Surveillance capitalism.

[DBT]

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.

I get the impression that this is yet another example of binary thinking and false assumptions based on ignorance.

Not at all. This is simply about putting laws in place to protect our private information, what can be acquired or shared, and by whom.

It's not too much to ask.

There already ARE reasonable laws in place to protect "private information" and steps you can take to protect yourself against data mining.

Given the concerns being raised by several sources (some already cited) and examples of misuse of information quoted and cited, the laws in place are clearly not adequately protecting the private information (definitions given) of consumers. That sensitive and private information continues to be gathered and shared by who knows who or for what purpose.

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.

I gave an outline of what defines private and sensitive information, with examples provided. And part of the problem is that without control of information gathering, sharing or being sold on to who knows who, the risk of it being misused by 'bad actors' is there. Identity theft, etc.

 

[DBT]

Furthermore;

''It’s no secret that your personal data is routinely bought and sold by dozens, possibly hundreds, of companies. What’s less known is who those companies are, and what exactly they do.

Thanks to a new Vermont law requiring companies that buy and sell third-party personal data to register with the Secretary of State, we’ve been able to assemble a list of 121 data brokers operating in the U.S. It’s a rare, rough glimpse into a bustling economy that operates largely in the shadows, and often with few rules.''

''If you do want to keep your data out of the hands of these companies, you’ll often have to contact them one by one through whatever opt-out systems they provide.''

What they know

''By buying or licensing data or scraping public records, third-party data companies can assemble thousands of attributes each for billions of people. For decades, companies could buy up lists of magazines subscribers to build targeted advertising audiences. These days, if you use a smartphone or a credit card, it’s not difficult for a company to determine if you’ve just gone through a break-up, if you’re pregnant or trying to lose weight, whether you’re an extrovert, what medicine you take, where you’ve been, and even how you swipe and tap on your smartphone.''

 

[KeepTalking]

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..."

DBT: "How dare you, you sonuvabitch?! Stick it where the sun don't shine, and mind your own goddamn business! You just forget everything you know about me, including my name, or I will never frequent your shop again."

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.

What? Seriously, you never received a mailer from a brick and mortar store in which you frequently shopped? A mailer that was sent to every other customer who provided their address to the shop owner, which advertised current sales, and maybe even provided a few discount coupons? How odd.

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.

Quite the run-on sentence there, congratulations for typing all of that without a single period, and for including quite possibly the longest parenthetical comment I have ever read.

Yes, retail businesses want to make as much money as they can, that should not be a surprise to anyone. They are also going to exploit any information they have about you in order to try to increase the amount of money you spend with them. No, they should no be allowed to pollute the environment while doing so, but the information they know about you is not going to allow them to do that, rather, it is a lack of regulation that will allow that. Shortchanging workers, selling worthless mortgage securities, and selling bombs to bad people are also things that will happen due to a lack of regulation, but will otherwise happen regardless of the data you allow them collect while you are shopping online.

 

[KeepTalking]

That may be correct, but what you are failing to realize is that that they had the ability to know what information is being acquired if they cared. Every lawful entity that acquired that information had to disclose that they were doing so, before doing so.

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.

So, when I order a tube of toothpaste online, what private information am I giving out?

 

[KeepTalking]

I am making the assumption that the things listed here are the private things to which you previously referred.

We all know that our private information

And round and round she goes, how she defines "private" nobody knows.

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.''

They are all also among the things which existing law forbids them to disclose.

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.

Oh, the Privacy Act? You mean the law that tells everyone that they cannot trade in that specific information?

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.''

So, it is all already covered by the Privacy Act. What are you on about, then?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Not at all. This is simply about putting laws in place to protect our private information, what can be acquired or shared, and by whom.

It's not too much to ask.

There already ARE reasonable laws in place to protect "private information" and steps you can take to protect yourself against data mining.

Given the concerns being raised by several sources (some already cited) and examples of misuse of information quoted and cited, the laws in place are clearly not adequately protecting the private information (definitions given) of consumers. That sensitive and private information continues to be gathered and shared by who knows who or for what purpose.

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.

I gave an outline of what defines private and sensitive information, with examples provided. And part of the problem is that without control of information gathering, sharing or being sold on to who knows who, the risk of it being misused by 'bad actors' is there. Identity theft, etc.

