
Losing the war against surveillance capitalism letting Big Tech frame the debate - jrepinc
https://www.salon.com/2020/06/20/were-losing-the-war-against-surveillance-capitalism-because-we-let-big-tech-frame-the-debate/
======
hedora
The proposed solution — banning the purchase or sale of personal information —
doesn’t go nearly far enough. It would just cement the existing monopolies on
personal information.

Here is a better framework:

\- Make it illegal to collect or store personal information on anyone you
don’t have an active business relationship with.

\- All personal data collection should require an opt in. The definition of
opt in is that it takes at least one more manual step to opt in than opt out,
and that the options must be presented with equal prominence.

\- Selling or purchasing services based on third parties personal information
counts as selling or buying the information in the eye of the law.

\- Buying and selling personal information would be illegal unless the person
explicitly authorizes the transfer each time the data is transferred.

\- Civil penalties for breaking the law would range between 1-10% of global
income per transaction, with a cap of 20% of annual gross income per month.
(So one mistake doesn’t completely destroy the company, but ignoring the law
does). Class action waivers or binding arbitration would be disallowed.
(Unless the person whose information was sold could choose the arbitration
agency after the fact.)

\- Authorizing the transfer of information must not be a requirement to
receive some other service, etc.

\- A central registry of all opt ins would be available so individuals could
audit their opt ins, and with enough information to assign blame for
fraudulent opt-ins (and to protect buyers/sellers when one side of the
transaction falsified an opt in). This would also have a single page to people
to cancel all of their existing opt ins.

That would start to solve the problem.

~~~
bo1024
I have a somewhat similar solution: Personal information should be
automatically "copyrighted" by the owner of the information.

Not literally, but the legal framework would be very similar to copyright. Any
third party that wants to use private information for any purpose must get
explicit consent from the data subject, for example, by paying them for a
year-long limited license to use the personal information for certain purposes
only.

There could be certain privacy rights that it would be illegal to contract
away, so perhaps it is not legal for a company to sell personal data to third
parties -- if they want the data, they have to contract with the data subject
themselves. This framework would support "data co-ops" or "data unions" that
collectively represent groups of data subjects and bargain on their behalf.

There are some complications and drawbacks to my proposal, for example, lots
of private information involves multiple parties and they would have to
somehow negotiate. But something along these lines would really help put the
power back on the other foot.

~~~
waholleyiv
[https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...](https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1320&context=dltr)

~~~
blaser-waffle
Man you gotta provide some context for stuff like this. Posting random links
is a bad idea -- could be a virus link, or a rick-role, or just a poorly cited
source.

Luckly, it's a decent article and pertinent to the discussion, so you'll get
an upvote... but for the people reading the thread:

> REGULATING DATA AS PROPERTY: A NEW CONSTRUCT FOR MOVING FORWARD

> JEFFREY RITTER AND ANNA MAYER

------
gdsdfe
Honestly I think the main problem with the privacy debate is that most people
have no imagination on how their data can be used against them and the
response you often get, even from people with years of experience building
software, is the now classic response : "I have nothing to hide".

~~~
unix_fan
I could spend hours trying to explain to people why data harvesting is a bad
thing, and most of them still wouldn’t care.

~~~
tdrgabi
Add top 5 reasons here. I'm one of the people without imagination.

Genuinely curious.

~~~
vegetablepotpie
1\. If an insurance company finds out that you’re more predisposed to a
disease, they will charge you or your employer a higher rate

2\. The Fed gov’t has ~20,000 laws, it has more than it can count, can you
tell me that you haven’t broken a single one? Could a creative prosecutor find
something you’re guilty of if they had enough information on you?

3\. In 2012 (edit: 2010) target sent ads to a teen girl for baby supplies, the
father angrily talked to the store manager asking why they were sending baby
supply ads to his daughter. When he found out his daughter was pregnant, he
apologized to the store manager. Target had a good idea the girl was pregnant
because of the items she bought in their store. How would you like it if
corporations know details about your family before you do? (Pro tip: they
already know things you don’t know)

4\. Organizations are not monolithic, they’re full of people who are
constantly moving around and organizational priorities change. Any
restrictions on use and protections will be ignored eventually and changed in
privacy policies, which they have complete discretion to change.

