-
Features
Surveillance capitalism.
- Thread starter DBT
- Start date
ruby sparks
Contributor
Too simplistic I think. Just because I'm in a public square does not mean I should give up all my privacy. Just because I went into a toothpaste shop in 1976 does not mean I had to give the shop owner my home address. It seems to me you're arguing for an extreme version of disclosure.
But I know where you live. The street, the house number. Everything. You didn't realise that, did you? It's ok, you're fine. I have no malintent. You believe me, right? You can trust me.
No.
Caveat emptor? Seriously? That's an extremely outdated standard here in the UK.
I honestly don't know what the rest of your post as about.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
I think that's either a false or a non-pragmatic dichotomy. The Koch Brothers arguably exemplify a certain version of capitalism. You're trying to treat the two, Koch Brothers and that type of capitalism, as completely separate things. I have no idea why.
Obviously, something like information is, of itself neutral, and it is only what it is used for that matters. Nobody would disagree.
I'm not suggesting taking capitalism away (I'm guessing that's your 'neutral knife'). I'm not anti-capitalism. I'm a capitalist, basically. Sensible and reasonable limits or controls on and accountability for the use of the knife is generally a good idea, imo.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
Is it quite like that though? Isn't it more like:
Shop Owner: "Oh hi, DBT, good to see you today. I just got a shipment of X in, but not as much as I ordered, and they are selling like hotcakes. Anyway, I saved some for you because I knew you would be in today, and I know you really like X, so I've sent a letter to your house, and to your friend's houses, and anyone you've ever met who seems likely to want X, to let you and them know."
DBT: "ok, thanks, I don't actually want any more X, but...... how exactly did you find out my address.... and come to think of it the addresses of my friends?."
I'm not saying the shop owner in that scenario is the embodiment of pure evil, obviously. I'm just saying it was not quite the same back in the day.
And if you factor in 'bad shopkeepers' (although they're probably global corporations these days, with enormous amounts of money, therefore enormous amounts of power, including in the political arena) who might want to exploit your predilection for X, or something else they know about you, to try to manipulate you in other ways, basically so they can make shedloads more money (and they like having certain politicians in power who will let them do that much more easily, and we don't even need to specifically get into some of the ways they might want to make the extra shedloads of money, such as by being allowed to increase profits by cheaply polluting the environment, or shortchanging workers, or having politicians who will look the other way when they sell ropey mortgages to poor people, or sell on the ropey mortgages wrapped up as supposedly non-ropey investments to unsuspecting foreigners, or selling bombs to people who will drop them on civilians, and we also don't necessarily need to assume they'll necessarily be telling lies to you, your fiends and everyone, but it is a distinct possibility) then things might take on a slightly more potentially sinister complexion.
Last edited:
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Perhaps in an ironic sense, since what they actually exemplify (i.e., what they practice as opposed to what they preach) is totalitarianism; the destruction of free markets, the destruction of competition, not its champion.
I don't mean as a goal, I mean they believe themselves to be above competition. In their minds, they have been ordained by their god to already be the winners, thus they can rhetorically blather on about how important it is for government to get out of the way of competition and let the markets determine the winners, because they already know that they are the winners.
They're actually advocating for coronation, not laissez-faire capitalism. Their Randian libertarianism is duplicitous, narcissistic horseshit meant to ironically obfuscate the fact that what they actually want is for government to stop meddling in what they see as their birthright.
But regardless, that has nothing to do with whether or not it's justified to equivocate marketing with capitalism and then capitalism with black hat "surveillance."
The information is the knife. Clear now?
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Goddamnit, Ruby stop with the fucking strawmen. I never said anything about "should" or that you give anything up or that you give up "all" of your privacy, so let's simply flip this. You are in the public square sitting on a bench. I enter the public square. What could possibly stop YOU from observing me and making any assessments you desire about me?
"Had" to? Who said anything about "had to." Fucking hell.
Because you either simply observed me leave my house or I otherwise informed you either directly or indirectly in a number of different ways; e.g., by carrying around the address on a big placard that always hovers above my
Hell, ever heard of the Yellow Pages? The government just used to drop a huge fucking book of everyone's name, address and phone number in it right on your doorstep every year. And you didn't even need a super computer to find my address in it. Imagine that.
Even if I didn't trust you, there's fuck-all I could do to stop you if your INTENT is mal.
You collected data about me from the public square--that I never gave you consent to take--and used it to profile me. Yes, seriously.
Bully for the UK. I didn't realize you spoke for it. So, great, tell us exactly which stores in the UK require you to give them your home address before they will sell you toothpaste, or any other product for that matter.
Well, that would be par for the course then, I guess.
Last edited:
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Let's finish that conversation, shall we?
But, you know, that's not dramatic, so...
