That’s why you never say data. They’ve heard it all before. Call them a cuck. They’re fucking your phone and you’re left to watch, anti-libre software.
The biggest lie in internet is "I’ve Read and accept PP and TOS· and the biggest joke that all PP begins with “Your Privacy is very important for us”
For many people it’s easier to not care… they don’t want to bother with long term consequences of their behaviors.
I simply ask them if they would be OK with a company taking money out their bank account.
Your data is valuable. Why give it away for free?
I simply ask them if they would be OK with a company taking money out their bank account.
This is as unconvincing an analogy as
, and for the same reason.Unconvincing to whom? That campaign did an amazing job of equating copyright to property ownership for an entire generation.
It’s not accurate, but I think we’ve seen that it can be very convincing for most people.
I wouldn’t recommend trying to trick people into caring about their privacy: it’s not good for your reputation or your long-term relationship with them.
I would recommend it. People need to be manipulated into doing the right thing.
Manipulation only really works so far as it’s actually grounded in something. Like, sure, that sounds epic and evil and a machiavillanous type of thing, but it’s usually just easier straight up to actually come up with a compelling argument that “manipulates” people into seeing it from a real angle, than to have to try to do backflips in order to come up with some totally fake argument that isn’t real but also appeals to them specifically and slots into their worldview and directs them where you want them to go. It’s easier just to start with the reality of the situation and your authentic belief and then come up with a package for that which they will find acceptable.
At that point, where you’re actually basing your argument in something, “manipulation” becomes “framing”. We move from a false construction, to just selling a new angle on the reality. Maybe that’s the same thing, to you, but there’s definitely a meaningful difference there.
In this case, the false construction is the idea that data is similar to property, and you need to own your property rather than give it away. Sure, this might push people in the right direction, but they’re also just as likely to find it acceptable to trade their property for a service (as is what these social media companies do, if the metaphor was extended), or to sell their property for a return in a more straight kind of way.
Then you start getting into problematic ideals where people prize their art for its economic returns and hate AI (or stable diffusion) for “stealing” from them. For “stealing” their “intellectual property”, and for stealing potential economic value they could’ve extracted out of that. This, rather than hating it for being a huge investor level scam, that tarnishes the core technology’s viability, for being massive undirected energy drain, and for enabling mass internet botting more than what we already had.
It’s better to deconstruct the idea of intellectual property, while also advocating for user privacy as a kind of right that exists, and actually gives something or does something useful to those which have it, those which have real privacy. Selling it as something good for the individual, to the individualist, selling it as good for society, to the collectivist.
Beyond that, if you’re arguing against someone who believes in the market, and in this sort of meritocratic lassiez-faire intellectual utopian cyberspace ideal, then that’s the real core of the issue you must solve, rather than getting into this privacy/intellectual property debate, where it’s impossible to really change their minds because their core values are incompatible with the idea itself.
How is that any different than what all those shady companies do?
The result differs.
Ah, yes, the ends justify the means, Dr. Mengele
It does.
Edit: If I would manipulate the German people into not electing Hitler that would make me akin to Mengele?
Which generation is that? I’ll be honest, I’ve yet to talk to someone who really gives a crap about where the content they’re consuming is coming from. Hell, most people I’ve dealt with don’t give a crap about content being pirated whenever it happens to be the more convenient option.
“Hey I’m going to buy your location data tonight.”
“I like to know where you go on Thursdays”
This what Google, Facebook, X, your ISP, and the junk apps on your phone actually get from you, and everyone around you when you use their creepy apps.
Hit me up on Mastadon, use Tor, use DDG, we should have an restraining order against these creeps. Worse yet they don’t just want it for themselves they sell and share it with company, countries, anyone they like, and don’t tell you.
This is how I WANT to talk about because it’s how I feel. Their just strangers, I wouldn’t tell a stranger on the street any of this. I feel like this is such a fringe thought for people though.
Focus on action. Delete X, Get Y, Change Z. They will ask why. Stop talking about privacy. Make them ask you.
If they can send me over the second half of my thesis I would appreciate it enormously! 😀
The analytics tools that I am personally uncomfortable with involve dynamic, changing forms of data. I run GPSLogger on my phone (without a SIM card) and continuously log the GPS data to a text file. This data is then synced to my computer when WiFi is available. I can display this data on a map using gpx-viewer, and show very detailed tracking data of myself.
I have explored this map with some friends/family. They get to see a time-stamped movie of my life - my trips to work, to the shop, when I go out, if I go on a trip, etc. The data displayed in this manner is somewhat intimate, personal information. Anyone I have shown this to has said that they would not be so comfortable with such a map of their lives existing… Well, if they are carrying a active phone with a SIM card, it does.