5\. The world is filled with clever and unscrupulous people, they will never
stop finding ways to use your data in ways we can’t imagine, not all of them
will be in your favor.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
I think the problem with your argument is that _most_ people don't think those
things would apply to them, or they wouldn't care if they did. And in their
defense, at least in the the US, most of the examples you give are
hypotheticals. Possible rejoinders:

1\. In the US, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act already prohibits
this. For other things, like "are you a skydiver", the insurance company
already has the right to ask you that.

2\. I mean, sure, I'm sure I've broken some laws, but I can't think of any
examples of overly agressive prosecutions for people who weren't already
guilty of bad shit.

3\. I mean, people are already used to creepy hypertargeted Facebook ads, most
of them have don't really care anymore.

4\. I mean sure, but how does this affect me?

5\. This just sounds like a hand-wavy slippery slope argument.

I think the issue for most people in the US is that they still fundamentally
believe that the justice system is generally "just", at least with respect to
themselves, though that is obviously changing. Contrast that with Germany,
where people are vividly aware of what happens when the government uses
personal data nefariously.

~~~
jkhdigital
Your response to point 2 made me gasp. Just watch a few episodes of any of the
many true crime false conviction series on Netflix. Unscrupulous prosecutors
are not rare, and it does not matter who you are—if you get caught in the
crosshairs you could go to prison for a crime you didn’t commit, or be coerced
to provide false witness against a friend or loved one for a crime _they_
didn’t commit.

~~~
zeroonetwothree
Netflix is definitely a reliable and objective source for crime data.

~~~
briefcomment
Fact is stranger than fiction.

------
sddfd
The article mentions the key problems:

\- once private information is leaked, it can never be undone \- being treated
differently by some party because that party had knowledge of private
information about you is difficult to prove

The ultimate solution is to legally require that important services cannot
depend on private information.

An example would be: define a set of properties health insurance cost is
allowed to depend on, and then have health insurance providers publish their
formula for the premium (that can only depend on that set of properties).

~~~
asjw
> : define a set of properties health insurance cost is allowed to depend on,
> and then have health insurance providers publish their formula for the
> premium (that can only depend on that set of properties).

That's exactly how it works in Italy

Parameters used to establish premiums must be approved and you can't make them
in a way that target a small group or a single person

------
DyslexicAtheist
this might sound cynical but we have lost this _war_ already in the last
century[1]. It's a salami tactic which is applied against us slice by slice
and the pandemic (and every protest whether in the Paris banlieus, HK or
Seattle) is another successful milestone won by the state to integrate any
outliers and test new methods. Since fighting back by going to a protest is
viewed as radicalism there are increasingly less (legal) options out of this
mess. When you go and join a a protest make sure to cover yourself[2], and
look out for the cow[3]

[1] Jacques Ellul - The Technological Society ("La Technique")
[https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSoci...](https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSociety)

[2] [https://crimethinc.com/2014/08/14/staying-safe-in-the-
street...](https://crimethinc.com/2014/08/14/staying-safe-in-the-streets)

[3] [https://www.fotomuseum.ch/en/explore/still-
searching/article...](https://www.fotomuseum.ch/en/explore/still-
searching/articles/27016_last_night_during_the_riot_i_ran_into_a_cow)

------
sargun
I don't understand how this meme of "Corporations sell your data" came about.

Google has perhaps the world's largest trove of information about people, but
do you see it ever leave their iron grip? No. Same with Facebook. In fact,
with Google, you can pay them money (GSuite) to get enhanced privacy, and a
legal relationship which ensures your data is protected.

Add laws that prevent your information from getting leaked / hacked. If these
companies have an organization-ending law when data gets leaked, they'll
finally have proper incentives to secure your data adequately. Until then all
of these laws seem like a waste of time.

On the other hand, in order to prevent _intentional_ transfer, I believe that
if we ban the transfer of raw information (not aggregated) between
organizations this point is somewhat moot -- of course, we would have to have
something like antitrust law enforced and prevent Google from acquiring an
insurance company or such.