You're right, because "back in the day" marketers had to send EVERYBODY IN YOUR TOWN the same catalogue and the same "junk" mail that had nothing you'd want as opposed to today when they can send you specific discounts on ONLY the things that you most often purchase.
OHMYGODHOWHORRIBLE!
But, but, but, they know your address!
[quote]And if you factor in 'bad shopkeepers' (although they're probably global corporations these days, with enormous amounts of money, therefore enormous amounts of power, including in the political arena)[/quote]
And now we slip into equivocation.....
[quote]who might want to exploit your predilection for X, or something else they know about you, to try to manipulate you in other ways[/quote]
In "other" ways. So, because you like Crest toothpaste; it's white; you must like white things; you're a Neo-Nazi! Got it four.
And now within your equivocation fallacy we shift AWAY from marketing--away from using the knife to cut cake--and into using the knife for no other purpose but to slit throats...
[quote]basically so they can make shedloads more money[/quote]
How? By trying to influence voters to change their ideological position and vote in a certain way? So, now we have completely jettisoned anything to do with using the knife to eat cake.
And has this ever happened "back in the day"? Wait, don't tell me; they didn't have super computers back in the day, so THAT's why it's now somehow different and not the fact that the common denominator is the fact that they didn't NEED super computers back in the day to nevertheless attempt to do the same kind of influence campaign that likely had roughly the same effect judging once again from the Koch failure to turn the blue tide in 2018 and the fact that the Russian efforts were MASSIVE and only managed to move the needle a tiny percentage (less than 1%, if in fact at all as we still don't have a clear assessment).
So, once again, blame the technology, not the bad actors. That's the way to stop these things. Don't deal with the intent, just demonize the tools. The knife is to blame!
[quote] (and they like having certain politicians in power who will let them do that much more easily[/quote]
And now we've gone from a very large circle in the Venn diagram of fever dreams down to an extremely small circle of bad actors that has ZERO to do with marketing.
[quote]and we don't even need to specifically get into some of the ways they might want to make the extra shedloads of money[/quote]
No, of course not, because that would completely deflate your boogeyman. Oh, like what you did here in this blatant series of false equivalences:
[quote]such as by being allowed to increase profits by cheaply polluting the environment[/quote]
So, marketing is to blame for a company polluting the environment.
[quote]or shortchanging workers[/quote]
So, marketing is to blame for a company short changing their workers.
[quote]*snip gross ignorance of what actually happened in the mortgage crisis* or selling bombs to people who will drop them on civilians[/quote]
So, marketing is to blame for [i]war crimes[/i].
[quote]and we also don't necessarily need to assume they'll necessarily be telling lies to you, your fiends and everyone, but it is a distinct possibility) then things might take on a slightly more potentially sinister complexion.[/QUOTE]
Well, then, by god, you'd better kill all the marketers because that's the only way you'll stop war crimes from occurring and companies shortchanging their workers and companies polluting the environment, because none of that every happened "back in the day," right!!??
You've posted some mighty insipid nonsense before ruby, but this is truly impressive. Congratulations.
Last edited:
DBT
Contributor
We all know that our private information is being acquired by big business interests....the issue being that we have no control of exactly what is being acquired, who can get access to it or how it is used.
That is the point. That we essentially have no say on what is being acquired, where it goes or how it is used.
Seeing that it is our private information it is hardly reasonable that we have no control over who gets a hold of it or how they happen to use it.
Which is why legislators need to pull their thumbs out of their arses and put protection measures into place.
That's not a comparison. Not even close.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
DBT
Contributor
But.....you post in pretty much the same manner on all topics, koy!
So I'm leaving my suggestion there for you to consider. Either you agree that the reports of unconsented-to data are correct, or they are dud reports. And if they're accurate and for some reason you don't have any problems with data being harvested without consent, then fine. We'd probably disagree. I think most people might be at least somewhat concerned though, probably because of where the data might potentially end up or what it might be used for.
Plus there is the principle of privacy. The right to privacy. Something that we are rapidly losing as the technological capacity to gather information increases. Worse, it seems that many people seem oblivious to an ever greater loss of privacy and control of their own information.
DBT
Contributor
It's not a tremendously difficult definition to make:
''Information that a user wishes to keep from public viewing. Credit card, social security and financial account numbers, along with passwords to websites and other venues, are commonly kept private.''
Types of personal information
''The term ‘personal information’ encompasses a broad range of information.
A number of different types of information are explicitly recognised as constituting personal information under the Privacy Act.