It's like you just woke up from a coma that began in 2005 and are just now getting to this debate. As has already been noted several times, such laws already exist and there are steps everyone can take to further protect certain information they might consider to be private (but actually is not, like your home address), etc, but there is no way to prevent bad actors from acting badly.

But more importantly, none of this has to do with marketers and what we do. We don't buy stolen data nor do we need to. We select particular demographic categories and then the service providers run our ads on just the pages of the people that fit such parameters.

Is that using your private information? Yes. Do I know who you are? No. It means that Facebook or Google has profiled you based on your user activity--in the exact same manner as the shopkeeps of old did that you were evidently completely oblivious to--and they simply match your profile to my demographic parameters.

But YOU--the personal you--aren't at all relevant to that equation. I don't care what your name is or where you live or if you like to fuck cats, unless I'm selling cat fucking lubricant.

So the only harm that could befall you from MY intent is that you see unwanted cat lubricant ads on your Facebook feed or you get unwanted cat lubricant discount emails (assuming YOU didn't turn off your email notification allowances). Could that be embarrassing for you? Well, if you fuck cats, it's a risk you have to take I guess, but ALSO if you fuck cats, you'd better be sure to set your privacy guards when you go online and search out cat lubricants or the like.

Just as you'd have to do in the real world if you didn't want anyone to see you buy cat lubricant, but what you CAN'T ever do is prevent a shop-owner who sells you your cat lubricant from noting that you're buying cat fucking lubricant.

So, once again, there is information YOU might consider highly private, but due to the fact that you're in the public square can't ever be considered private. That's just a fact of being in a civilization.

So to conflate ALL of this shit under one phrase--"private information"--is simply not tenable. You simply do not get to decide certain things you do in public should be considered private. It just doesn't work that way for the obvious fact that I can see you when you're in public.

Again, going online is identical to going into the town square. It does not matter if your body is inside your home; your activity is public. And just as you can wear a hat and trenchcoat to try to disguise yourself in public, you can set your privacy controls when you cerf the net, but not when it comes to the service that provides those controls. THEY know what you're doing because you're using them to do it with.

But, again, they don't sell your data; they sell their algorithm, their access to your data. That's a very different thing.

 

[DBT]

That may be correct, but what you are failing to realize is that that they had the ability to know what information is being acquired if they cared. Every lawful entity that acquired that information had to disclose that they were doing so, before doing so.

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.

So, when I order a tube of toothpaste online, what private information am I giving out?

You are being silly.

 

[DBT]

Not at all. This is simply about putting laws in place to protect our private information, what can be acquired or shared, and by whom.

It's not too much to ask.



Given the concerns being raised by several sources (some already cited) and examples of misuse of information quoted and cited, the laws in place are clearly not adequately protecting the private information (definitions given) of consumers. That sensitive and private information continues to be gathered and shared by who knows who or for what purpose.




I gave an outline of what defines private and sensitive information, with examples provided. And part of the problem is that without control of information gathering, sharing or being sold on to who knows who, the risk of it being misused by 'bad actors' is there. Identity theft, etc.

It's like you just woke up from a coma that began in 2005 and are just now getting to this debate. As has already been noted several times, such laws already exist and there are steps everyone can take to further protect certain information they might consider to be private (but actually is not, like your home address), etc, but there is no way to prevent bad actors from acting badly.

You tend to ignore any and every bit of information that does not suit your marketeer mindset and just repeat your assertions. It is not only me raising concerns on the acquisition and use of private information but the authors of all the articles that I have quoted from and cited...are they all ''waking up from a coma that began in 2005?'' Meaning that everyone who raises any concern on the issue must necessarily be wrong and you must necessarily be right.

That being your means of defense, your tactics.

If it is true that - ''If you do want to keep your data out of the hands of these companies, you’ll often have to contact them one by one through whatever opt-out systems they provide.' - then the laws protecting the private and sensitive information of consumers is far from adequate because most consumers are probably not aware of which organization is gathering what information, where it goes or how to opt out (and who has the time to search?).

The default position should be opt in, not opt out....''look folks, you get such and such benefits for allowing us to gather your private and sensitive information.''

