those who take pleasure in spying and punishing. The more numerous those anonymous and temporary observers are, the greater the risk for the inmate of being surprised and the greater his anxious awareness of being observed. The Panopticon is a marvellous machine which, whatever use one may wish to put it to, produces homogeneous effects of power.<p>A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious relation. So it is not necessary to use force to constrain the convict to good behaviour, the madman to calm, the worker to work, the schoolboy to application, the patient to the observation of the regulations. &quot;
评论 #26179778 未加载
frompdxabout 4 years ago
<i>Privacy does not mean stopping the flow of data; it means channeling it wisely and justly to serve societal ends and values and the individuals who are its subjects, particularly the vulnerable and the disadvantaged.</i><p>I found the conclusion to be very open ended. Who decides what it means to channel the flow of data <i>wisely and justly</i>, and to what ends?
hedoraabout 4 years ago
The world needs to move to making all data collection opt-in. There should be no negative impact to failing to opt in, unless absolutely necessary. Those exceptions should be clearly legislated, and be easily challenge in court.<p>This would require a right-to-privacy constitutional amendment in the US.
bogomipzabout 4 years ago
&gt;&quot;The browser plugins TrackMeNot and AdNauseam, which explore obfuscation techniques by issuing many fake search requests and loading and clicking every ad, respectively.<p>I would be curios to hear anyone&#x27;s experience and&#x2F;or feedback on these plugins.
raintreesabout 4 years ago
A concept explored by Greg Bear in his book Slant: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Slant-Novel-Greg-Bear&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0812524829" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Slant-Novel-Greg-Bear&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0812524829</a>
throwaway98797about 4 years ago
Hiding in plane sight is powerful. Especially true if one can do it with a community.
评论 #26180167 未加载
purplezooeyabout 4 years ago
&quot;life outside the totalitarian microscope?&quot;... exaggerate much?
erglabout 4 years ago
Needs a (2019) in the title
jtbaylyabout 4 years ago
Needs 2019 added to title
marshmallow_12about 4 years ago
this level of monitoring can only become useful with tools that don&#x27;t yet exist. it&#x27;s only theoretically possible to aggregate all the available data on any individual. it will require advanced AI and vastly greater data sharing in order to make this a significant issue. i imagine though that by the time these are developed, they will have their teeth blunted by advanced, new, obfuscation techniques and technologies.
评论 #26180145 未加载
naringasabout 4 years ago
&gt; Those who know about us have power over us.<p>I&#x27;m not sure about this, those who can change our behavior have power over us. knowing somebody does not necessarily mean I have power over said somebody.<p>likewise, there are things that have power over us without even having to know us.<p>however if someone has power over somebody AND knows a lot about said somebody then their power is (indeed) more effective.
评论 #26179849 未加载