
Tech Companies Manipulate Our Personal Data - rafaelc
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/18/books/review/shoshana-zuboff-age-of-surveillance-capitalism.html
======
40acres
"Data is the new oil" is such a concise phrase to provide context regarding
the recent controversies of big tech.

If anything, I'd say data is more valuable than oil. For one it's "renewable",
but also the insight that can be gathered from data gives it a level of reach
that even surpasses oil (which is very versatile in its own right).

Data breeches are the new oil spills, the destabilizing by-product of burning
fossil fuels has a lot of similarity to how the largest data brokers can
disrupt entire industries, political systems, and neighborhoods.

Data is a target for geo-political actors, whether it be slipping spyware into
network infrastructure or tracking your own citizens.

When we look back 100 years from now, I won't be surprised if the events that
occurred during the mass commercialization of oil (anti-trust, regulation,
military action, productivity gains, facilitation of developing economies)
also occur due to data.

~~~
simplecomplex
> I'd say data is more valuable than oil.

None of the social network companies sell user data. They sell ad placement,
and use user data to target the ad audience. Selling ads is not selling data.
When I think of selling data I think of companies that actually sell data.
Equifax or MaxMind, for example.

Oil and gas drilling alone are 2-3% of world GDP, which comes to about $2
trillion dollars. Facebook and Google make about $100 billion in combined ad
revenue. I think it’s safe to say oil is probably 10x more valuable than
social network advertising.

> Data breeches are the new oil spills

Comparing credit card fraud with ecological pollution and death?

~~~
mbesto
> Comparing credit card fraud with ecological pollution and death?

It's an analogy, precisely because the general populace still doesn't
understand how drastic the impact a data breach is, but they sure do
understand what a duck looks like full of tar. Depending on what type of data
breach it is (credit card, social, healthcare, etc) then yes the implications
can be potentially dire.

Extreme, but plausible examples of "yes this means death and polluted
environments too":

\- Ransomware in a healthcare IT system that doesn't allow doctors to view
patients data if they don't pay the crypto ransom

\- Credit availability to someone paying for healthcare or some other life
altering purchase but can't because their identity was stolen or credit score
was impacted. Not to mention the emotional distress caused by bankruptcy
(undue).

\- Civil unrest resulting from data breaches used for manipulation/propaganda
targeting reasons (see -> Brexit and 2016 presidential election)

~~~
simplecomplex
An election is not civil unrest.

------
crsmithdev
And media outlets like the NYT manipulate our opinions. An endless parade of
articles written by non-experts with no incentives to get anything right, but
plenty to keep the story going and traffic coming in.

~~~
bepotts
I can't remember who said it, but someone once compared the outrage over how
tech companies use data to Yellowpages. There used to be this free book that
had everyone's name, address, and phone number and the only way to opt out was
to pay. This is _much_ more egregious act than Google and Facebook; the only
difference is the scale.

At least Google and Facebook only take what you give them.

~~~
staplers
Horrendous analogy. Yellowpages never tracked your real-time location, served
hyper-targeted political ads, or tested emotion-manipulation on its readers.

~~~
bepotts
All that stuff is private and is never disclosed to anyone without a court
order; or at least that is supposed to be how it works.

Yellowpages told the public. _That_ is the point.

~~~
staplers
Step away from the bong for a sec and reread what I just wrote.

------
kerng
Surveillance capitalism is an interesting term to give the centralization of
intelligence for the financial benefit of a few a name.

Historically it was the government that was pushing for surveillance for
security reasons, now companies push surveillance (although not obvious to
them and their employees?) for financial gain.

------
ilovecaching
Actually, we're in a pretty good spot. Most the of the data is centralized,
which makes the problem feasible to solve. I don't believe we've entered some
Orwellian dystopia just yet; this is simply a growing pain. A bump in the road
towards a society that is fully connected. These companies also have unlimited
amounts of money to actually solve these problems, and the user base seems to
be pushing them towards fixing the issues and stopping growth to retool.

All and all, I have a very positive outlook on the whole situation.