For example, the following are all types of personal information:
‘sensitive information’ (includes information or opinion about an individual’s racial or ethnic origin, political opinion, religious beliefs, sexual orientation or criminal record, provided the information or opinion otherwise meets the definition of personal information)[3]
‘health information’ (which is also ‘sensitive information’)[4]
‘credit information’[5]
‘
employee record’ information (subject to exemptions [6]), and
‘tax file number information’.[7]
Although not explicitly recognised as personal information under the Privacy Act, information may be explicitly recognised as personal information under other legislation. For example, under the Telecommunications (Interceptions and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), certain telecommunications data (sometimes referred to as ‘metadata’[8]) is taken to be personal information for the purposes of the Privacy Act.''
ruby sparks
Contributor
About what your analogy (or perhaps I mean metaphor) is, yes, I am now. About your point? no. And I'm rapidly losing interest in it, whatever it was.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
I see you've changed the wording even more this time around. Now it's 'marketing' and 'capitalism' for some odd reason.
I'm also not sure why you used the word equivocate, but it may not matter.
I equated monetising with capitalising, and I'm still happy with that, especially after checking some dictionaries. Now, if for some reason you want to post a 3000 word essay on how you disagree, bust a gut, but at least stop changing what I said.
Furthermore, and more importantly, you suggested I likened the two things in order to shoe horn capitalism into the issue. But as I already said, capitalism does not need to be shoe horned into the issue because its in the issue up to its neck, and probably further. No shoe horning needed.
So I have no idea what your point is.
I have no idea where you got that from.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
No, in the literal sense.
That would seem to be quite a bit like Monopoly Capitalism.
DBT
Contributor
I get the impression that some people, businesses or marketeers believe that the whole economic system will fall apart by having reasonable laws in place to protect private information.
ruby sparks
Contributor
I don't know what you mean by the 'spoke for the UK' part. I was merely informing you that caveat emptor is not applied in consumer law in the UK.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
I get the impression that this is yet another example of binary thinking and false assumptions based on ignorance. There already ARE reasonable laws in place to protect "private information" and steps you can take to protect yourself against data mining. The problems are (1) defining exactly what "private information" is, (2) BAD ACTORS and (3) you can't put a genie back in a bottle.
As should be painfully clear at this point, what YOU may personally think should be private often isn't. Such as your home address. That is a matter of public record. Anyone who cares to can request that information from your county clerk's office (at least here in America). This has always been the case (including "back in the day"). That's precisely how you used to get catalogues all the time and other "junk" mail.
Other information about you that you may personally think should be private, however, is often already not and by your own doing. You may not have known that was the case--because you didn't actually read the TOS you agreed to--but there it is.
And, as has been repeated ad nauseum, there is other information that can't ever be considered "private" no matter what, because you did it in public.
Then there's the genie in a bottle; the fact that all of this information is already out there, so there's often fuck-all you can do to stop it from being circulated no matter what.
And, finally, there is the problem so evident itt; which is a fundamental misunderstanding of how service providers and white, gray or black hats operate. Facebook, for example, doesn't sell your information; they sell their target marketing algorithm in the form of ad space. Marketers like me don't buy your information; we buy an ad and set certain demographic offerings (i.e., we want the ads to be seen by single latina women between the ages of 25-35 that live within a five mile radius of New York and have shown an interest in yoga, or whatever the product we're promoting is). That's it. We don't need your name or actual home address or anything more granular than that first hand; just the fact that Facebook can do that for us is more than enough for most consumer-oriented marketing campaigns.
Being able to personally address you is likewise not something we need to do; it's something that service providers can do and it helps to ensure whatever message we're trying to get to you is opened/read by you, but not even that is a necessary bit of information for us to know first hand.
What bad actors like the Koch brothers have done, however, is hunted down the individuals, most likely starting with the voter registration rolls and then built profiles from there. That's what harvesting means and it's the same thing as stalking you in the public square. And the reason they want that level of information is because they aren't trying to sell a good or service; they're trying to brainwash individuals into voting a particular way.
It's not cutting cake, it's slitting throats and it's ALSO the kind of information that they could get if the internet never existed in most states.
So, again, you're talking about two DIFFERENT things that use the same knife, but your blaming the knife.
Last edited:
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Then fuck off. No one asked you to further muddy already muddy waters with false equivalences and strawmen.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
Well at least that was mercifully short, for a change.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Yes, I forget that I'm dealing with intellectual inferiors who find reading--on a fucking text-based discussion board--too taxing, while at the same time they get so many things wrong about what I've just written that I have to spend the majority of my time wading through obvious straw and correcting the sophistry spewing out their asses at every turn.
But sure, that's somehow MY fault for being overly detailed and exhaustive in my argumentation. Got it.
ETA: This post being a perfect example. Let's revisit:
The only thing you responded to was the last part about falsely equating "monetizing" with "capitalising" to try and shoe horn in Capitalism, ignoring the fact that such data that would relate to what we're talking about isn't bought by either the government or politicians/lobbyists.
So you tell me, ruby, exactly what am I supposed to do when someone gets ALL OF THOSE THINGS WRONG in just one post?
Don't blame others for your own shortcomings.