
Who Is Watching You? - r0h1n
https://medium.com/backchannel/who-is-watching-you-7296eeb036c1
======
raarts
Every online service needs to make money ('if the product is free, you are the
product'). But people do not expect/want to pay for online forums.

I'm rather pessimistic about online privacy. My wife's family is Jewish. The
Germans were very successful wiping out Jews in The Netherlands, mostly thanks
to the fact we (the Dutch) kept track of religion in city records. Jews have
become very privacy-aware here, but it needs to get this bad before people
finally understand the dangers.

------
KiwiCoder
We need more articles like this, we need a flood, until all the non-technical
people in my life take their privacy more seriously than they do at present.

~~~
santacluster
Pointless. They do not care. Even in totalitarian states like the former DDR,
most people didn't care. People only start caring when it's too late, when
they themselves get affected.

Besides, the technical people don't care either. Many of us may care about our
_own_ privacy, but on the whole, we really don't care about what we do to
others.

Most of us work for or own companies that directly or indirectly willfully
violate people's privacy without thinking twice about the consequences. If
only by adding yet another tracker to our apps.

We have no problems feeding our gullible users to the Google beast, yet we
should be the ones warning others to take their privacy serious?

~~~
KiwiCoder
> People only start caring when it's too late, when they themselves get
> affected.

You might be right but I prefer to be less fatalistic. If an article (like
this one) hits close enough to make someone think "it could have been me" then
perhaps that is enough.

I don't understand your last sentence.

~~~
jasode
>I don't understand your last sentence.

I think he's saying that (some? most?) programmers are unknowingly being
hypocrites if they add Google Analytics [1] javascript to their web pages
_while at the same_ time trying to educate people on being aware of privacy
leaks. Adding tracking analytics not only provides the web authors the traffic
insight, it also provides Google Inc with another vector to gather more data
about users.

Even non-web programmers do a variation of feeding the google beast. The IT
support staff have contempt for stupid user questions and think " _can 't they
just google that?!?! That's what I do!_". User: " _how do I disable Adobe
flash?_ ". ITGeek: " _let me google that for you_ "[2]

The xkcd comic[3] about it is also well-known.

When you send helpless users to google.com, Google Inc also adds users'
searches to the profile they're accumulating. What do we expect IT advice to
realistically be in response? Is it reasonable to advise people like this: _"
If you want to know how to disable flash, first install Tor client, and then a
VPN client, sign up for a VPN provider, then start your web browser in private
or incognito mode then use that as tunnel into google.com and then type in
'disable flash' as the keywords."_

[1]
[https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection...](https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/)

[2] [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=disable+flash](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=disable+flash)

[3] [http://xkcd.com/627/](http://xkcd.com/627/)

------
ha292
By and large, the main product of the Web industry is the user. Content or
code that is sold as a property or a service is used to lure in the product
(the user) and sell the most-commercially viable aspect of the product (that
is the information about their "categories") to the highest bidders
(advertisers).

Is it too much of a stretch to say that this mode of user-segregation-and-
information-selling is pretty much a new form of "commoditization" of human
beings.

~~~
harmonicon
I would say it's more like the commoditization of the potential to extract
profit from human beings. It is hard to blame the big Co though; most people
happily give up information voluntarily for the services the websites provide.
I am routinely chided for shunning social networks. Meanwhile, do-nothing
congress are set upon legislating a new sanction on Iran.

------
notfoss
Quite a long article, with different types of monitoring methods and scenarios
mentioned.

In the end, we can only do so much to _shield_ ourselves.

Granted, we can and should stop posting personal/sensitive information all
over the internet (even on supposedly private forums), but with new and
improving tracking technologies (both in the virtual and the physical world),
we cannot have total control over our privacy.

------
TeMPOraL
> _Google has developed Glass, tiny cameras embedded in eyeglasses that allow
> people to take photos and videos without lifting a finger._

I know this is tangential to the article and probably not something the author
thought a lot about, but this is my little pet peeve. Google did not developed
"tiny cameras embedded in eyeglasses" \- those you could already buy for years
anywhere for cheap. There's a whole plethora of surveillance tools anyone can
buy on-line or even off-line in "detective stores". Cameras hidden in glasses,
pens, buttons - you name it. Cameras you wouldn't notice if someone talking
with you was wearing.

What Google did develop is a wearable HUD, which is an awesome and potentially
very useful piece of technology. Technology that was apparently halted because
the only thing people noticed was the camera. They complained because they
noticed. This is, IMHO, stupid.

~~~
tastylobsters
Difference is, those non-glass cameras don't come bundled up with Google
services fed down your throat and automatically upload your data.

You have a very different take on privacy compared to most "hackers". I
remember you're a "some active" and think that everyone loves taking selfies
and that shameless self promotion is some sort of a calling for every person,
regardless what the cost is to privacy.

I shouldn't dwell on this subject more, as you got my real HN account
hellbanned the last time I pointed this out.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Difference is, those non-glass cameras don 't come bundled up with Google
> services fed down your throat and automatically upload your data._

It's not what the discussion in media was about though; people were mostly
upset by someone having a camera on them. The connection to Google Services is
a fair point, though it's a bit orthogonal and the Glass doesn't change the
equation much after everyone has a smartphone connected to those same
services.

> _I remember you 're a "some active" and think that everyone loves taking
> selfies and that shameless self promotion is some sort of a calling for
> every person, regardless what the cost is to privacy._

If you're refering to the thread about Facebook from some time ago, I'm pretty
sure statements like this were what got you hellbanned; you apparently still
have a very false view of my person and on-line activities. HN doesn't
discourage disagreement on topics (hell, my attitude to privacy is non-
mainstream around here) - it does however discourage personal attacks.

Still, it sucks to get hellbanned; I'm sorry.

------
unixpunx
I can't find anything on the internet with my real name and there are no
pictures of me anywhere, I love it.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Funny thing, just few years ago (before Facebook and Linkedin were hot) making
sure you're googlable (and managing your "google presence") was a typical
career advice kind of thing ;).