~~~
VRay
Good point! Now turn off all your privacy addons, Google up info on a disease
or a new baby or engagement rings, and check out the ads you start getting

------
throwaway98121
My personal opinion based on what I know.

Grouping these companies together as big tech and these brushing broad strokes
isn’t helpful. It just seems like we’re picking the next bogeyman, sort of
like how all the oil companies were grouped together, even though there were
specific bad actors.

It distorts the real issues and almost emboldens the other side who now work
collectively to dismiss you as a tin foil conspiracy peddler.

In my opinion, Facebook has some real issues with privacy and how they are
able to legally provide a service that has taken the worst aspects of society
and amplified them 1000x. Politics are more cancerous than ever. People have
been murdered because of the misinformation and hate speech propaganda.
Meanwhile, one of my best friends who works at FB as a senior engineer is
convinced they’re changing the world for the better.

Amazon, for instance, has fueled massive inequality in the Seattle area. As
far as I know, they’re not selling customer data, although from what I’ve
learned, they combined technology with great ideas on how to skirt regulation.

My point being, a company like Amazon vs. Facebook - there are different
issues. Grouping Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft together - its like
the right wing conspiracy theories on how the Mueller investigation is a
conspiracy funded by Soros, Obama, the Clintons, the Muslim brotherhood, and
gays.

This isn’t helpful and it distracts from the real issues.

~~~
40acres
I think it's reasonable to group these companies together if you're talking
about wide trends and are careful to be specific when talking about certain
instances. It's not wrong to say that "big tech" has contributed to rising
inequality, data privacy issues, disruption of labor, monopoly effects, etc.

The specific companies are not contributing to each effect but on aggregate
its a valid method of analyzing the societal impacts of the industry.

~~~
bilbo0s
I don't know man? That's a little high level.

In my neck of the woods, if I tell people, "Amazon treats their employees like
crap." They get it.

If I say, "Google can track your location with android phones so don't bring
your phone to see your weed man." They get it.

I can even say, "Facebook is full of Ruskies trying to influence the
election." They'll get it. They'll know what I mean and everything that
entails.

But if I come at the people in my small town with, "Big Tech is what drives
wealth inequity by disrupting traditional labor markets and causing data
privacy issues. Which, of course, concert to cause knock on effects in the
larger economy." Yeah, that's the kind of post-graduate parrot-speak that
makes them look at my mother disapprovingly for raising such a pretentious
ass-hat.

I gotta agree with the guy using the throwaway account on this one.

~~~
walterbell
One factor is the defense that "XYZ is doing it worse!". Microsoft justifies
telemetry by pointing at Google. Amazon justifies 3rd-party sellers by
pointing at Alibaba, and sponsored product ads by pointing at Google. Google
says they are better at security than other adtech vendors. Each enables the
other group members on a collective downward spiral. Where are the incentives
for competing in a positive direction?

------
3xblah
The title of the NYT review is "How Tech Companies Manipulate Our Private
Data" but the title of this thread omits the word "How", reducing the title to
"Tech Companies Manipulate Our Personal Data".

------
oska
I didn't get much from the submitted NYT piece, even though I'm interested in
this book. I think the _Guardian 's_ piece [1] on the book is better. It
includes responses from the author to 10 posed questions.

[1]
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/20/shoshana-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/20/shoshana-
zuboff-age-of-surveillance-capitalism-google-facebook)

------
spullara
Isn't this exactly the business model of news organizations like the NYT?
People do stuff, they write it down for free and sell it to people. Nothing
new under the sun.

"According to Zuboff, surveillance capitalism distinguishes itself from its
industrial forebear as “a new economic order that claims human experience as a
free source of raw material.” "

~~~
my_first_acct
Network TV might be a better analogy, since it is free to watch as long as you
are willing to sit through the ads.

The business model is the same as Facebook's: advertisers paying for the right
to attempt to modify viewers' behavior.

The difference is that Facebook has much more information about the viewers,
and much more control over what is shown to individual viewers, than TV
networks ever did.

