On shitting on Google.

[Captain Utopia]

National security is a tricky one and, tbh, I'm not sure where exactly I stand on that. I am pretty sure that it's used to cover up a lot of nasty shit but I'm still undecided as to the flipside - does it really make our nation more secure?

Maybe Cain knows the answer to this -- is it possible to break state secrets down roughly into categories, e.g. industrial, individuals, military, illegal orders, politics etc?  E.g. industrial secrets don't necessarily make a nation more secure, though there's an obvious economic impact.  Is it possible to estimate whether kill-orders overall have a stabilising or destabilising effect?

How much stuff is kept secret just because it would be bad politics?  In my time working for both the British and Canadian governments, "because it would be bad politics" accounted for the vast majority of fucked up shit I'm not allowed to talk about, because it falls under the broad umbrella of their respective official secrecy acts.

[Cramulus]

On the other hand, if companies do know more about their consumers, then can't they tailor their products to be closer to that which will actually be desired and useful?  If adverts can be targeted online, then think of all of the paper and energy that could be saved from billboards and posters in the real world.  And hey, if a company can get its grubby hands on the type and appearance of adverts which I respond positively to, then you can bet in that future I'll be seeing only the occasional adwords-style ad, and no flash "bash the monkey" style shit.  And even the energy saved by not serving me an annoying flash ad will be significant over my lifetime, and over the general population.

So when you account for all the energy and resources saved, the cargo-containers of unwanted plastic junk which are thrown, unsold, into landfills.. at which point does it become an environmental or ethical argument to eliminate such wastage?

surrendering our privacy is good ...for environmental reasons??


It's just so hard to get back privacy after you've lost it. And the people whose privacy at stake are never the ones making the decisions about how much of it we get to have. As long as they keep stealing our privacy in little bits, nobody's going to flip out about it. What will it take before people get serious about protecting their PI? Will it take a live 24/7 camera feed pointed directly at their house? Why do we have to wait until we've already lost our privacy before it becomes an issue?


Random thought: I might not be so bent out of shape If I got a royalty every time my PI was sold.  

[P3nT4gR4m]

surrendering our privacy is good ...for environmental reasons??

Among numerous other reasons, not least of which would be an ability to face the next decade or two of this civilisation of ours without turning into a tinfoil hat wearing bundle of neurotic paranoia and general fail. What's the big deal with privacy? Why do you feel the overwhelming need to be secretive about everything? What exactly are you hiding from? Evil corporations? Shady men in black? The illuminati? What?

If these bastards wanted you dead they'd have killed you by now. You're already a slave to the machine so it can't be enslavement you're worried about, surely? Is lack of privacy somehow directly related to an increase in the ability of trans dimensional beings from Sirius to control you with mind lazors?

Enlighten me? Why is google making all the information in the world available to everyone such a nightmare of apocalyptic proportions?

[Captain Utopia]

On the other hand, if companies do know more about their consumers, then can't they tailor their products to be closer to that which will actually be desired and useful?  If adverts can be targeted online, then think of all of the paper and energy that could be saved from billboards and posters in the real world.  And hey, if a company can get its grubby hands on the type and appearance of adverts which I respond positively to, then you can bet in that future I'll be seeing only the occasional adwords-style ad, and no flash "bash the monkey" style shit.  And even the energy saved by not serving me an annoying flash ad will be significant over my lifetime, and over the general population.

So when you account for all the energy and resources saved, the cargo-containers of unwanted plastic junk which are thrown, unsold, into landfills.. at which point does it become an environmental or ethical argument to eliminate such wastage?

surrendering our privacy is good ...for environmental reasons??

I don't think you can argue the point that surrendering privacy would reduce waste and in that sense benefit the environment.  Whether or not that's a price that's worth paying is a different point.

It's just so hard to get back privacy after you've lost it. And the people whose privacy at stake are never the ones making the decisions about how much of it we get to have. As long as they keep stealing our privacy in little bits, nobody's going to flip out about it. What will it take before people get serious about protecting their PI? Will it take a live 24/7 camera feed pointed directly at their house? Why do we have to wait until we've already lost our privacy before it becomes an issue?

If you are on facebook, or have any friends on facebook, it's somewhat of a moot point already

But why is it hard to get back privacy if a society decides it wants to get some back?  The UK Data Protection Act (of 1984, no less), did exactly that.

[Cramulus]

There are tons of things we could sacrifice to help the environment; accordance with the green movement can be used to justify or shoot down any argument, it's irrelevant to this discussion. And anyway, even if they perfect the science of online ad targeting, there's still going to be billboards and print ads and shit.