I trust Google with my data, as a large leak would likely hurt their
reputation significantly, and result in them losing their edge (For a little
while at least). I do not trust the US Federal Government to secure my data,
or use it in a good way. Treat the US Federal Government like any of these
organizations -- if the FBI wants to get your logs, they should be held to the
same legal framework as Google "selling" data to any other corporation.

~~~
dan-robertson
I think this is a fair point. ish.

It is true that google/fb don’t sell your data so much as the ad-tracking
derived from it. Though they do buy your data from other sources which
incentives other firms to collect and sell your data. While you may
(rightfully) trust Google’s security practices, I wonder if you would trust
the practices of all the other parties who collect or buy your data.

I think it’s also worth looking at the framing of debates on privacy: large
firms like google want it to mean that your data is kept as a secret between
you and google and you can control who (else) may access it; the other side of
the debate want it to mean that you need not live in a world that seems to
know so much about things you have done but not made publicly available.

I think I disagree with you somewhat about the distinction between google
collecting data and some state like the USA collecting data. The civil service
must follow strict rules about such data collection (which private companies
need and indeed do not follow), and it is full of scrupulous public servants
who want to act responsibly and morally, and who have laws to protect their
abilities to do so. The argument that state data collection is worse because
of the potential use it would have in enabling tyranny is reasonable. But I
think one must concede that firms such as google are able to inflict a lot of
tyranny upon people (indeed they currently do this though only to few people
and it seems mostly for arbitrary or overlooked reasons).

------
markshepard
Many privacy regulations Only benefit the big five tech companies (Linkedin
charges $10 for one inmail). Any new regulation should exclusively address the
big players first before pushing more regulation to startups and small biz.
They are already struggling. If you dont do that we all endup with 4/5
companies. I would say oligopolies are bigger problem than privacy currently.
We need more diversity in tech systems. YoY the diversity is going down if you
take the important IT systems people use into account.

~~~
spaced-out
>Many privacy regulations Only benefit the big five tech companies (Linkedin
charges $10 for one inmail)

I don't understand this part, are you implying LinkedIn's InMail price is due
to regulation?

~~~
markshepard
Yes. Think of zoominfo’s new ipo. They are big and can work around the
regulations (ex: CAN SPAM) of selling user information. Also according to
CCPA, if you process 50,000 user records in a year (just 150 accounts per day)
you will come under the purview. But big companies like facebook
([https://www.cpomagazine.com/data-protection/facebook-
refuses...](https://www.cpomagazine.com/data-protection/facebook-refuses-to-
change-web-tracking-practices-believes-that-ccpa-does-not-apply-to-them/))
will work around them.

------
x87678r
To me it looks like cameras everywhere has been a good thing. Looking at the
current Police Brutality videos coming out has rightfully caused people to
want to stop that happening. I feel a lot safer in areas with security
cameras. In the building I live in some items have been stolen which cameras
helped find the thief, also some crazy lawsuit was shut down because we had a
video of the guy falling over deliberately.

~~~
Vinnl
The examples you give are of someone getting caught doing something, not from
having been prevented doing so. Is the right conclusion then to feel safer?

~~~
treis
Of course. The people caught and punished for those crimes are not likely to
repeat it at that location.

~~~
Vinnl
And how well-supported is your belief that they would otherwise?

------
scarface74
I assume people think the answer to private corporations “framing the debate”
is for government to pass laws. The same government that is trying to enforce
backdoors to encryption and is already using facial recognition to harass
people who “fit the description”.

~~~
clairity
to repeat my mantra, it's not either-or, it's all of the above. corporations,
governments, and institutions of all kinds are especially designed to
consolidate power.

but society is better when power is dispersed widely, so that it's difficult
(ideally impossible) to infringe individual liberties and civil rights without
recourse. we the polity need to continually pit institutions against each
other to maintain our freedoms. there's no "done, now let's move on" in that.

~~~
scarface74
The difference is that any power you give the government is automatically
amplified. The government has the power of the state, to wield power.

