Hacker News Reader

Comment by freehunter | Hacker News Reader

>Who wanted that for desktop computers or laptops?

I did. Linux and OSX are still available for whoever wants them. You can stick with Windows 7 if you want, that's just fine. I like Cortana. I like my software knowing what I like and what I'm interested in. It makes my life easier, which is what computers were invented for.

I can see why some people might not, and to be fair I use Linux on my work laptop because the work I do demands it. I would never put my client data on a Windows machine.

But like I can see your side of the argument, you have to be able to see that some other people want personalization and learning and all that. Pandora and Apple Music are both heavily tailored that way. Google Now on your phone knows everything you do. Netflix can find videos for you to watch based on what you've watched before. Amazon will recommend purchases to you based on what you like. Hell, half the people on this site build these systems. You know how many machine learning articles there are on the front page every week?

So who wanted that? I did. And so did several million other people. For the people who don't want it, I mean it's not even really opt-out. They ask you up front do you want the default or do you want to pick your own privacy settings. If you still don't trust it, Windows 7, OSX, and Linux are right there, just a click away.

View on HN

> But like I can see your side of the argument, you have to be able to see that some other people want personalization and learning and all that. Pandora and Apple Music are both heavily tailored that way. Google Now on your phone knows everything you do. Netflix can find videos for you to watch based on what you've watched before. Amazon will recommend purchases to you based on what you like. Hell, half the people on this site build these systems. You know how many machine learning articles there are on the front page every week?

But that's the thing, right ? People want their computers to be more intelligent, reactive, adapted to their needs. They don't want Google, MS or Apple to know everything about them. How did the first came to automatically imply the second ?

Apple, Google, MS and others could deliver the same products (software that learn user behaviour and adapt accordingly) without sacrificing privacy, invading personal space and storing private documents on the cloud in order to parse it to deliver relevant ads.

Machine learning should keep on trying to be machine learning and not solely data scraping for marketing tuning and exploitation.

What does it bring me that MS or Google knows my search terms of the day ? I want my quad-core CPU to know that when I browse HN it should automatically split the screen in half and open my media player to listen to radio music because that's what I do most morning. Why do I have to do that by hand ? Can't it know or guess my routine by now ?

Or is all the tech just a glorified lexical parser to fine tune ads to increase their efficiency ?

It's not just about advertising. By looking at customer data in aggregate you can learn more about behaviour patterns and support the things your customers might be interested in doing. Buying products is one of the things you might be interested in doing.

That said, this whole thing gives me the creeps and I'm glad I'm no longer a Microsoftie.

"By looking at customer data in aggregate you can learn more about behaviour patterns and support the things your customers might be interested in doing."

That could be done locally, without sharing the private data. The local computing agent can then look up in the public (like the pool of those who deliberately published content for all to see) for information that may be of interest to the user. That would have been a moral solution to please everyone. What we see happening now is a nightmare!

> That could be done locally

It could be done locally, but in order to not share any data with the server you'd need to run the analysis (with all of the associated data) on the local machine, which unless I'm missing something would add some non-trivial constraints, e.g.

- Getting research-grade analysis code up to local-install quality levels, keeping that code updated

- Bandwidth and HDD space for large datasets

- The additional load on the CPU, memory, battery, and messaging that to the customer

- The legal and privacy implication of all that opt-in data being transferred and processed on thousands of opt-out customers' machines

- The need to have an entirely duplicated system because some people would rather opt-in and not have to run all this stuff run on their already-creaking-under-the-weight-of-windows-and-outlook-and-word-and-antivirus laptop

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but from this view I can understand why they didn't want to do it this way

Frankly, I don't buy it when it's on Google, FB or MS scale. Their incentives is to maximize profits, not the user's happiness, wants or needs. Sometimes the later might help optimize the first but it's not the objective behind all the scraping.

Those improvements could be done with much less intruding anyway (be it for the sake of it or because johnny hacker is going to release those data someday).

> Their incentives is to maximize profits, not the user's happiness, wants or needs

Sure, although user happiness (broadly) drives market share so they need to maximise that to maximise profit.

> Apple, Google, MS and others could deliver the same products [...] without sacrificing privacy [..]

Could they? My amateur understanding is that a lot of today's success in machine learning is due mainly to having enormous amounts of data to work with.

When I look at Google Now, for example, I can't imagine a way to build it without collecting an ocean of detailed personal data. Or your example of finding common behaviors and having computers do the right thing: that gets much, much easier if you have the daily behavior data of 10m people so you can start extracting concepts like "typical morning routine", testing recognizers for that, and having them not do anything in low-confidence situations.