(There probably won't be so many newspapers or magazines, but that's not a function of privacy.)

What's the big deal with privacy? Why do you feel the overwhelming need to be secretive about everything? What exactly are you hiding from? Evil corporations? Shady men in black? The illuminati? What? ...
Enlighten me? Why is google making all the information in the world available to everyone such a nightmare of apocalyptic proportions?

Of all people, we internet trolls should know.

When you're trying to fuck with somebody, what's the first thing you do? You datamine them. You find their livejournal or facebook, you use their IP address to grab a sattelite picture of their house. If you could find their ebay purchase history and library records, you'd have a pretty good picture of them.

Do you really not find it worrying that there is a large commercial market for your PI, and you have no control over that, or even any awareness of what's being traded and to whom?

Let me ask the follow-up question? How is my life improved by making every piece of data about me either (a) public, or (b) a commodity? Why should I be compliant with the erosion of my anonyminity?

Seeing smarter, more personalized advertisements is not worth the trade IMO, not by a long shot.

But why is it hard to get back privacy if a society decides it wants to get some back?  The UK Data Protection Act (of 1984, no less), did exactly that.

Because we tend to adjust to the level of privacy we experience.

In the 1950s or 60s (?), there was a middle school in TX that wanted to take action against kids smoking in the bathrooms. So they installed cameras in the boys and girls rooms.

Parents were livid. They organized PTA meetings and wrote letters and made a huge stink.

The school did not budge, they just kept their mouth shut and hung on.

and by 3 or 4 years later, all those kids graduated, and the angry parents went away. The new class of kids coming in accepted that there were cameras in the bathroom. It was just as invasive, but nobody bothered fighting it because they accepted it as business as usual.



I accept that most of my privacy is going bye-bye in the next 10 years and there's little or nothing I can really do about it. I just don't think it's good policy to drop my pants and let everybody have a good look just because the people collecting the data promise they won't use it for evil. (even though they might sell it to somebody who will)

[P3nT4gR4m]

Let me ask the follow-up question? How is my life improved by making every piece of data about me either (a) public, or (b) a commodity? Why should I be compliant with the erosion of my anonyminity?

I'll give you an example, purely hypothetical. Let's say it's 2020 and you're walking down the street and you collapse. Some weird, rare condition you were diagnosed with back in '15 is about to kill you unless someone does exactly the right thing to you in the next 5 mins or so.

A bystander sees you go down and immediately scans your RFID which tells him you have condition-X and must be treated with Y asap. He doesn't have any Y but a quick scan of the immediate area shows two people who have it on their person. He chases down the nearest one, explains the situation and saves your life.

I can probably go on plucking examples like this out my ass til the cows come home but now it's your turn - why should I give a fuck?

[Requia ☣]

because data becomes more as soon as you can draw connections between it. exponentially so. it means that all that data can be automatically combined, and this megacorp will know so much, much more about you and your life than all the single entities added together.

Hmm, that is a very good point.

So its not that Google has the search data, or the data they get from adsense, or the emails.  Its that they have *all* of it.

[P3nT4gR4m]

because data becomes more as soon as you can draw connections between it. exponentially so. it means that all that data can be automatically combined, and this megacorp will know so much, much more about you and your life than all the single entities added together.

Hmm, that is a very good point.

So its not that Google has the search data, or the data they get from adsense, or the emails.  Its that they have *all* of it.

It's not a very good point. It's not even a very weak point. It's just a retarded logical fuck up. If everyone has the data, if it's distributed among a million different computers, if it's the equivalent of a filesharing network or if it's all on one server in google's stronghold the net result is the same - Google has access to all the data. That's the thing with any scenario where everyone has access to all the data - You can't exclude Google from that "everyone" umbrella.

[Requia ☣]

Nothing I'm talking about has anything to do with what you're talking about.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

On the topic of privacy...

If a person 'knows' a lot about you, social engineering becomes pretty simple.

If someone knows your Name and Address, they can start looking for public documents (like a marriage license) which will have your SSN on it. If they have your SSN and D.O.B, then they can steal your identity.

If someone knows where you went to school, where you went to college, where you were born, what kind of pets you have, etc etc then it becomes relatively easy to hack your brain. We subconsciously do all kinds of stuff based on our experiences, including picking passwords (unless you generate random passwords, of course). It makes it easier to pose as you via phone etc.

A lack of privacy also means that things you don't want known publicly might be found out. The STD you contracted, or the psychological treatment you're receiving could be guessed if a person has enough information... esp from a site like Google. What did you search on after getting home from the Dr office? That new prescription? The term he used to diagnose you?