Everyone who has looked up "what Facebook knows about me" can tell stories
about how wildly wrong some of Facebook's guesses are. However, unlike the TV
networks or the NY Times, Facebook will get better with time. Will we get
better at resisting its manipulations?

~~~
Latteland
Good points - you could boil down the difference to the pre-existing networks
was there were many different networks competing. Today there are only two
that do most online advertising, facebook and google. For multiple reasons,
facebook is the one that seems to be used to manipulate people, perhaps
because it's not searches plus ads, it's more used to put people together and
reinforce their opinions in small groups.

It's the ability to manipulate (reinforce, push horrible narratives) that
causes the problem. Back in the usenet days of the 90s, it was exciting to
meet people like me (programmer, geeky, interested in science, liberal, or
whatever). There must have been people pushing racism, nationalism, everything
is a conspiracy, but why didn't that cause the trouble we have today? Probably
because it wasn't so ubiquitous.

------
bdastous
Yet more anti-tech hysteria from the New York Times.

~~~
drb91
C’mon, this ain’t Kaczynski, you’re reading the damn article through a browser
and computer and they are actively selling the data you make on their site. If
anything, the new york times is pathetically and dogmatically pro tech.

------
fromMars
God, I get sick of these articles on hacker news. The same regurgitated horse
_bleep_.

This has become a meme around here to laud articles like this that use not so
subtle words like "surveillance" and "manipulate" to suggest that something
much more nefarious is going on here than actually is.

There are already adequate protections in place to deal with these issues. If
you don't want to be tracked don't use Facebook or Google or use them and opt
out of tracking. It's that simple.

We don't need these hyperbolic articles exaggerating the nature of this
problem.

People have been collecting data on us before the digital age.

Credit Card Companies, Banks, and Credit Bureau's have long maintained
profiles on us and sold them to partners.

~~~
temp231239
I differ with you. Assuming, for sake of argument, data is not being scraped
for nefarious purpose today then the time when it will be is not too far away.
There are no protections in place as proved by multiple data leeks stories.
There are no settings provided by tech companies that let use use there
services in total anonymous way or without being a research subject. Do you
think gmail will ever implement end-to-end encrypted email service ever?

We need such articles to remind people of what they are getting them-self into
and encourage communities to build alternative solutions. Remember those few
privacy settings provided by tech companies are result of such stories.

Data that was collected before on an average citizen is puny as compared to
what they collect now.

~~~
fromMars
> There are no protections in place as proved by multiple data leeks stories.

Are you referring to data breaches? Not sure what protections you think will
prevent them.

> There are no settings provided by tech companies that let use use there
> services in total anonymous way.

Again, these aren't essential services that you have to use. You can use
Google via Duck Duck Go if you like.

You can't use Facebook but you can use What's App if you want end to end
encryption.

> Do you think gmail will ever implement end-to-end encrypted email service
> ever?

I believe they already provide a browser plugin for pgp encryption.

Full end to end encryption would probably require changes to existing email
protocols.

> We need such articles to remind people of what they are getting them-self
> into.

This is a valid point, however the hyperbolic tone of these articles is off
putting to me.

I think these companies are handling data in a responsible way.

A more rational conversation around the real risks of these data collection
practices, the value of the data,and the exchange of this data for services
would be more enlightening, IMO.

Too often these articles and the comments degenerate into X is bad and this
bad without any nuance.

Also, as I have stated, it is very easy to not use these services.

> encourage communities to build alternative solutions

I'm all for this. What I am not in favor is asking the government to force
these private companies to make these.

> Data that was collected before on an average citizen is puny as compared to
> what they collect now.

I worked at Credit Card companies a long time ago, and I wouldn't call the
data they collected on people puny. In many cases these companies had access
to every purchase a person made, every place they lived, their income, etc.

To me that is very sensitive information.

Again, I would like a rational conversation around how is the information that
is being collective sensitive.

That might actually be more useful to people.

------
sjroot
This title is rather click-baity, and so is the term "surveillance
capitalism." There are plenty of alternatives to social media - email, SMS,
phone calls, and even decentralized options. However, people continue to
embrace "big tech" because it is convenient. Whether you want to admit it or
not, these companies do plenty of good for people around the world.

I think the momentum of deleting our presence on these sites will continue to
increase, but I also believe that it should be allowed to happen organically.
Regulating this space without allowing people to realize its harmful effects
and make the decision for themselves will only further polarize our society.