Private corporations have only one goal - to make money. Government is
controlled by ideologues. Also because of the nature of both the Senate with
two senators per state and the electoral college, the less populous states
have far more voting power than their population demands. Their belief system
and worldview is completely different than mine - yes I live in one of those
states.

It’s not just about the difference on policy issues. It’s about fundamental
human rights issues like police power and treatment of minorities, and how
many of them believe fundamentally that none straight/non Christian people are
an abomination and laws should be passed that discriminate against them.

~~~
clairity
> "The difference is that any power you give the government is automatically
> amplified."

that's not immediately obvious. power is divided in government, and ultimately
rests collectively in the people. you'd expect the power expressed is exactly
the accumulation of the tiny amounts each of us delegate to government. it's
not perfect, but all the little divisions and mechanisms of check and balance
are there specifically to prevent undue amplification.

certainly the government has coercive power and we must be vigilant, but make
no mistake, corporations are power structures that collaborate with and coerce
the government into offense against the less powerful (minorities, women,
etc.). who but the moneyed owners do you think try to distort and amplify
their voice through government? it's not the average person that _citizen 's
united_ benefits.

the indirection of the corporate form is designed specifically to make it
difficult to parse out their influence (and mistakenly place trust in them).
they're designed specifically to insulate owners, to the benefit of _no one
else_ (governments be damned where they can get away with it).

that there are assholes everywhere, including every corporation, who would
discriminate against trivial shit is exactly why you want dispersed power
across any structure or institution.

~~~
scarface74
> that's not immediately obvious. power is divided in government, and
> ultimately rests collectively in the people. you'd expect the power
> expressed is exactly the accumulation of the tiny amounts each of us
> delegate to government. it's not perfect, but all the little divisions and
> mechanisms of check and balance are there specifically to prevent undue
> amplification.

Two issues:

Power doesn’t rest in the hands of “the people”. It rests in the hands of the
Electoral College - which doesn’t represent the people. As evidenced by the
different outcome of the popular vote and the electoral vote. It rests in the
hands of the Senate which also doesn’t represent “the people” it represents
“the states” regardless of the population. The Senate also puts unelected
judges on the bench with lifetime appointments and heads of government
committees like the FTC, FDA, etc. that write regulations and are also
unelected.

The President - that doesn’t represent “the people” because of the electoral
college also has undue power over the Justice Department, FBI and CIA - none
of whom are elected.

Even if we did have a government that represented “the majority”, that hasn’t
worked out well if you aren’t part of the majority.

Coercive power allowed Jim Crow, making homosexual sex (sodomy) a criminal
offense and making interracial marriage (miscegenation) a criminal offense.

~~~
clairity
yes, those are valid criticisms of the distortions wrought on our
representative democracy by elitism. people with money and power wanted that
layer of indirection (at least since the 1700s) because they feared that the
people would actually get what they want, which could include adverse actions
against the elite. it was an unfortunate but unavoidable compromise at the
time. that, and true direct democracy was practically impossible until the
past few decades for a polity the size of a country.

to be clear, i'm not arguing that governments are bastions of fairness and
enligthenment, just that they're not much different from other power
structures in that any institution (and especially the confluence of those
institutions) is a threat to individual liberties and civil rights. however,
governments are the primary mechanism of protecting and extending rights and
liberties.

the cause of discriminatory injustices like jim crow is not simply the
representative form, but rooted in the people themselves--the collective _us_
\--as expressed by our differential power and influence. the wealthy simply
have outsized influence over all policy, for no discernably valid reason. why
should we ever give people who are particularly greedy the power to largely
control social policy too?

~~~
scarface74
I would much rather trust people who are motivated by greed than ideology.
People who are motivated by greed don’t take rights away from people because
of their religion, race, or sexual preference as do people who are motivated
by concerns of an invisible being reining hellfire and damnation on the
country if they allow “race mixing” and “sodomy”.

