Hey. You. Get Off Of My Cloud | Hacker News Reader

Hey. You. Get Off Of My Cloud

whattofix.com

Has anyone started the "You Own It" proxy server yet? A proxy server that you use to grab off a copy of everything of interest, ever comment you submit, ever photo you post, etc. Some sort of plugin thing to work with different websites, etc.

Not just a Facebook specific one, either.

I've had it in mind for a while now, surely someone has built it...? Or started?

It's an excellent idea. Such a device could also be used to self-monitor one's Internet use. It's also quite a dangerous device. I could imagine applying the interface ideas of Time Machine to such a device.

Perhaps a proxy is the wrong way to package this. How about a browser that does this?

I'm actually thinking of a locally-run proxy, so basically, this is a way of making your "browser" do it, without tying you down to IE or Firefox or anything else. It just sits there and quietly grabs things of interest and ensures you still have a local copy.

The two hard parts are figuring out what to do with the data after that, and dealing with all the various text/HTML formats for things like submitted comments and such.

You should be able to construct rules per site. Facebook, Digg, reddit, HN should be obvious. It would work like ad-blockers. Actually, might as well throw one of those in there so long as you're going to have a proxy.

The reason why I proposed a browser, is that the thing is going to look and feel like a kind of Browser History. So why not just roll it into that?

I think these two ideas go hand-in-hand. The server would track all new data and assist you in maintaining your meta information.

At the heart of this is a simple question: once the great singularity comes, are we going to evolve into a thinking machines that will live forever? Or are we evolving into some kind of hive mind where everything is shared and processed in parallel?

Hive mind. We are becoming neurons in a big, amorphous brain. Like neurons, we often don't really comprehend the signals though we might filter and process them in some way.

I don't think this is workable. First off, it means that everyone requires a single, authoratative identity on the web, which search engines and content grabbers can reference. Second, there's nothing in it for the search engines/content grabbers. Any service that gives people sweeping power to delete content is at a disadvantage to those who don't. And third, there are plenty of good reasons why you can't lay claim to everything on the web that involves you. Say, for arguments sake, that we're just talking about photos. Suppose I take a great photo and you're in it. Now I upload that photo. My 2015 photo sharing site uses facial recognition, and it appears on your list of personal data. Now what if you don't like my pic? Should the photo sharing site take it down? What if I don't even know you, but you happened to be walking in front of a public landmark on the day you said you were off sick? In fact, what if I'm a photojournalist?

everyone requires a single, authoratative identity on the web

I don't think so...why couldn't you just use OpenID or some equivalent. If I'm posting a comment or tagging a photo, I get to choose which identity service represents me.

Any service that gives people sweeping power to delete content is at a disadvantage to those who don't.

Not necessarily. Right now, services have to spend time and money dealing with removal requests. If they ignore those requests, they get law suits, which are expensive. Staff time, especially attorney staff time, is expensive. Automating the removal process might save money.

And third, there are plenty of good reasons why you can't lay claim to everything on the web that involves you

This is a choice that reflects our values though. European privacy law represents a different choice based on different values. Under those legal principles, my image is part of me. I have a material right to control how it is used, just like I have a right to control who can publish the copyrighted novel I wrote.

what if I'm a photojournalist?

Then you can't publish it without my consent. People who are not public figures have privacy rights under the law right now.

1. Archive.org -- kind of kills the whole "delete my past" idea.

2. Even if it were possible, what about personal responsibility? Why is it a good thing that your past can simply be erased? If you're running for office and it turns out that when you were in college you had lots of crazy coke parties and posted them online, I want to know that and hear you explain it.

I just don't see a strong argument here for why we need to be able to hide what we once thought should be public.

I didn't say delete. I specifically say I would like to annotate any personal data of me on the web with my preference for public release. My preferences may change over time.

I'm not asking to change the way the internet works or to pass any kind of law or anything. I'm simply purposing a standard way to, in one location, provide some feedback about all my data.

I would imagine that if we did this, at a later stage web applications would either certify that they followed this standard -- or not. No skin off my back in either case.

So for the case of the guy running for office, he'd just have one place to go to in order to say no, I really don't want to share that any more. And perhaps provide an explanation of what happened and why he feels the way he does. People would still be free to distribute whatever data they wanted, but a mechanism is provided to centralize new information related to me. Not the data, but a control block -- which apps can choose to use, ignore, display as an annotation, etc.

If companies are acting in their own interest, then there's no reason for them to do this unless it's a law. I believe there is legislation being drafted regarding how people's information can be handled on social networks.

How would it help though? Sites are still caching old versions of pages. You can annotate that you don't want to share it anymore, but a copy still exists and can be found.

A simpler counterproposal: Don't post things to the internet that you don't want to be on the internet.

So -- no change?

I believe that's another way of saying "no problem here"

If that works for you, great. I believe there is a problem, however.

I can picture a college party, in the not-too-distant future, where people do stupid things. Everybody is live-recording everything. By simply attending, did you just voluntarily post something on the internet? Or does your rule expand to "Find out who is recording what at all times around you and don't do anything when you are in their presence that you wouldn't want posted on the internet"

Of the N people in your party scenario, who owns the photos/live recording? How can you retract something that someone else might want to publish, or might not object to being published?

Because I'm tagged. Once you tag somebody, the link is created.

If you don't tag me, no harm no foul. But once you do tag me, then I should at least be able to speak my mind in a public open forum about how I would like that data to be used.

I still don't follow 100%. If there are two people in a photo, how does your input supercede theirs, on how it is used or not used?

I believe you are thinking in terms of how some specific application may choose to implement this proposed standard.

I really don't go there. See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1364381

The implementation is completely unimportant.

For as long as there has existed youthful exuberance (read: stupidity - we are all young or once were), there exists the risk and responsibility to own up to the consequences of ones actions. If you're caught on video or film or soundclip or with your own words, doing or voicing something stupid, then the onus is on you to explain that if and when the situation warrants.

The more I read over your post, the more I get a sense that what you're suggesting is a means by which to automatically explain (or errata) your data you put out there on the web. Is this the case?

Yes.

Many of the commenters are asking me to solve the total problem presented. I do not have the solution. But I know the first step is to define and measure the problem.

Right now I have no idea even how big a problem this is, much less what to do about it. As a problem-solver, I would like to start getting an idea of how much and what kinds of data we are talking about. This is a crucial question for future discussions about public policy.

It used to be there were only a few companies with enough data storage to hold all the data that people generated. As storage prices continue to drop, the number of companies will grow at an exponential rate. If I've got a million little copies of me in that chicken suit at the office party, there is no way I can chase them all down and annotate them. But I can provide a central repository where folks can come and see my wishes, desires, or feedback.

Yes, no change. It's the way people have managed their public persona for tens of thousands of years, and it has always worked fine: If you don't want other people to know things about you, don't tell them.

I don't see any reason why technology should affect it at all.

you dont know me and you dont know my style

Reply on news.ycombinator.com