Hacker News Reader

Comment by MattyRad | Hacker News Reader

I like his point here

"Google and Facebook are in the same business as the U.S. government’s National Security Agency. They collect a vast amount of information about people, store it, integrate it and use it to predict individual and group behavior, which they then sell to advertisers and others."

But I'd like to point out an important difference: Google doesn't have the authority to arrest someone (or incite someone else, like FBI or EPA, to arrest someone). The NSA does. Further, the NSA has a vested interest in arresting people to justify its existence.

View on HN

The NSA cannot arrest people either. Hence the big hoohaa about whether they were tipping off the people who can.

A bigger problem is not the NSA leading to arrests. The bigger problem is metadata driven drone strikes. That's a uniquely horrible phenomenon.

Google and Facebook look like fluffy kittens in contrast. Though I wish Assange wouldn't continue confusing and deceiving people by claiming these companies sell your information to advertisers. I don't understand how such a trivially debunked idea has turned into a global meme/conspiracy theory.

Google/Facebook don't have to sell your info to advertisers because the are advertisers. Either way it is used for commercial advantage.

Yes, but so what? Would you prefer everyone had to pay for their services, meaning

a) You need a credit card, excluding large chunks of the world population that doesn't have one

b) Google/FB learn your real identity via the payment networks, verified to banking level

I get that advertising is annoying. Regardless, painting it as some kind of scary privacy problem doesn't make sense and worse, muddies the water. People end up dumping tech companies into the same boat as governments even though they have hardly anything in common.

It's more than annoying. It is a privacy problem. I would prefer people run their own services, decentralised. The tech companies are useful idiots.

I think that we will get there eventually, but there is still plenty of work to be done - for it to work it needs to be mass market, which means it needs to Just Work.

One project I've been meaning to delve into is https://sandstorm.io/

It's pretty creepy, when I look at a product on Amazon, and see SOME_PERSON that I follow on facebook/twitter posted a review of this item fairly prominently. I've never attached my twitter profile, or facebook profile to Amazon, but there it is/was.

That's pretty damned creepy.

I think it's outright dishonest to paint advertising as not a privacy problem. It's a huge portion of why ones every online movement is tracked in the first place. Google's entire gimmick is that they're better at stalking people than any other tech company on the planet, without "targeted" advertising they'd have long been irrelevant. Also, claiming you need a credit card to do things online is a great example of "not making sense and muddying the water". If Google/FB charged for their services there's still no reason they would need my address or any other identifying information- it's not like they're sending boxes to my door.

On your last point; Tech companies and governments get put in the same boat for good reason- they actively work together on a regular basis. Even if the company is "compelled" to give the info- that's still only an issue because the companies are whoring and storing all the data they can get their hands on (for indefinite amounts of time).

Google and Facebook offer platforms to advertisers.

For instance, Facebook lets advertisers show ads to users of age X, working at company Y, in location Z, etc. (without disclosing their identities). This is completely different from selling your information, and the companies' privacy policies and practices reflect this.

As mike_hearn says, these sorts of alarmist claims ("they're selling your info!") are easily debunked. And in this case they detract from the rest of Julian's essay, which is a shame because elsewhere he makes some good points.

> metadata driven drone strikes

How many of these have there been?

Nobody knows of course, but more than one for sure. The key words to use are "signature strike":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/signature-s...

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secre...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-gr...

Google and Facebook may not sell personally identifiable information to advertisers, but they track users relentlessly and insatiably. Google, in particular, has it's tracking tentacles in every conceivable corner of the web: whether it's tracking school kids through Google Classroom, or tracking users through the entirety of an OS (ChromeOS), or tracking your behaviour on your Android smartphone - the list is endless. No, I don't think they do sinsiter things with your data but they have amassed (and continue to amass) an absolutely gargantuan volume of date about users.

What Facebook and Google collect about you far exceeds a simple "advertising profile" of your likes. They know more about your online behaviour than you do. I've said this before, but Google omits basic facts in their privacy policy about the data they collect about you. Things like: how long they keep your data, whether the data is anonymised, whether your searches or activity are disassociated from your identity, and who sees your data inside the company. These are not minor or unreasonable questions to ask - they are exactly what you'd expect to find in a privacy policy (especially from a company that arguably tracks users more than anyone else online). Yet, Google does not answer any of these questions. Why do they get a free pass?

I guess it's a question of perspective.

In the past few years I've been working a lot on Bitcoin, so I've become quite familiar with how the banking world works and what they collect and track about you.

If you really think Google and Facebook "track users relentlessly and insatiably" then I suggest you take a deep breath, and then go review what banks do in the name of anti-money laundering. It makes social networks look like quasi anarchist chaos camps. I mean, you can tell Google and Facebook your name is literally anything - they aren't going to check. They barely even care beyond trying to nudge you away from picking pinkponies_78, so the search function works. Google isn't going to suddenly suspend your email account and demand you provide documentary proof of where your business is getting its income.