Edit: Since I'm being down-voted, I should clarify that I definitely support
some level of intervention. I would prefer that to take the form of educating
people on the importance of preserving their privacy.

~~~
CodeMage
> _There are plenty of alternatives to social media - email, SMS, phone calls,
> and even decentralized options._

I suggest watching Moxie Marlinspike's keynote for Defcon 18:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk)

~~~
NetOpWibby
What’s the TL;DW?

~~~
CodeMage
If I had to pick TL;DW relevant to this topic, it's that the choice of
platform is aggregate, not individual. If the vast majority of people stop
communicating or interacting in one way and start doing it in another, it's
not really a feasible choice to opt out anymore.

This is my own very clumsy summary. I strongly recommend watching the video,
because Moxie is much better at explaining this than I am.

------
scarejunba
The real problem is that people are selling this bullshit that the only
alternatives are someone spying on you through your metaphorical bedroom
window or you blindfold every company that interacts with you.

I don't want a world where I pay for everything. When I was a child, I used a
whole bunch of ad supported websites that only existed because they were ad
supported.

Everyone wants to coddle people and ensconce them in layers of paternalistic
nonsense. FYI I would happily sell the private data I did then in exchange for
the service I received a hundred times over.

Those forums and websites were the ones that led to me being what I am today.
Even a ten cent fee would have crippled my ability to grow into what I'm today
because I had no means to pay it online.

Enough with your bullshit. Let me be a goddamn person and give people things
voluntarily so they can give me things voluntarily. Just stop inserting
yourselves into every interaction I have with other people that's between the
two of us.

Instead now everyone wants to create this environment where I can't sell my
private data because it's a bloody adventure to try to invalidate my right to
then delete myself immediately.

It's okay now because I make a half million a year and my kids will be fine.
But the next me won't be so lucky.

~~~
my_first_acct
> The real problem is that people are selling this bullshit that the only
> alternatives are someone spying on you through your metaphorical bedroom
> window or you blindfold every company that interacts with you.

There's a middle ground, called "regulation".

For many decades now there have been rules regulating advertisements
("commercial speech"), sources of addictive behavior (gambling, alcohol,
cigarettes), and monopolies. It seems reasonable to propose that these rules
should apply to Facebook and other "new media", to the extent that they are
ad-supported, may promote addictive behavior, and may be monopolies.

Applying these regulations to the internet does not mean shutting down ad-
supported websites, any more than they prevented ad-supported newspapers and
TV stations from thriving back in the day.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Yes, but the dialogue has become unhinged. So many of the critics don’t want
reasonable middle-ground regulation. They want to destroy these companies, or
have the state take them over and operate them as a public utility. There is
no measure of reasonable regulations that doesn’t strip Zuckerberg and Bezos
of their wealth and prestige that will satisfy many critics.

There was a story yesterday about how Twitter had a bug on Android that
toggled a setting by mistake and people were clamoring for heavy penalties,
that this should be illegal, that these companies need to die in a fire. Over
a simple bug that’s probably of a class that literally every developer on this
site has made many times.

Reddit is even worse. Anything critical of these companies, no matter how
minor or untrue, garners tens of thousands of upvotes and a pitchfork-wielding
mob in the comments. Good luck trying to explain that we need reasonable
regulation but that Mark will still be a billionaire running one of the
world’s most valuable companies and getting richer off ads.

~~~
my_first_acct
Sure, you can find extremists on both sides: the "nationalize Facebook"
people, and the "nothing on the internet should ever be regulated" folks. Not
having read the book under review ("Surveillance Capitalism"), I can't say
whether the author is all the way over in the "nationalize" camp.

But currently, we need more regulation, not less, on internet companies whose
business model is based on selling your attention to persuaders at a time when
you are most vulnerable to persuasion. So although I don't favor
nationalization, and I don't begrudge Zuckerberg his vast wealth, I want to
see things move in the direction of more regulation, not less.

There is a slippery slope no matter where you stand, but yet, you have to
stand somewhere.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
I like that last sentence. Well said.