To think that a company like Google can own such a map for a very large number of people makes me uncomfortable. On top of that, each of those map trajectories can be associated with an individual and their personality… They have the ability to pick out specific trajectories on the basis of the political ideologies or shopping behaviors of the personas behind them. This is extreme. I am of the opinion that the convenience afforded by a these technologies does not justify the allocation of that super-power to the companies that enable the technology.
A few years ago Facebook enabled a “Graph search” feature. This allowed users to create search queries such as"Friends of friends of X who like the page “X” and went to school near Z". That tool seemed super cool on the surface, but it quickly became obvious how something like that could be easily exploited. Later on in Snowden’s book I learned about XKeyscore from the NSA, which is like an extra-powerful no-consent-needed graph search that is available to some people. This is not just targeted ads.
I guess that what I am trying to convey is… For me, making the privacy-conscious choice is about not contributing to the ecosystem of very concrete tools that give super-powers to groups of people that may not have my best interest in mind. In my mind it is something very tangible and concrete, and I find many of those convenience tradeoffs to be clearly worth it.
Bootlickers gonna lick
Bots, bots everywhere
Yeh, it’s not like virginity, the organisations chasing this data don’t live entirely off of new additions to their databases, the data is valuable to them when it’s a constant flow so if you are interested in guarding that data and stopping it from being shared too widely then there’s never a point at which it’s entirely too late. It is worth noting that it’s near impossible to maintain the type of privacy you might have expected maybe in the 90s, early 2000s but, if you succeeded in reducing how much data you give away even to some limited extent then you are successfully starving those that seek that data of something valuable. Information about you that’s years old is probably not worth very much. It all feeds in to the machinery of this surveillance economy so I’m sure it’s useful to some extent, but that machinery seems to be endlessly thirsty so it obviously needs a continuous supply.
I got into a long discussion with friends at work who were saying it’s silly to worry about protecting my SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER and getting upset at companies for leaking it because “if it’s gonna get out it’s gonna.” Like…WHAT. How goddamn okay are you people with fighting to prove you’re you and not the person who stole your identity? The fuck. For real.
Removed by mod
They had a choice: stop being stupid, or keep being stupid, but also be an insecure bitch about it.
The second one is easier.
I though peoples menstrual data getting sold to the anti abortion states and people gettibg arrested would wake them up to it. It hasnt so i guess they reap what they sow.
Calling defeat before even trying is not only not grounded by facts - it’s playing right into their hands (their = data exchange companies and nodes in that network)
Removed by mod
a good point. while I appreciate all the usual parables to explain the issue, to me it’s quite simple. namely, me and the evildoers have a fundamental disagreement on the concept of “whose shit is my shit?” the moment their actions indicate it’s theirs, I am in active resistance mode.
I feel like this still slightly misses the problem. I couldn’t give less of a shit whether they do or don’t make money from my data, I care that they are tracking so many things for that purpose that I can be identified and many lifestyle habits are visible, which is a problem when the data ends up with someone who wants to use it to spy on me. Which probably has never targeted me specifically, but my data is almost certainly in a tool capable of this. Because this happens frequently.
Of course this happens because they want to make money from it and sell it, but even if they only want it to idk customize my feed to make me like their website more and it never leaves their server, I’d still have to worry about data breaches. Or just someone else taking over and deciding that selling it is great, actually.
And even though I have decided that I personally don’t really care enough to deal with the downsides for quality of life, that doesn’t mean I don’t want this to stop via legal means.
If it’s done and dusted because they already have your data then why are they constantly trying to get more?
Exactly. The devil and convincing the world that he don’t exist comes to mind.
For anyone who seems uninterested, ask if they’d like to be arrested for murder simply because they biked past a place every day.
For anyone looking for great talking points about this issue, I highly recommend “Taking Control of Your Personal Data” by prof. Jennifer Golbeck, published by The Teaching Company, ISBN:978-1629978390, likely available at your local library as a DVD or streaming.
Is this specific one valid anymore? I remember seeing in the last year or two that Google location history is now encrypted and it now no longer auto backs up the data, you can enable it though, so the data is now only on the device.
It’s like this. Your front door is left open and while, magically, no one can touch or take anything in your house, strangers are allowed to enter at will and eyeball everything, see all your bills, your kids stuff, your laundry, dirty and clean, etc. How would that ever be ok? And yet we say this is ok electronically every day.
You front door is forbidden to be ever closed (if you want to have an access to the street)
“You can always choose not use the street, no one forced you to sign up for an outside account”
Reminds me of a French king who wanted to be equal: I forbid rich and poor to sleep under the bridges.
It sounds fair but strangely it isn’t. Nowadays, you can’t avoid the Street. Nowadays in westen, the first thing an beggar needs to have a hope to have a house is a phone to access some free hot spots.
Having a new account is not enough. With browser fingerprinting and IP address you can recognise most of the people.