How many takers do you think? Given a choice, without the laborious task of searching each and every company for the means of opting out, I would not take that option. Who would?

But more importantly, none of this has to do with marketers and what we do. We don't buy stolen data nor do we need to. We select particular demographic categories and then the service providers run our ads on just the pages of the people that fit such parameters.

That is completely at odds with the given information, an issue that goes way beyond marketing needs.


What they know

''By buying or licensing data or scraping public records, third-party data companies can assemble thousands of attributes each for billions of people. For decades, companies could buy up lists of magazines subscribers to build targeted advertising audiences. These days, if you use a smartphone or a credit card, it’s not difficult for a company to determine if you’ve just gone through a break-up, if you’re pregnant or trying to lose weight, whether you’re an extrovert, what medicine you take, where you’ve been, and even how you swipe and tap on your smartphone.''

 

[DBT]

To add a bit of history:

On regulatory framework for this technology

"Privacy is critical, and we have privacy law. We need more. The anti-trust issues are critical. We have anti-trust laws and they need to be enforced. But neither of those specifically addresses this unprecedented logic of surveillance capitalism. So, my argument has been that, you can't design a vaccine unless you have a deep and accurate understanding of the enemy disease. And that's the history of every successful vaccine, is how to you actually understand the disease, then the vaccine gets a lot easier. So, in this situation, we need to understand how surveillance capitalism works, which is why I've spent a chunk of my life trying to figure it out and share it with people.''


"Surveillance capitalism was being invented between 2000 and 2002, and it was being applied at Google. Here's something interesting: 2002, a comprehensive review of telemedicine, written that year before anyone knew about surveillance capitalism, because Google kept it quite a secret. So here's this comprehensive review, and there are data scientists and engineers involved in this review, and the review includes a diagram for a proposed digital architecture of telemedicine. And that diagram is a simple closed loop. It includes three nodes — one is the patient in her home, one is her physician and the other is the hospital where the server is located. The whole idea here is that a person's health data ... that is the essential elemental property of the person. My body, my information''

"That's 2002, before we had heard of surveillance capitalism. Now let's fast forward and I want to take us to the year 2016, where there are now more than 100,000 'mobile health apps.' So let's drill down in just one version of this. This comes from nothing less than the Journal of American Medicine. Here's a comprehensive study of Android-based diabetes apps. We still want telemedicine, we still want those advantages for us, but here's what they found about diabetes apps. They examined 211 apps. And then some of them, about 70 of them, they selected for deep-dive analysis. What they found is that just by downloading the software for the app, it automatically authorized the collection and even the modification of sensitive personal information on your phone. And then they figured out that 64 percent of those apps secretly modify or delete your information. Thirty one percent secretly read your phone status and identity. Twenty seven percent secretly gather location data. Another 12 percent take advantage to view your WiFi connection and then there's actually 11 percent that go ahead an activate your camera so that it can access your photos and your videos. Finally, they found that between 4 and 6 percent went even further — they read your contact list, they called phone numbers on your phone, they modified your contacts, they read your call logs, a few of them even activated your microphone to record your speech."

 

[ruby sparks]

To add a bit of history:

On regulatory framework for this technology

"Privacy is critical, and we have privacy law. We need more. The anti-trust issues are critical. We have anti-trust laws and they need to be enforced. But neither of those specifically addresses this unprecedented logic of surveillance capitalism. So, my argument has been that, you can't design a vaccine unless you have a deep and accurate understanding of the enemy disease. And that's the history of every successful vaccine, is how to you actually understand the disease, then the vaccine gets a lot easier. So, in this situation, we need to understand how surveillance capitalism works, which is why I've spent a chunk of my life trying to figure it out and share it with people.''