I have been in the tech industry for 25 years and never once did I worry that
I wouldn’t get a job I was qualified for because of the color of my skin. I’ve
interviewed successful at everything from small companies with less than 100
people as “adult supervision” (my current company) to one of the “FAANGs” as a
customer facing “cloud consultant” (the company I start at in less than a
week).

The tech industry has enabled everyone to have a camera in their pocket to
record video and a platform to spread the video to keep police accountable.
The government consistently tries to pass laws to make that illegal. It has
allowed people to organize against governments in the US via encrypted
channels. The government wants a backdoor. We already saw what the government
does when it can intercept communications - look no further than what the FBI
did during the civil rights movement.

Right now, the President is trying to “shut down Twitter”.

But still in 2020 when my son walks down the street in our neighborhood in the
burbs, he’s looked at suspiciously by the police. So who should I trust more
the government or the tech companies?

~~~
clairity
> "I would much rather trust people who are motivated by greed than ideology."

it's ironic that this statement comes off so ideological. why so adamantly
either-or?

i guess it's the old upton sinclair saw about it being difficult to get a man
to understand something when his (future) salary depends upon his not
understanding it?

no one is saying have a lovefest with the government, that they're your good
friends. understand and expect more, yes, blindly trust, no. but the same goes
for corporations. tech company good guys vs. evil oppressive government is not
only simplistic, but simply wrong.

it's not like racist political donors, ardent law-and-order police supporters,
and corporate managers and owners are wholly separate groups of people.
moreover, greed isn't some singular and exclusive vice of otherwise saintly
corporations controlled by completely egalitarian and nondiscriminatory
managers and owners. corporations not only condone discrimination and
violence, they're inextricably complicit through direct and indirect
influence.

people who believe and do shitty things are spread through all institutions,
not just some of them. and the way they effect those beliefs is unlikely to
look the same in each institution, especially when they're actively trying to
hide their actions.

~~~
scarface74
Racist corporations don’t have “coercive” power - including local police with
military grade weapons to shoot unarmed people in the back and choke then for
nine minutes.

The government already tried to file charges against an activist for “inciting
riots” by speaking out in public. Yet and still the President can say the same
thing on a public platform and be protected because corporations fear the
government.

There was a story just recently where a Facebook user posted Trump’s words
verbatim and the poster was banned for inciting riots.

We also have the case of Tim Cook basically kissing the President’s golden
ring and standing beside him for photo op while the President was lying about
what Apple was actually doing with regards to manufacturing in the US.

~~~
clairity
i think the difference is that you see the government as a coherent body
acting in unison under the direction of the president, and i see a bunch of
thugs using both the government and corporations (and other institutions) as
tools to oppress in many different and loosely coordinated ways.

i actually don't think trump is an overt racist _per se_ , only a highly self-
centered opportunist who advances the white supremecist agenda because he
couldn't care less about anyone but himself. an equal opportunity disregard,
if you will. not a defense though, he's more suited to prison than office.

~~~
scarface74
Its not just the President and it’s not just Republicans. It’s also Democrats
like Clinton who got “tough on crime” and instituted policies that
disproportionately affected minorities and naive Black politicians[1] who were
dumb enough to think that the government was the answer to crime that was
hurting their communities and that police would be used for something more
than “border patrol” to keep minorities out of places where “they didn’t
belong”.

[1] For context, before I get downvoted to oblivion and flagged for being a
“racist”, please read my previous comments. I am Black.

~~~
clairity
yes, democrats have been complicit, sometimes overtly, sometimes
inadvertently. the idealogy around policing and use of force transcends party,
institutions, and even race itself. policing needs to be completely reformed
and its funding largely funneled to community building and support rather than
use of force against minorities.

there was a great story recently on _latino usa_ [0] about josé tomás canales,
a texas representative from 100 years ago who fought against the racist
impunity of the texas rangers on the texas border. the lawyers for the
rangers, knowing that the national media was trained on them in a time with
little national media, magnified the threat and danger of the border and
mexicans to turn the country toward support of the racist use force by the
rangers. a hundred years later, we still curry in that bullshit.

[0] [https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878316528/the-lone-
legislator](https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878316528/the-lone-legislator)

------
alistproducer2
Letting the enemy set the terms of and frame the debate so we're starting on
the low ground seems to be par for the course for folks on the left end of the
spectrum. Pick your issue: climate change, policing, war on terror, lgbt
rights, socialized medicine, on and on. You start to wonder if "our side" is
throwing the game.