I like my software knowing what I like and what I'm interested in.

So do I, but I don't like my software vendors knowing it too.

I especially don't like trusted partners knowing.

Or the guys who will hack the trusted partners

Once something is somewhere it will eventually be everywhere

I like my software knowing what I like and what I'm interested in. It makes my life easier, which is what computers were invented for.

Philosophical question: is it really your life, if your software may be subtly persuading you in a different direction than what you would've taken if it hadn't been making the suggestions to influence you?

There is no doubt it will make things easier for you if all you do is effectively accept and follow everything others want you to with no resistance. However, that's not what I'd consider "your life" anymore.

How's that different from listening to any other human you interact with? Is it somehow worse because it's a computer rather than a human? That's the kind of bigotry that gets you robot uprisings.

I'll bite.

Your mind is wired by evolution to assess, evaluate and react to human behavior. It is equipped to defend you another humans' attempts to influence your behavior for their own ends when you interact with them in person. Software that you run daily should be able to bypass those built-in protections in a more subtle and personalized manner than traditional advertising or propaganda could ever dream of. In an untrained mind it won't meet resistance but the mind can be trained; the "bigotry against 'robots'" (really, human organizations acting at a distance) on the part of humans who read enough stories like this one emerges as a result and is completely justified.

By evolution, or by socialization?

And if it is by evolution, that immediately presents the trivial solution that we will naturally evolve to relate better to machines, making this a nonissue.

Are you saying that listening to what you have to say and writing what you have to say on wikipedia is the same thing?

Are you hung up with the speech vs text thing? Because that's so not the point.

It's different in the sense that you know that your firend cares about you, where as for software you can't be sure if it's in your interests.

People also lie. A lot.

If you were a woman, you'd have two dozen kids by now.

> Philosophical question: is it really your life, if your software may be subtly persuading you in a different direction than what you would've taken if it hadn't been making the suggestions to influence you?

No less so than if your friends, family, coworkers, and society at large may be subtly persuading you in a different direction than what you would've taken if they hadn't been making the suggestions to influence you.

Does only the hermit truly own his own life?

> There is no doubt it will make things easier for you if all you do is effectively accept and follow everything others want you to with no resistance.

While that may be a danger to keep in mind, that's not what's being suggested. In fact, I'd argue much the opposite is being suggested.

Instead of being told what we want and adapting to our corporate overlords, would it not be preferable to communicate what we want, and have the companies adapt to us instead? To service our wants and needs?

"No less so than if your friends, family, coworkers.."

There is a difference between those and MS.

Pedantry about "MS" being different than the "software" aside - Microsoft consists of a specific sub-sampling of those people.

So I challenge you: How? In what way? Does it meaningfully change the calculus of your total life ownership? Why?

>No less so than if your friends, family, coworkers, and society at large may be subtly persuading you in a different direction than what you would've taken if they hadn't been making the suggestions to influence you.

In spite the fact that in the case of friends, family, coworkers I can be the one persuading them in a different direction and I also know a bit about them (you cannot suggest that in the case of person-company relationship both are as strong in influencing each other, maybe in large numbers of people protesting and that's a huge maybe):

The thing is, there are 5 billion people on Earth but far less operating systems. So, when they tell you "my way or the highway" while at the same time more products support their way, you'll eventually end up stuck somewhere in the past, like the old nut in the hut living on top of a mountain, while everyone is throwing their personal data to Microsoft and friends telling me that it's going to be ok because "the functionality provided is convenient". Which makes zero sense.

This discussion is such a deja vu. I had this exact back and forth with a colleague the other day (them on the give-away-all-data side). I have a reply based on this comment, thank you.

> In spite the fact that in the case of friends, family, coworkers I can be the one persuading them in a different direction and I also know a bit about them (you cannot suggest that in the case of person-company relationship both are as strong in influencing each other, maybe in large numbers of people protesting and that's a huge maybe)

Companies, in many ways, strike me as amazingly straightforward to manipulate. So easily swayed by the almighty dollar that such trite as "the customer is always right" gets dolled out as actual management policy at times.

We block company ads, our eyes scan past the ads that remain, we spam-list their emails and rip into them on our various review sites when they wrong us.

Companies realize, though, that talk is cheap, and see through our bullshit a little better. And, sadly, there's very little self control by consumers at times.

