TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

What does privacy mean under surveillance capitalism?

243 点作者 freddyym超过 4 年前

24 条评论

blakesterz超过 4 年前
&quot;Too many of those acquiring our data want it for nefarious purposes: to betray our secrets to insurance companies, employers, and governments; to sell us things it’s not in our interest to buy; to pit us against each other in an effort to destroy our society from the inside; to disinform us and hijack our democracies. The surveillance society has transformed citizens into users and data subjects. Enough is enough. Those who have violated our right to privacy have abused our trust, and it’s time to pull the plug on their source of power—our data.&quot;<p>That&#x27;s a decent quote, not really anything new for most of us around here, but I think that hits on quite a few points in just one paragraph. I think this post is part of her book on Privacy?<p>It&#x27;s always funny to read stuff like this when it&#x27;s on a site that shows almost 50 things blocked between Privacy Badger and uBlockO. I know it&#x27;s out of the author&#x27;s hands, but I wonder how she feels about being on a site that&#x27;s part of the problem she&#x27;s writing about.<p>&quot;The internet is primarily funded by the collection, analysis, and trade of data—the data economy.&quot;
评论 #25510348 未加载
评论 #25510377 未加载
评论 #25511006 未加载
评论 #25509332 未加载
评论 #25511843 未加载
评论 #25509499 未加载
rebeccaskinner超过 4 年前
And yet this article is on a page completely saturated by trackers, 28 items blocked by Ublock Origin, and another 14 blocked by Privacy Badger by my count. I didn&#x27;t even bother to check the number of items caught by the pihole, and I&#x27;m sure there are a few things that got through because they haven&#x27;t made it into the relevant blocklists yet. People can bemoan the lack of privacy (and should) but it&#x27;s empty words until we&#x27;re willing to take a stand and not participate in the systems that are mining every bit of data that can be had en-mass.
评论 #25511211 未加载
评论 #25513073 未加载
评论 #25510400 未加载
metabagel超过 4 年前
The Solid Project, led by Tim Berners-Lee, is attempting to address at least part of the problem by allowing you to control your own data (e.g., Facebook posts and likes, not that I use Facebook) and move it from one service to another. The services would be the commodity, rather than your personal data.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;solidproject.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;solidproject.org&#x2F;</a>
prophesi超过 4 年前
I hope the book goes in detail _how_ we are to take back control of our data. One person deleting their Facebook and having good privacy hygiene on the web won&#x27;t make a dent. Telling others to do the same is futile as well. It&#x27;s long past due for society to fear Big Corp instead of Big Government, as now we&#x27;ll need the latter to tame the former.
评论 #25510203 未加载
评论 #25510052 未加载
评论 #25510413 未加载
评论 #25510858 未加载
评论 #25510405 未加载
greatgib超过 4 年前
What a shitty website!<p>On one side you have an article that is supposed to inform us to defend our rights.<p>But when you try to read it, you are blocked by one of the worst cookie content popup that I have ever seen.<p>The only easily accessible option is &quot;accept all&quot;.<p>You have just a small discreet link to &quot;see partners&quot;.<p>If you click on it, then you have a list of hundreds shaddy ads&#x2F;spy services.<p>You can&#x27;t disable them all, you would have to uncheck them all individually manually.<p>And there is the shittiest thing:<p>For each one you will see 2 check boxes. &quot;Legitimate interest&quot; (on by default) and &quot;consent&quot;.<p>Naively you would think that &quot;legitimate interest&quot; means that it is just the strict minimum for the service to be technically working.<p>But no, if you go to see the details they both do the same thing, ie recording server side a custom profile for you based on what you see and do. The only difference is that with &quot;consent&quot; they additionally keep things in your cookies...
the_other超过 4 年前
I declined to accept all the tracking cookies and thus couldn&#x27;t read the article.
评论 #25510136 未加载
评论 #25509955 未加载
评论 #25509508 未加载
GekkePrutser超过 4 年前
Lol the beginning of that so reminded me of Person of Interest. &quot;You&#x27;re being watched every hour of every day&quot;.<p>It&#x27;s funny and sad; when PoI first came out this was considered fiction. Then Snowden happened and proved it reality.<p>And still not much has changed 7 years later.
throw1234651234超过 4 年前
Neuromancer has a quote - &quot;As much privacy as I can afford&quot;. That is exactly the answer to the question in the OP, and my personal answer is &quot;none&quot;.
sixothree超过 4 年前
Imagine being a juror on one of these Google lawsuits and they many ways they could destroy your life.