[Captain Utopia]

because data becomes more as soon as you can draw connections between it. exponentially so. it means that all that data can be automatically combined, and this megacorp will know so much, much more about you and your life than all the single entities added together.

Hmm, that is a very good point.

So its not that Google has the search data, or the data they get from adsense, or the emails.  Its that they have *all* of it.

It's not a very good point. It's not even a very weak point. It's just a retarded logical fuck up. If everyone has the data, if it's distributed among a million different computers, if it's the equivalent of a filesharing network or if it's all on one server in google's stronghold the net result is the same - Google has access to all the data. That's the thing with any scenario where everyone has access to all the data - You can't exclude Google from that "everyone" umbrella.

I think Trip was talking about the private data Google have which they don't share, but since he was responding to a bit about their public "make all data universally accessible" mission, this confused me.

That said, I'm pretty sure they are prohibited from cross-referencing an individuals gmail/youtube/browsing history/adwords historical data unless compelled to do so by law.  But then again, I don't know how much legal weight privacy statements actually have.

[Cramulus]

Let me ask the follow-up question? How is my life improved by making every piece of data about me either (a) public, or (b) a commodity? Why should I be compliant with the erosion of my anonyminity?

I'll give you an example, purely hypothetical. Let's say it's 2020 and you're walking down the street and you collapse. Some weird, rare condition you were diagnosed with back in '15 is about to kill you unless someone does exactly the right thing to you in the next 5 mins or so.

A bystander sees you go down and immediately scans your RFID which tells him you have condition-X and must be treated with Y asap. He doesn't have any Y but a quick scan of the immediate area shows two people who have it on their person. He chases down the nearest one, explains the situation and saves your life.

I can probably go on plucking examples like this out my ass til the cows come home but now it's your turn - why should I give a fuck?

Suppose an Immoral Fellow scans your RFID tags from across the street. Here's a few possible scenarios:

-He sees that you just went shopping (because every product has its own scannable RFID tag so you can skip checkout lines) and are carrying some goods he wants. BaBAM, give me that new iPod!

-He deduces that you give generously to a save the whales foundation ((this is obviously not you we're talking about in this hypothetical, p3nt  )), so he approaches you for a "donation" to support that cause

-He sees that you are prescribed medical marijuana (or some other awesome prescription) and gives you the shakedown

-Without even meeting you, he knows where you hang out and when you'll probably be walking back to your car alone



But let's assume that nobody uses this total access to information for antisocial reasons...

Let's say you're applying for a job. Does your employer need to know your medical history? What kinds of purchases you make? What kind of books you check out from the library? What websites you subscribe to? Your political affiliations? Your internet search history? You may want to conceal some parts of yourself so as to frame your identity a certain way. I certainly wouldn't want my employers finding this place, but if we all had standard internet IDs it wouldn't be a challenge. And to be sure, people in an HR office would gladly pay a small fee to access potential candidate's commercial history.

As we become cyborgs, the ways in which you can fuck with somebody over the internet will get much more intense. If people on the internet are harassing you, (and you know they might not even need a good reason) it's nice to be able to escape into a cloak of anonyminity.

If you're the one controlling the access to this information, you can put it in the proper context. For example, a friend of mine had to submit her college transcript when applying for a job. Because she was the one providing that info, she was able to explain, "Yeah that one semester that I flunked everything? My mom had died and I missed all my finals." The employer wouldn't have gotten that narrative if they dug up that info on their own.

[P3nT4gR4m]

On the topic of privacy...

If a person 'knows' a lot about you, social engineering becomes pretty simple.

If someone knows your Name and Address, they can start looking for public documents (like a marriage license) which will have your SSN on it. If they have your SSN and D.O.B, then they can steal your identity.

If someone knows where you went to school, where you went to college, where you were born, what kind of pets you have, etc etc then it becomes relatively easy to hack your brain. We subconsciously do all kinds of stuff based on our experiences, including picking passwords (unless you generate random passwords, of course). It makes it easier to pose as you via phone etc.

A lack of privacy also means that things you don't want known publicly might be found out. The STD you contracted, or the psychological treatment you're receiving could be guessed if a person has enough information... esp from a site like Google. What did you search on after getting home from the Dr office? That new prescription? The term he used to diagnose you?

I get what you're saying and, short-term, this is stuff that has to be dealt with, much of it regardless of privacy or lack, therof. But I can't help feeling that things like identity theft would become impossible in a completely transparent society. It's a real mental leap I find myself having to take to imagine zero-privacy but I'm pretty sure such things as passwords and security would be rendered obsolete by the time it was reached.