WRT this: Google omits basic facts in their privacy policy about the data they collect about you

I don't think they do:

http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/

Just go read that page and it covers a huge number of topics including things like "who sees your data inside the company". I'm sure you would want even more info, but these sites represent a trade off - earlier privacy policies were dinged (by governments, lol) for being too large and complex.

Yes, I've read their privacy policy. Where does it tell you how long they retain your data? Or whether your data is disassociated from your identity? This is important when you consider how personal your online activity can be. Who sees your data at Google? All the privacy policy states is "We restrict access to personal information to Google employees, contractors and agents who need to know that information"

While Google automates scanning of your emails in GMail, they don't tell you if that is the case with the other personal and private data they hold about you. Yet your activity across the web is arguably just as personal and private as your emails. That is why anonymising or disassociating your data from your identity is a legitimate concern, as are questions about whether your online activity is anonymous when viewed internally by Google.

Let me put it another way, if I ask you to give me your name, gender, date-of-birth and mobile phone number (as Google does), then proceed to record the searches you undertake as well as sites you visit and videos you watch, would you not expect me to tell you how long I keep that information for? Or whether it's anonymised before internal staff pore through it? Or whether it's aggregated in a way that isn't personally identifiable?

Good comment. The contrast between banks and Goo/FB in data collected is significant indeed. But then also the ability/inventiveness of Goo/Fb of what can be done with the data is far more powerful than of the banks'.

facebook has actually been extremely aggressive about enforcing real name policies in the last year especially; my extended facebook circle includes many transgender folks who have been complaining loudly about being forced to revert their profiles to previously used names, and facebook does indeed require documentary proof of identity if it is challenged

Whenever i see someone online going "wow, Google Now did XYZ!" i cringe and wonder how much data Google must have on us to be able to pull such things off.

>A bigger problem is not the NSA leading to arrests. The bigger problem is metadata driven drone strikes. That's a uniquely horrible phenomenon.

What is so horrible about using metadata to target drone strikes against people we already want to drone strike? That is just good intelligence collection.

I suspect I'm going to get downvoted too, for saying it like this, but you obviously haven't seen any of the latest season of Homeland.

I wish I hadn't, this season is bad.

Yeah I'm with you on that, for the first couple of episodes I wasn't even convinced that it was really the same show... feels like a spinoff since they killed Brody

Read this and think about what you said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/signature-s...

"... What is so horrible about using metadata to target drone strikes against people we already want to drone strike? ..."

Collateral damage?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan

http://rt.com/usa/drone-yemen-dozens-dead-880/

Signature strikes are particularly troublesome. The level of identification is lower. Identification is replaced by behaviour. Less verification translates to greater efficiency. Where is the accountability?

In Vietnam, the Pinkville massacre [0] occurred where approximately 500 unarmed civilians were killed. A cover-up attempt was made. When it became public, accountability became a necessity. The participants were questioned. There was dissent. Enough Men (grunts) on the ground not being fired on, refused to kill civilians [1] resulting in political embarrassment to both Nixon and the military.

The Military learns and got smart. You don't need to invade like the old days or have SF's on the ground for man in the loop missions. You can do all this from a tin sheds on home soil using remote drones. The control loop is smaller, the job gets done. No dissenters with only unverified reporting of collateral damage and no messy pictures in TIME-LIFE.

[0] http://life.time.com/history/my-lai-remembering-an-american-...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre#Participants

You said:

"Though I wish Assange wouldn't continue confusing and deceiving people by claiming these companies sell your information to advertisers."

To quote the article:

"They collect a vast amount of information about people, store it, integrate it and use it to predict individual and group behavior, which they then sell to advertisers and others."

I am saying now:

They use that information to make predictions, which are sold to advertisers. That statement is true.

They don't sell predictions to advertisers either, they sell real estate, plain and simple. You say you want to buy space when a german speaking person searches for Wine on the search engine, and a slot on the results page is allocated for you.

Can you give me the phone number of the sales representative that I can call to buy a prediction?

The only predictions AdWords does is predict the likely volume of impressions/clicks you'll get.

You just described selling predictions.

Google is predicting that the person speaks German or is a Male between the ages of 26-30 who is interested in Technology and Wine-making, or what have you. Google sells "we can display your add to someone we predict meets such and such criteria." They make those predictions based on gathered data.

The prediction is what makes a million AdWords views more valuable than a million random people seeing the same content in a tweet. Both are "real estate." But it's the predictions (based on gathered data) that make AdWords more valuable.

The NSA may not arrest people directly, but considered in relation to other agencies, their work becomes distinctly sinister (e.g. "You track 'em we whack 'em" with regard to the CIA). The practice of collaborating with the FBI on "parallel reconstruction" in order to convincingly lie about the sources of evidence presented in court cuts even closer to he very dark heart of the matter.

You don't have to arrest people to break them. You don't even have to touch them, or be on the same continent.

That's the essential "evil" of total surveillance: knowing is already enough to effectively take most people's freedom away.

You don't even have to threaten or blackmail. As long as they know you know all about them, you can control 99% of the population.

Blunt instruments like internment and torture are just tools. The essence of repression is fear, and fear of information will do just as well as fear of internment or violence.