~~~
chiefalchemist
Agreed, mostly. Throw the game? I'm not sure they even know where the game is,
and what's being played. Too often they're at the wrong venue suited up to
play checkers. That's no way to win a chess match.

To your point, so often this happens that there's only two possibilities:

\- incompetence / negligence \- it's intentional

Either way, we lose.

------
dan-robertson
Many people are proposing alternative solutions to this problem in this thread
so here is my attempt:

I see the driving force of the data collection as the desire to make more
money selling ads which is done by constantly trying to come up with new kinds
of ads to sell and with trying to sell ads as better targeted (or offering
better metrics on whether they worked or not) and therefore worth more money.
I propose 1. a way to make increased targeting less valuable and 2. a way to
make this data collection offer something slightly closer to the privacy
people had before the internet:

1\. An entropy based tax on selling advertisements. The tax should be
proportional to minus the logarithm of the proportion of the ad-seller’s
audience whom the ad is expected to reach. (Plus some requirement of auditing
these numbers or updating them if they turn out to be wrong). This would mean
that eg newspapers would not have a high tax because their ads go out to all
their readers (but if they sold ad-slots which were region-specific then the
tax would be higher), but some firm uploading a (small) list of emails they
collected to google or fb would have to pay a higher tax as google/fb have a
lot of users not on that list.

2\. Behavioural data may not be used or sold when it is more than 30 days old.
It may be used (in a non-ad-targeting) capacity after this time when it is
part of the official records of the company that has it (so eg your bank can
keep your transaction history and let you query it). Same goes for inferences
or other derivatives from that behavioural data. This would hopefully add some
forgetfulness back into the system.

------
0xy
When Mark Zuckerberg calls for stronger regulations around privacy, what he's
doing is calling for the government to solidify his monopoly status. By
exerting very high compliance costs on younger more agile competitors, he
ensures that only Facebook and a select group of deep-pocketed competitors can
compete. And that ensures his dominance for even longer.

When a billionaire openly calls for regulation, you should be extremely
suspicious. Regulatory capture is often the intent and goal.

~~~
sergeykish
Do we need more young agile privacy invading competitors?

Facebook is on decline, add regulations and let in slowly dye.

~~~
brosinante
My (admittedly) conspiracy theory fear is that a regulated facebook is a
facebook tightly embedded in government ("It's ok to require a facebook
account to sign up for xyz public service, it's regulated by the
government!").

------
mark_l_watson
I have offered to loan my copy of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by
Shoshana Zuboff to friends and family, and no one has taken me up on it. The
most I have been able to do is to get a few of them to use Firefox containers.

I consider this a major problem that needs to be fixed, like the division in
US society between left and right, income inequality, and corporate control of
both political parties.

Shoshana Zuboff does a brilliant job of documenting the bad effects of
collecting all digital information in our lives and the use of that data in
ways that are against our interests.

I use Google and Facebook, but only to buy things from them, like Oculus
Quest, Play books, music, and movies.

I don’t mind paying for services, and I don’t mind them using data on what I
have directly purchased from them. I will fight all other forms of data
collection.

~~~
megaman821
I don't think I understand your reasoning. Your friends and family enjoy free
Google search, Google Maps, Facebook, etc and are ambivalent to privacy
concerns. You, personally, don't mind paying for services or avoiding them
entirely. I assume by fixed, you mean the government should pass a law that
reflects your position on the matter, even though by your own account it is
the minority position.

~~~
mark_l_watson
Yes, you understood me correctly: I would like my country to implement
European Union type privacy laws.

I am not in a minority position in my family and friends circle, rather, I am
the only one willing to put effort into it. Everyone says that they would like
privacy protections, but the tech requirements for protecting themselves is
more effort than they are willing to take. If we could poll the population of
the EU, I would expect the same: they want privacy but don't want to
personally jump through tech hoops to get it.