"Surveillance capitalism was being invented between 2000 and 2002, and it was being applied at Google. Here's something interesting: 2002, a comprehensive review of telemedicine, written that year before anyone knew about surveillance capitalism, because Google kept it quite a secret. So here's this comprehensive review, and there are data scientists and engineers involved in this review, and the review includes a diagram for a proposed digital architecture of telemedicine. And that diagram is a simple closed loop. It includes three nodes — one is the patient in her home, one is her physician and the other is the hospital where the server is located. The whole idea here is that a person's health data ... that is the essential elemental property of the person. My body, my information''

"That's 2002, before we had heard of surveillance capitalism. Now let's fast forward and I want to take us to the year 2016, where there are now more than 100,000 'mobile health apps.' So let's drill down in just one version of this. This comes from nothing less than the Journal of American Medicine. Here's a comprehensive study of Android-based diabetes apps. We still want telemedicine, we still want those advantages for us, but here's what they found about diabetes apps. They examined 211 apps. And then some of them, about 70 of them, they selected for deep-dive analysis. What they found is that just by downloading the software for the app, it automatically authorized the collection and even the modification of sensitive personal information on your phone. And then they figured out that 64 percent of those apps secretly modify or delete your information. Thirty one percent secretly read your phone status and identity. Twenty seven percent secretly gather location data. Another 12 percent take advantage to view your WiFi connection and then there's actually 11 percent that go ahead an activate your camera so that it can access your photos and your videos. Finally, they found that between 4 and 6 percent went even further — they read your contact list, they called phone numbers on your phone, they modified your contacts, they read your call logs, a few of them even activated your microphone to record your speech."

If all that information, even the parts of it that are reported to be sometimes obtained without consent, were only used for marketing, for selling people stuff, that would be one thing, and while it would be somewhat disconcerting and insidiously consumerist (a modern cousin of capitalist, especially in the US), imo it would not be hideously alarming of itself. To me it's the information additionally being readily available to, bought and sold by and used by certain people in more worrying ways that bothers me more. There's more to this than selling toothpaste.

 

[DBT]

There certainly appears to be far more to it. Brushing the issue aside with a "selling toothpaste" remark is beyond absurd. The scope and scale of information gathering goes way beyond marketing needs, tailoring ads as a service, something done for our benefit, what a joke.

 

[ruby sparks]

There certainly appears to be far more to it. Brushing the issue aside with a "selling toothpaste" remark is beyond absurd. The scope and scale of information gathering goes way beyond marketing needs, tailoring ads as a service, something done for our benefit, what a joke.

I agree. There are valid concerns.

 

[ruby sparks]

ps Brushing is an appropriate metaphor too.

 

[DBT]

Big business and marketeers care about us and our needs, oh, yes they do, sure they do....you can just feel the Love.

 

[ruby sparks]

Big business and marketeers care about us and our needs, oh, yes they do, sure they do....you can just feel the Love.

Sure. But.

It is ok to be cynical and wary about such things, imo, and I personally am both, I think one has to be these days especially, for a variety of valid reasons, but it is true that (a) there are upsides (for the general public) to this phenomenon and (b) it is legitimate for companies to try to make money, including by marketing.

All you are basically saying, and I agree with you, is that there should be reasonable controls.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Big business and marketeers care about us and our needs, oh, yes they do, sure they do....you can just feel the Love.

Sure. But.

It is ok to be cynical and wary about such things, imo, and I personally am both, I think one has to be these days especially, for a variety of valid reasons, but it is true that (a) there are upsides (for the general public) to this phenomenon and (b) it is legitimate for companies to try to make money, including by marketing.

All you are basically saying, and I agree with you, is that there should be reasonable controls.

And there have been for years. Ever since AOL in fact. But, again, bad actors. Hence the focus needing to be on....?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There certainly appears to be far more to it. Brushing the issue aside with a "selling toothpaste" remark is beyond absurd. The scope and scale of information gathering goes way beyond marketing needs, tailoring ads as a service, something done for our benefit, what a joke.

Thanks again grandpa, but I assure you, "talkies" will in fact replace silent pictures and TV won't replace "talkies," but you won't get a jetpack. We have them, but they're grossly inefficient.

 

[KeepTalking]

So, when I order a tube of toothpaste online, what private information am I giving out?

You are being silly.

So, you chose to respond to this post, and not the one that came immediately after it where I deduced what private information you might have been thinking about given a subsequent post of yours, and attempted to engage you in a discussion about that private information. It was not my intention to be silly, and my subsequent post should have demonstrated that. But, I will give it another try, please take a look at post #85 and respond to that one, rather than dismissing my posts as "silly".