> you'll eventually end up stuck somewhere in the past, like the old nut in the hut living on top of a mountain

It's not so bad here. I don't even have a Facebook account. There's enough ad blocking options out there to kill several news companies several times over. That's before installing a proper separate firewall box.

> while everyone is throwing their personal data to Microsoft and friends telling me that it's going to be ok because "the functionality provided is convenient". Which makes zero sense.

It makes zero sense if you lack agency and choice. You have an opt out. It makes zero sense if you provide what you didn't will to. Opt ins are superior, I'll certainly grant. It makes zero sense if you haven't recognized the full ramifications and potential impact of sharing the data you share. They don't know what they're getting into.

But it also makes zero sense to dismiss "convenient functionality" as a reasonable rationale to give data freely, by choice, if you understand the impact and potential ramifications of it. There's a reason this stuff works. Ignoring that merely blinds you to the beast, and robs you of taking as much advantage of it, or to defend against it's detriments.

> No less so than if your friends, family, coworkers, and society at large may be subtly persuading you in a different direction than what you would've taken if they hadn't been making the suggestions to influence you.

I'd add to that list things like Toxoplasma gondii.[1] Who knows, maybe it is the viruses controlling us all. Maybe there are behaviour modifying viruses that cause little to no overt symptoms of infection, or maybe the viruses are changing the DNA of bacteria that impact all living creatures microbiomes. Scary stuff.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasma_gondii

At least it isn't Cordyceps Fungus.

Along those lines, how dangerous is the "filter bubble" effect? Totally a reasonable social psychological/philosophical question, IMHO.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble

This should be an optional feature. Not a feature that's the default of most computers on the planet. It's fine that you wanted it, and it's fine that it's available. It's not cool that it's the default on anything.

As far as I can tell, it is an optional feature. It's the default option, but still an option. On top of that, a fair argument could be made that most people who don't care enough to change their privacy settings probably do prioritize convenience over maximal privacy, so this might even be a reasonable default.

This. Majority of people don't care about having any of these privacy issues on their cell phones which infact is far more capable and something you always keep next to you. Heck I have even seen hackers here recommend ChromeOS, an operating system where everything lives on the cloud. Even though I am cautious about my privacy, I have come to learn that most are not and there is nothing wrong with it. It is just not something that bothers them enough to care about. Privacy is not black and white, some try to maintain an absolute fence while others are willing to trade some for convenience in return.

No. That's not a fair argument at all. Just because someone is scared away by an "option" screen like this:

> you get presented with a customize wizard. The first screen has a large chunk of text on it, a large and clearly visible button to proceed using the default settings, and a small hard to see text link that lets you choose your own setting values instead of the defaults.

> Everything about this screen is urging me to just accept the default configuration and get on with life.

Doesn't mean those people "don't care enough" about their privacy. Those people are my parents and my friends and I know that they do.

We know our computers, we can fight back, many people cannot. I believe that when a piece of software tries to provide "sensible defaults" for people that fear they might break stuff, or simply not understand the "advanced options", that those defaults should be SAFE and TRUSTWORTHY.

Windows 10 obviously breaks that trust, and the people who can't spend an hour digging through advanced options (for many reasons) are just pounded into submission against systems they feel slowly slip from their control.

I do not consent to you and others giving Microsoft (or Google or Facebook etc…) all the personal information this necessarily reveals about me when you accept their terms and have any electronic interactions with me.

I appreciate what you're trying to say, but ultimately... Sucks to be you. If you don't want others to share that data, you'll have to stop interacting with them.

I've done that. They revert to traditional methods like phone calls when they want or need something. Every time.

Sucks to be you if your relationships, be they business or personal, are as fragile as a volatile technology.

And let me guess, they don't have your phone number memorized; they probably save your phone number in their phone's contacts list alongside your name, which is automatically backed up in the cloud in either Google Contacts or iCloud depending on what phone they use.

Expecting your friends not to use cloud services seems a bit unreasonable and unenforceable. Are you really going to tell all your friends they should write down or memorize your phone number instead of storing it in their phone?

No as that information is public.

What we talk about isn't.

Oh, uh, I thought you were talking about your name.

Microsoft collects your friends' names so it can spell their names correctly when you use speech-to-text or related features. I thought that's what you were objecting to. What kind of data are you talking about?

Conversations (SMS backup), photos (onedrive), email (outlook/office365), calls (skype) etc etc.

While your name and phone number are public, the list of people who have your phone number saved is not public. These companies can effectively map who you associate with only by looking at other people's phones. They can profile you by association, and that is very wrong.