The reason I'm getting involved in this argument to this extent is that I find myself, more and more recently, wondering if this urge to sneak around and hide and keep everything you know to yourself is some kind of primitive throwback that is actually holding us back as a species. Like a lot of sacred cows that have gone before it, maybe it's time to embrace the idea of shooting the fucking thing in the head.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Let me ask the follow-up question? How is my life improved by making every piece of data about me either (a) public, or (b) a commodity? Why should I be compliant with the erosion of my anonyminity?

I'll give you an example, purely hypothetical. Let's say it's 2020 and you're walking down the street and you collapse. Some weird, rare condition you were diagnosed with back in '15 is about to kill you unless someone does exactly the right thing to you in the next 5 mins or so.

A bystander sees you go down and immediately scans your RFID which tells him you have condition-X and must be treated with Y asap. He doesn't have any Y but a quick scan of the immediate area shows two people who have it on their person. He chases down the nearest one, explains the situation and saves your life.

I can probably go on plucking examples like this out my ass til the cows come home but now it's your turn - why should I give a fuck?

Suppose an Immoral Fellow scans your RFID tags from across the street. Here's a few possible scenarios:

-He sees that you just went shopping (because every product has its own scannable RFID tag so you can skip checkout lines) and are carrying some goods he wants. BaBAM, give me that new iPod!

-He deduces that you give generously to a save the whales foundation ((this is obviously not you we're talking about in this hypothetical, p3nt  )), so he approaches you for a "donation" to support that cause

-He sees that you are prescribed medical marijuana (or some other awesome prescription) and gives you the shakedown

-Without even meeting you, he knows where you hang out and when you'll probably be walking back to your car alone



But let's assume that nobody uses this total access to information for antisocial reasons...

Let's say you're applying for a job. Does your employer need to know your medical history? What kinds of purchases you make? What kind of books you check out from the library? What websites you subscribe to? Your political affiliations? Your internet search history? You may want to conceal some parts of yourself so as to frame your identity a certain way. I certainly wouldn't want my employers finding this place, but if we all had standard internet IDs it wouldn't be a challenge. And to be sure, people in an HR office would gladly pay a small fee to access potential candidate's commercial history.

As we become cyborgs, the ways in which you can fuck with somebody over the internet will get much more intense. If people on the internet are harassing you, (and you know they might not even need a good reason) it's nice to be able to escape into a cloak of anonyminity.

If you're the one controlling the access to this information, you can put it in the proper context. For example, a friend of mine had to submit her college transcript when applying for a job. Because she was the one providing that info, she was able to explain, "Yeah that one semester that I flunked everything? My mom had died and I missed all my finals." The employer wouldn't have gotten that narrative if they dug up that info on their own.

The thing about all of this is it can't be denied but, to me at least, "bad guys might do something evil with it" has never been a good enough reason to hold back progress. Yes bad guys will find new and exciting ways to exploit anything. Prevent every single technological advancement if you can - halt science in it's tracks it doesn't change a thing - bad guys will still find new and exciting ways to fuck you over. Just like good guys will find new and exciting ways to thwart their evil schemes.

It cancels out.

Like I said to you in that other thread - with or without all my PI at their disposal an wanker in personnel will take a dislike to me and deny me my dream job just for shits and giggles and there's fuck all I can do about it. In your example the employer would have found out about the mother if they decided to. All comes down to the quality of the recruiter, privacy or no.

[Captain Utopia]

A lack of privacy also means that things you don't want known publicly might be found out. The STD you contracted, or the psychological treatment you're receiving could be guessed if a person has enough information... esp from a site like Google. What did you search on after getting home from the Dr office? That new prescription? The term he used to diagnose you?

The picture is different if:

• This applies to everyone
• Search logs are not private

As in, if you apply for a job and then get a notification that your potential employer has been browsing your sexual history.. that might not be a place you want to work at.  In addition, you can then publicise the social offense quite easily.  Same goes for Crams argument about fucking with people.. I expect in the near future stalking will not be anonymous, and there will be a social stigma attached to it.  Where "it" is the front page of your internet profile.  I'm unsure whether this is a good or a bad thing.

Really flexing my pretentious futurologist muscle here, but imagine a future where if the CEO of Google commits a horrible abuse of privacy, and now he's on a list whereby no-one is willing to sell him even a loaf of bread for under $100, and anyone who does will find themselves in a similar situation.  Shit, you wouldn't even need legislation - which can never keep up with technology anyway.