评论 #25513686 未加载
atmosx超过 4 年前
The most convincing and scary take on the subject comes from Yuval Noah Harari, author of &quot;Sapiens&quot; best seller.<p>His premise that as soon as a system knows us better than we know our selves (e.g. facebook) then we can diverge all choices (what to eat, who to marry, what to watch) to the <i>machine</i> and then it&#x27;s a new kind of dystopia were no decision needs to be taken by a human who is comparatively uninformed. Now, as he points out, if the system has glitches a-la Matrix and Neo comes along, we basically keep being the &quot;heroes&quot; of our story, but what happens if the system _really works_ for us... What if a computer can match mine and another one&#x27;s happiness with a % of success that it&#x27;s impossible for me to match, what happens then?
评论 #25510723 未加载
评论 #25511785 未加载
评论 #25511004 未加载
评论 #25510693 未加载
评论 #25510500 未加载
nojvek超过 4 年前
The thing that makes me sad is how little US govt does to protect privacy. It goes the other way where for exaggerated reasons they want as much as they can slurp. Recent bills to ban encryption was a reality check.<p>EU seems to care a bit more. Mostly because Google and FB aren’t European.<p>How do we get a sane government that works for the people? Because voting just doesn’t cut it when there is little accountability for those who are elected.
mro_name超过 4 年前
Impressive list of trackers on that webpage. All the usual suspects present. Not that the author wouldn&#x27;t know.<p>Author says &quot;… they know you are reading them. …&quot;. Yes, the article is published in a way that tells them so.
harlanji超过 4 年前
Anyone else get boxed in by Waymos throughout their daily routine?<p>I’m a former software engineer now homeless in SF, and man do I feel like a Truman with these things sometimes.<p>God willing, I’ll document the formations I’ve seen and see if I can cross referene a CCPA request with my info at times&#x2F;locations that I happened to catch interesting dashcam footage or made a mention of it.
jart超过 4 年前
It&#x27;s somewhat tepid to write a manifesto without a call to action. Here&#x27;s what I think of when I read stuff like this: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;justine.storage.googleapis.com&#x2F;privacydoom.mp4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;justine.storage.googleapis.com&#x2F;privacydoom.mp4</a>
评论 #25510159 未加载
jdkee超过 4 年前
Why does lithub.com use 15 different trackers when I visit their webpage?
dkdk8283超过 4 年前
You know what’s funny is all the talk about data ubiquity. I recently did a job for ANPR&#x2F;cams at a wealthy HOA and one of the requirements was to make data disappear.<p>You know what privacy means under surveillance capitalism? The ability to erase.<p>Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t covering up murder it’s more along the line of trimming the visitor list to hide infidelity.