------
gentleman11
Canada banned masks at protests during the Harper years. When I complained,
everyone said that “you should have to protest publicly, take a stand,” or,
“there is nothing to protest.” It was very frustrating

------
novok
I think the real fight should be limiting the surveillance abilities of
governments vs. the surveillance abilities of corps. Already today cell phones
are the ultimate surveillance tool that nobody in the media talks about
restricting constantly, unlike large tech companies. I think it's because big
tech is a competitor that is eating big media's lunch.

If google knows what you do, they will sell you more ads. If governments know
what you do, they will throw you in prison for many bigoted reasons.

------
almost_usual
This is simply a problem that cannot be addressed by law because law can be
broken.

Strong encryption can be broken but it is much harder to break than law or
policy.

Want privacy? Assume everything you post online is public unless it is
encrypted. If you don’t want that information public don’t post it or use said
service.

------
hamilyon2
I don't really understand how forbidding Facebook and Google selling and
buying personal information will prevent any other bad actor collecting and
using it.

Even naked man example used in this article doesn't make sense in this
context.

The solution is not legal, but rather technological.

~~~
hedora
All of the technological solutions have failed (it is easier destroy privacy
than protect it), so the only remaining solutions are legal.

Eliminating the legitimate market for personal information would help a lot.

Sure, there’d still be black hats spying on people, but that’s very different
than having most of the biggest companies on earth doing it openly.

------
centimeter
Whatever constraints on personal data we have for tech companies, can we have
at least equally restrictive constraints on the government? The nice thing
about google is they can’t put me in jail for doing something they don’t like.

------
PeterisP
It's kind of hypocritical that salon.com closes this article if click 'I
decline' when _they_ ask to surveil me.

------
wolco
The war hasn't started yet. We are 10 years away from tor being mainstream at
that point the war begins.

------
carapace
I don't like it but I think the cat is out of the bag, there's no effective
way to roll back the machine.

From that POV the issue is control and communication, who has access to the
firehose?

------
Wolfenstein98k
"I want the (free) benefits without any of the downsides", this reads to me.
Particularly as it gets into condemning "neoliberalism" in response to being
reminded that Google Maps is not compulsory.

~~~
BolexNOLA
I’ve never liked this argument. The Google ecosystem is more or less required
these days unless you are a little more tech savvy than the average person,
and your job/education doesn’t require it, AND you have the patience to stitch
together a bunch of (maybe) trustworthy services.

It’s like saying, “if you don’t like your ISP, then find another one.” Then
when they’re all doing the same crap going, “well then don’t use the
Internet.”

~~~
leetcrew
I don't really buy this. if your school/employer uses google products, then
yeah, you're SOL. but otherwise you can get pretty far using apple products
and duckduckgo. I guess if you count sending emails to people with gmail
accounts as "using the google ecosystem", it's pretty much unavoidable.

~~~
searchableguy
Wait till you find out about school forcing surveillance tech from the big
companies. You don't have a choice whether you are at home or in school.

During the lockdown, schools decided to force kids to install spyware and
malware on their own devices. Literal hijacking of everything you do on the
device and then pushed a COC on what you can and cannot do on that device.

In developed countries or rich places, you might afford privacy but free
services or traps offered by big companies see widespread use in developing
countries. Schooling situation is worse and they are profit seekers who will
sacrifice privacy for saving up few $$$.

Privacy is not something to be bought, it's a right.

To give you one example, google analytics and ads. An average person might be
able to block that on desktop by simply installing a plugin but on phone,
there is no way to install a plugin for your browser. Solutions like [0]
blokada are not well known. Most people don't know how to configure a proxy,
change dns and they won't install a different browser. And then there are apps
which are way worse than websites. There is a reason why companies push you so
hard to use the app. Reddit, Imgur, twitter, instagram, facebook etc. Why
_app_?

Also, windows, google captcha, amp, search, youtube etc. You can't escape
them.