Put such power into the hands of mere mortals, and it really doesn't matter if those mortals represent corporations or nation states.

Your observation on the essence of repression is quite prescient.

I might add that Americans are notorious for being wracked by fear/anxiety as a result of their mainstream media and lack of societal safety net.

If the greatest warrior is the one that need never fight (due to a perceived predetermined outcome), then the most oppressive despotic regime is the one that need never oppress.

Google can not take my information unless I give to them willingly which I do because they are offering something useful in return. NSA on other hand draws a salary by taking away 30% of my income from me.

Google also isn't (mostly) funded by taxes. It makes sense to be more concerned with what someone does with my money than what they do with their own money.

It may not have to do with your money, but it has to do with your life. And the future of society too.

I'm just never going to understand libertarians.

The phrase "my money" seems telling: some people seem to internalize wealth and belongings more than others, seeing it as fundamental to their agency and dignity, no different than their body or mind.

Yet money is the product of a social contract, both in its very existence, and in society's defense of private property. Moreover, it only has value relative to the social ecosystem that can exchange it for tangible value. Countless agents, whether public or private, are capable of increasing or decreasing the value of "your" dollar without ever removing it from under your mattress. If the value decreases due to a market failure, did they steal from you? Hypothetically, if someone took 10% at gunpoint, but invested it in a way increased the net value of the remainder by 50%, how about then? It is effectively impossible for private property to live in a social vaccuum in an industrialized economy.

All that said, I'm sympathetic to that knee-jerk feeling. Writing large checks to "United States Treasury" is merely unpleasant. Knowing that those checks pay for missiles that murder children is infuriating.

I don't really understand most of your comment. You seem to be reading a heck of a lot more into my comment than what is actually there.

By "my money," I only mean money which my employer agreed to pay me for performing certain tasks. Obviously the philosophy of property rights can get really complicated, but I'm not making some deep philosophical argument. I believe this phrase in this context is pretty standard and likely to be understood by the vast majority of readers: it's money that my employer agreed to pay me if I perform certain tasks.

I never mentioned the word "steal" in my comment. I'm not very interested in a semantic argument over that word, so I'll just describe my taxes very simply: if I had the option to keep everything that's deducted from my paycheck without facing the high likelihood of legal trouble, I would. I'm not making a moral argument about "stealing" or anything else, I'm just stating my preferences.

The stuff about value being subjective and money being potentially devalued through broader economic circumstances is true, but entirely irrelevant. I would still choose to keep my entire paycheck if given the option.

I disagree with your description of my preferences as "a knee-jerk feeling." It's not that, by a long shot.

Apologies; the social constructs of currency and property have been on my mind in general lately. And for what it's worth, I was using "knee-jerk" as imagery rather than as a pejorative; gut reactions are not inherently illegitimate, and I was attempting to describe my own.

> I would still choose to keep my entire paycheck if given the option.

Is this preference influenced at all by where the money goes? You seem to state that you want to keep your whole check regardless (which is reasonable), and yet you feel you have a stake in how it is spent after it has been taken from you against your will.

> Is this preference influenced at all by where the money goes? You seem to state that you want to keep your whole check regardless (which is reasonable), and yet you feel you have a stake in how it is spent after it has been taken from you against your will.

That's kind of a tricky question, because if I say I'm okay with my taxes being on used on things I approve of, that's equivalent to saying I want to keep my entire check and then use parts of it to pay for those things I approve of.

The desire to control or at least oversee the money that you earn is, as far as I know, not a specifically libertarian desire. Do you not understand the desire?

The refusal to acknowledge that taxes are the legitimate cost of living in a nation is a distinctly libertarian characteristic.

I don't deny that some level of taxation is probably inevitable in modern Western society, at least without some sort of major paradigm shift. I'm not sure it needs to be a personal income tax, and I'm quite confident it doesn't need to be anywhere near as complicated as it is in the USA. I also think taxes could be much lower without significant societal changes or sacrifices, and I think it's very reasonable to be concerned at how my taxes are used.

Anyway, whether or not my views constitute a belief that taxes are not "legitimate" is a largely semantic question. The very notion of legitimacy borders on moral arguments, which I try to refrain from making. I could point to some distinctly libertarian arguments for the morality of taxation, some of which seem convincing if taken on their own terms, but that's not really my thing.

I doubt whoever funds it makes much difference to the victims.

Also, Google seems just as useful and accurate on a public computer, or a friend's laptop, as on my own (Android) phone. I read somewhere that user input, location, and searches immediately before do all the heavy lifting when it comes to returning good results, whether organic or ads. And it rings true when you use Google.

Frankly, I don't think they have actually figured out how to use all that personal info for anything (yet?).

Are we saying the power to cause harm is what makes surveillance bad?

Google has the authority to blacklist webpages so that they drop off Google search results and destroy the income of those websites.

Beyond income even, if you can't find a site on Google, it may as well not even exist. Regulators in China and the EU are so focused on censoring search results, because they know it's the most efficient way to control information.

Google has the power to decide what it will display to you on its own webpage?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com