 

[KeepTalking]

To add a bit of history:

On regulatory framework for this technology

"Privacy is critical, and we have privacy law. We need more. The anti-trust issues are critical. We have anti-trust laws and they need to be enforced. But neither of those specifically addresses this unprecedented logic of surveillance capitalism. So, my argument has been that, you can't design a vaccine unless you have a deep and accurate understanding of the enemy disease. And that's the history of every successful vaccine, is how to you actually understand the disease, then the vaccine gets a lot easier. So, in this situation, we need to understand how surveillance capitalism works, which is why I've spent a chunk of my life trying to figure it out and share it with people.''


"Surveillance capitalism was being invented between 2000 and 2002, and it was being applied at Google. Here's something interesting: 2002, a comprehensive review of telemedicine, written that year before anyone knew about surveillance capitalism, because Google kept it quite a secret. So here's this comprehensive review, and there are data scientists and engineers involved in this review, and the review includes a diagram for a proposed digital architecture of telemedicine. And that diagram is a simple closed loop. It includes three nodes — one is the patient in her home, one is her physician and the other is the hospital where the server is located. The whole idea here is that a person's health data ... that is the essential elemental property of the person. My body, my information''

OK, cool Google was interested in telemedicine, and doing the research. It might help at this point if we define 'telemedicine'. Here is how Chiron Health (and actual telemedicine provider) defines it:

Chiron Health[/URL]]Telemedicine allows health care professionals to evaluate, diagnose and treat patients at a distance using telecommunications technology.

"That's 2002, before we had heard of surveillance capitalism. Now let's fast forward and I want to take us to the year 2016, where there are now more than 100,000 'mobile health apps.' So let's drill down in just one version of this. This comes from nothing less than the Journal of American Medicine. Here's a comprehensive study of Android-based diabetes apps. We still want telemedicine, we still want those advantages for us, but here's what they found about diabetes apps. They examined 211 apps. And then some of them, about 70 of them, they selected for deep-dive analysis. What they found is that just by downloading the software for the app, it automatically authorized the collection and even the modification of sensitive personal information on your phone. And then they figured out that 64 percent of those apps secretly modify or delete your information. Thirty one percent secretly read your phone status and identity. Twenty seven percent secretly gather location data. Another 12 percent take advantage to view your WiFi connection and then there's actually 11 percent that go ahead an activate your camera so that it can access your photos and your videos. Finally, they found that between 4 and 6 percent went even further — they read your contact list, they called phone numbers on your phone, they modified your contacts, they read your call logs, a few of them even activated your microphone to record your speech."

Holy bait and switch, Batman! A diabetes app is not telemedicine. There is no health care provider on the other end providing evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment.

Now that we have that out of the way. Just because an app is available in the Play Store, does not mean Google developed that app. In fact, 99.999% of the apps you will find in the Play Store were not developed by Google.

Next, as a software developer, and a mobile app developer, I can tell you that there are entirely legitimate reasons why we collect data on your phone, location, and wifi connection. It is primarily used for troubleshooting issues with the app. The more we know about the phones using our apps, they better the chances that we can resolve any issues that arise. Then, of course, some of that data is collected by the marketing dept. so that they can target users who might find our apps beneficial.

 

[ruby sparks]

So, when I order a tube of toothpaste online, what private information am I giving out?

You are being silly.

So, you chose to respond to this post, and not the one that came immediately after it where I deduced what private information you might have been thinking about given a subsequent post of yours, and attempted to engage you in a discussion about that private information. It was not my intention to be silly, and my subsequent post should have demonstrated that. But, I will give it another try, please take a look at post #85 and respond to that one, rather than dismissing my posts as "silly".

I think DBT is from Australia, so he may be talking about their Privacy Act.

I don’t think he can be talking about the US Privacy Act, because as far as I know there isn’t a national one.

I read that new updated individual state legislations are either in the pipeline or on the horizon.

Here in the U.K. there has been one, since the late 90’s I think, but many would say it was ineffective, lagging behind technological developments and not enforced.

The EU last year brought in new, updated legislation, and it is starting to be implemented this year. It covers Britain at the moment, but Brexit may change that.

Whether any laws at local, state or even national level can work well remains to be seen, given that the issue may cross international borders quite readily.

And I do take your later point that a lot of the time, such activity is used for legitimate and benign business purposes, and furthermore my understanding is that data collection often generates the revenue that enables many online sites and services to be accessed free of charge.