0] [https://blokada.org/index.html](https://blokada.org/index.html)

~~~
gorhill
> there is no way to install a plugin for your browser

Firefox for Android blocks trackers by default and supports installing
extensions.

~~~
searchableguy
Yes, kiwi browser and yandex does too despite being chromium. I just mean the
majority of browsers that normal users will have. If someone is using Firefox,
they are already changing their defaults and are most likely aware of the
privacy issues.

------
spodek
Why name the problem "surveillance _capitalism_ " instead of just
_surveillance_?

Do fewer problems happen when a government does it? Does it matter if the
government is more capitalist, socialist, etc?

~~~
ianleeclark
Surveillance is a camera on the wall; surveillance capitalism is a privately
owned camera on the wall selling information of every passerby.

~~~
KineticLensman
> selling information of every passerby

Or products based on that information, e.g. a list of people who appear
relevant to an ad campaign.

------
thosewhoteach
It is actually quite easy to make Big Tech implode from within. Declare a
moratorium on issuing green cards to all big tech employees for the next 25
years. Sweeten the deal further: expedited green card processing for employees
who come forward as whistleblowers.

~~~
bilbo0s
It's much easier than that even, make a law that no one can use personal
information for commercial reasons any longer.

All that tracking based web economy nonsense collapses overnight and you don't
need to wait 25 years.

~~~
TomMarius
Or Google and Facebook turn off their sites with an explanatory message,
starting worldwide riots and revolutions.

~~~
throwaway2048
If you really think anyone is going to start riots and revolutions because
Facebook and google cant stalk them online, I think you have a skewed
perspective.

~~~
TomMarius
I said Facebook and Google would turn off their websites - they have zero
obligation to keep it running - not that people would like them to breach
their privacy and start rioting for that.

I think you don't realize how many people absolutely depend on social media,
how many companies are built on income allowed by advertising, etc. Even music
events are organized through Facebook around me!

And still, all Facebook and Google needs to do is remind the politicians who
gets their advertising done.

~~~
afterburner
> zero obligation

Except to those pesky shareholders. Which includes employees. Peoples' wealth
is tied up in those stocks.

But regardless... maybe try email or something. The internet existed before
Google and Facebook. Plenty of competitors would rise to the top in the
extremely unlikely event Google and Facebook shut down.

~~~
TomMarius
You don't need to tell me, I am on HN with you. It's the people out of HN that
I am talking about, and they often have no idea Facebook is in fact not the
internet. I am not kidding - I used to be a computer teacher for adults (as in
"what is mouse?"). Facebook is trying to make it seem so really hard. BTW
people today often don't even have email or know how to use it correctly - you
can use your phone number for FB/Instagram/Whatsapp, so why bother.

> Except to those pesky shareholders. Which includes employees. Peoples'
> wealth is tied up in those stocks.

That stock is dead anyways if they forbid ad targeting. And no, the company
does not have any such obligation to its shareholders - it only has to make
profit for its shareholders as best as it can, which may very well include
turning the site off for a few days (the public/gov does not need to know for
how long it is turned off and/or whether indefinitely).

~~~
afterburner
> That stock is dead anyways if they forbid ad targeting

No, advertising can exist very easily without targeting. It's still
advertising, and people still pay for it.

> And no, the company does not have any such obligation to its shareholders

You're ignoring that some of the people with the most stock are those in
charge of the company. They'd be destroying their own wealth by "shutting down
the site".

~~~
TomMarius
Well, it worked out for Google News, so why not for ad targeting?

[https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/25/tech/google-france-
copyri...](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/25/tech/google-france-copyright-
news/index.html)

> No, advertising can exist very easily without targeting. It's still
> advertising, and people still pay for it.

Have you tried advertising your product on such platforms? It just does not
work if you're not a _huge_ brand name with a deep pocket.

> You're ignoring that some of the people with the most stock are those in
> charge of the company. They'd be destroying their own wealth by "shutting
> down the site".

Actually that's the basis for my argument. That's why they might want to go
"on a strike" for a few days - if it succeeds, it would massively increase
their profits compared to the non-ad targeting version of the company, while
missing only a few days of revenue if not successful.