chiefalchemist超过 4 年前
I caught a good part of this interview &#x2F; discussion over the weekend. Years ago I read &quot;Dragnet Nation&quot; and this has renewed my fears.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wnycstudios.org&#x2F;podcasts&#x2F;otm&#x2F;segments&#x2F;living-under-surveillance-capitalism-on-the-media" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wnycstudios.org&#x2F;podcasts&#x2F;otm&#x2F;segments&#x2F;living-und...</a>
NoOneNew超过 4 年前
Hi, you can apply current corporate surveillance issues under any type of economic or government system and still have the exact same discussion of, &quot;oh woe is us, how terrible the people are up there&quot;. Or you can utilize the tools that capitalism offers everyone, even the poor.<p>We set as either public practice or into law that people own their personal data, which is not a hard stretch. Think about that for a moment. What does it mean to <i>own</i> something in a capitalist system... think... think hard... YOU CAN SELL IT! Actually license in this case, but you get the point. If you&#x27;re in the back of the class or still on the short bus, what I&#x27;m saying is this: a company can collect and sell YOUR data... for a fee. You get a percentage (or flat rate if that&#x27;s your jam) of whatever they make, in perpetuity. Let&#x27;s even classify your data as copyrighted content, just like books and other media. You do &quot;create&quot; your own data. After your death, your estate (children, etc.) get that fee as well for... I think it&#x27;s 75 years after death, or is it 50... I don&#x27;t remember how long book copyrights are. Exact number doesn&#x27;t matter, but you get the point of where I&#x27;m going.<p>But nay you say! Nay I say in return. Companies do this already. As a fond and active capitalist, I&#x27;ve made it a habit to get paid to learn new skills to great success. I&#x27;ve even held in shits so I can make sure I get paid to shit (only a few times and strictly so I can truthfully make this comment, again, you get the point). Anyways, companies do this by licensing their own data out to other companies. Now, since companies get taxed&#x2F;treated as &quot;people&quot; (USA), there is ZERO reason actual people can&#x27;t do this. Oh wait, I know why. &quot;People&quot; are better educated in the sex lives of celebrities, memes and what&#x27;s the latest pop culture, superhero show&#x2F;movie.<p>The tools to solve this issue are built into capitalism and basic western governance in the last 100 years. Hell, it&#x27;s also a decent way to redistribute wealth in a very fair method that&#x27;s hard to argue in a capitalist society. No one is &quot;overburdened&quot; by letting someone else coast on someone else&#x27;s work. Everyone thus has a &quot;product&quot; to sell in a mass format just like book publishers or movie streaming services.<p>But hey, I&#x27;m the asshole that likes real world solutions that are based on centuries old established working principles instead of unicorn fantasies that have never worked, like communism.
评论 #25510000 未加载
processing超过 4 年前
a luxury good sadly.
mrslave超过 4 年前
Censorship by private entities is fine but surveillance by them is not.
ivojp超过 4 年前
I&#x27;ll start with that I am all for the idea of intellectual privacy and the need for safe guards, but even I could only make it part way through this article (and if these are the people who are supposed to be leading the charge for ethics in AI, we are, surely, screwed).<p>This perspective (and there are many like it), firstly, tries to tie the problem to capitalism as if it&#x27;s the engine that corrupts, and, secondly, tries to equate whats going on to surveillance since we presumably can all agree that surveillance is bad.<p>If you are to make an ass out of yourself or expose something private about yourself in public, its not surveillance if people form opinions about you or gather that information (the lifelock guy and his SSN come to mind - no one would argue his personal information was hacked). I think part of this stems from a bad mental model of what being on the internet is: if Facebook&#x2F;Twitter&#x2F;other social media are the new town halls or pubic fora, it&#x27;s difficult to consider you can be in public from the privacy of your own home.<p>It is also not some unavoidable aspect of capitalism for your data to be used for potentially nefarious purposes. Consumers are just poorly informed of the transaction that is taking place. To label it &quot;surveillance capitalism&quot; implies that removing the profit motive would mean no one would ever &quot;spy&quot; on you or collect your data. Even a cursory overview of the 20th century or modern China shows how dishonest that implication is.<p>For a quick perspective on the economics of your data, Google reported $160B in revenue on 1B active monthly users in 2019. If google charged each user $13&#x2F;month for access to all it&#x27;s services, it would make the same amount of money. This is on par with a Netflix or Spotify subscription.<p>Should companies be forced to offer some sort of paid tier where your data is not collected? Perhaps. Should consumers be made aware of what they are giving up when they use a certain &quot;free&quot; service? Sure. There are many problems with our current system and our current understanding of things, but one problem that we do not have is being subjugating to the predations of a &quot;late-stage&quot; &quot;surveillance&quot; capitalist machine.
评论 #25510289 未加载
bioinformatics超过 4 年前
Is it worse or better than Surveillance Communism?
评论 #25509535 未加载
评论 #25510436 未加载
评论 #25509550 未加载
IanDrake超过 4 年前
I for one prefer surveillance capitalism to surveillance socialism. At least in one system you can opt out.
stiray超过 4 年前
I have checked her site, it has references to Facebook and is full of trackers. She is just some self promoting woman that has found a niche in privacy, where she doesnt follow what she preaches.<p>Yes Survailance Capitalism is a nightmare and a real thing but such fake stars should be weeded out. It is just a shame how low can some people go.
评论 #25510363 未加载
评论 #25512121 未加载