thr0waway1239

The comparison with lack of blah at a shelter is telling, don't you think, when you think about how shelters are usually a place where people are "doled" out stuff? It is not merely a patronizing suggestion (which the billions of people are already aware of and accustomed to), but it is also taking a lot of people down a path where their choices will become severely restricted in the future. How is that "A Very Good Thing"?

Also, think about what companies start doing when they start failing. And don't make implicit assumptions that these megaliths will never fail or stumble. What would you, as the CEO who is supposed to "maximize shareholder value" do? Are you going to say "Well, we could do some shady things to exploit the data we have and buy ourselves some more time, but it is a better idea to declare bankruptcy and close the company"? Imagine a company like Facebook nearing bankruptcy. You can bet on your life that they will offer the appropriate third parties greater control of their data mining prowess in return for a bailout. Is that also overall a Very Good Thing?

Also, notice how the 2008 financial crisis unfolded. None of the offending parties got anything more than a slap on the wrist, because they had the keys to an engineering construct of extraordinary complexity (the financial system). It was just "heads I win, tails you lose". The way our lives are becoming intertwined with these tech behemoths is no different, and I don't see it playing out any differently if there is a similar crisis in the tech sector. How can that be overall a Very Good Thing?

Thanks! Your summaries are really helpful.

Hmm.. this is way too much friction. I call upon the tech giants to brainstorm and make the process more seamless.

For example: why can't the govt take your picture and upload it to their servers at FB/Google/etc and get all the relevant info in a jiffy?

Not disagreeing, but I would certainly like some references if you could provide us any. In fact, it would be genuinely troubling if you cannot find any good sources. Here is why: this notion of fingerprinting seems to be an invention of the legal wing, to be brought out as a CYA when these requests were inevitably going to be demanded.

Time for some math:

Since it is only a 0.01% chance, it means you need 10000 discrete pieces of information collected on a single individual before there is a chance of error. If a company indeed has that many pieces of information on you, you first of all need to know that for a fact.

There is a chance the company will counter that this is aggregated probability, as in, with an uneven distribution of errors. If it is indeed aggregated probability, the companies which advertise on these platforms need to demand their money back because for all you known, none of the folks they are targeting are actually correct fits for their ads. Fingerprinting puts the burden of proof on the shoulders of the company that they are indeed allowing advertisers to target the audience they want. How can they be so sure if the errors are unevenly distributed?

In any case, everyone should demand the information anyway, and let us start using this fingerprinting theory as an excellent opportunity to get deeper into the practices of these companies.

Oh, come on! Why did you have to ruin the fun? Don't you know we can have a ton of fun chuckling sarcastically to ourselves when we see folks like GP keep making these kind of shockingly delusional statements?

>> going to be forbidden unless you consent

This was exactly my point a while back. That the default option should be to get explicit permission for each piece of data you collect AND infer, even if the inference is being done in situ as the code executes (otherwise it will become another out clause). Of course, the geeks who get all delirious by seeing a mountain of data to analyze would not want that kind of friction in the process.

I wonder what would happen if someone would spend the time to completely dissect and reverse engineer exactly how lookalike profiles are being generated. My guess is that it will expose data collection practices which will confirm our worst fears.

Unethical: lacking moral principles.

Moral: of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong

I think it is "clearly wrong" that Facebook creates shadow profiles, because it is violating the freedom of people who have not signed up for their service, in the same way that it is clearly wrong for me to take away your favorite pet for ritualistic sacrifice against your wishes, even if "everyone" in the community agrees that it has been a consistently effective method for pleasing the Gods.

Of course, you know these analogies are tenuous, and you will eventually go into very precise definitions of words (or worse, you will actually start taking my pet sacrifice analogy and dissecting it). Perhaps you could tell us about something you think is clearly unethical, and we will try and draw the connection for you.

>> We really need someone to fight for our privacy and neutrality.

Well said.

I certainly hope it is not a PR stunt, but WordPress is probably the other big player in the fight for the open web. It might actually benefit all of us if Automattic starts making a lot of noise about privacy.

And ultimately, its not as if anyone wants any of these tech giants to completely fail (well, maybe Facebook). What we want is to not have the nature of the web changed to suit the whims of a handful of companies.

My first thought was: why only 70%?

This may be a case where the savings (i.e. money from selling data in return for a big pile of cash) are actually passed on to the customer - e.g. transaction costs are lower for Visa/Mastercard for merchants, which is why they sometimes don't accept Amex and Discover.

It would be interesting to see if Visa and Mastercard have some clause which prevents Google from buying data from AMEX and Discover (competitive advantage for them because then Amex and Discover's transaction costs aren't subsidized) in return for agreeing to part with their data. Said another way, what's preventing Google from also getting data from Amex or Discover? Its not as if Google is going to say no.

That's because they can't do much with this info since they aren't also a giant ad network. Now imagine the same data in the hands of a company which has built one. They should probably start charging more :-)

Indeed, it is amazing how many 'soft' things surrounding the software can be improved without requiring to 'get into the zone' as a developer. Of course, you also need to do the actual work and not get bogged down in these peripheral tasks.