At some point privacy is no longer a choice, not a real choice anyway. You get to chose between participating in society or keeping your privacy. It shouldn't have to be this way, but it is.

If you really are as charming in real life as you are online, people might indeed accede to your quaint insistence on anachronistic media, until they don't.

Personally, I require that all my so-called friends communicate with me in morse code over short wave radio. It works a treat.

I was a QRP operator so that's actually quite funny.

I like CW too :)

Do you hold such a hard line stance on the moral correctness of revenge porn, I wonder?

After all, if you don't want others to share the data, you shouldn't interact with them.

I think its probably pretty good advice to follow: If you don't want someone posting revenge porn after you break up, don't give them nude photos/videos. Its always a risk you either accept or avoid.

There is a clear moral distinction to be drawn between people who use Windows 10 knowing that it might be sharing some data with Microsoft, so its algorithms can streamline certain everyday tasks and those who maliciously upload their exes' sex tapes to the Internet without their consent.

There are huge differences here on at least three crucial dimensions: intent of the sharer, the audience with whom it is shared, and the sensitivity of the data shared.

This is specifically in the context of your windows 10 install uploading data about me, without you asking me if that's ok. My wifi password over wifi sense, for example.

Yes. I understand that this is about "my" Windows 10 install sharing data about "you." I should have been more clear (and, unfortunately, the editing window has closed so I can't clarify). But if you re-read my comment with this in mind (as I had intended) it remains the case that while this a Bad Thing, and I see the analogy to revenge porn, it also is radically different in degree from revenge porn on several morally significant dimensions.

You mean "sucks to be any normal person today."

The ramifications of the destruction of anonymity and privacy affect everyone whether or not we understand enough right now to get this.

Also, "sucks to be all these people who would benefit from interacting with me but where I may stop interacting".

This is not a problem that is a personal, individual problem. This is a social problem. Period.

That's not your consent to give. If you tell me your name, I'm free to repeat that to whoever I want. If you aren't ok with public information being re-broadcasted, don't go outside.

Actually in the UK it is covered by the Data Protection Act. Interesting times ahead. If you knowingly or unknowningly give personal information away without my consent this is illegal.

I would challenge you to show something conclusive that states that I am forbidden by law from stating "I know this person. His name is batou." while pointing at you.

That's fine. That's no different to an IP address or a DNS record or something that you'd put on an envelope. That is public information.

The content of our communications is the matter under consideration i.e the content of the envelope.

And yet your original post was in response to this:

"If you tell me your name, I'm free to repeat that to whoever I want. If you aren't ok with public information being re-broadcasted, don't go outside."

to which you said:

"Actually in the UK it is covered by the Data Protection Act. Interesting times ahead. If you knowingly or unknowningly give personal information away without my consent this is illegal."

What you're saying now and what you said then are two different contexts.

He wasn't broadcasting his name in the first place; only you had the information (in the limited knowledge of the context). In case you are using this for anything damaging to him or for profit, that is what the Data Protection Act covers. That suddenly his name becomes public knowledge has little to do with this law.

Doing this as a person is fine. Storing and processing that information on a computer is covered by the DPA.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...

Refers to Schedule 2: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/schedule/2

Additionally, there are "Sensitive" personal data: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/2

So if someone were to ask your computer "Do you know any trade unionists?" and it were to reply "I know this person. His name is batou.", and you weren't covered by the Schedule 3 exceptions, that would be an offence. This is an attempt at preventing employment blacklists.

Can you cite a source that describes that freedom?

Traditionally, the (legal) argument begins with Warren and Brandeis, "The Right To Privacy", December 15, 1890:

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/priva...

That's been considered the foundation of privacy laws in the US. Europe generally has stricter laws -- for instance in Norway, until recently, it was technically illegal to keep an electronic[1] list of names and phone numbers of parents in a school class, or an electronic membership list for a club (esp: minor members).

That's now changed, and the requirement for being granted a "data license" are less stringent -- most electronic record keeping is legal -- everyone being granted a pre-emptive licence of sorts. However, that license is subject to things like a) being responsive in giving out/responding to requests to correct data, to show what data you have on an individual to that individual, and b) making a reasonable effort to keep the data safe.

Breach of those can lead to fines, and the revocation of the implicit license -- meaning you're not allowed to keep such electronic records any more.

Understandably Germany have a stronger emphasis on privacy, being a) a fascist dictatorship under Hitler recently, and b) half of Germany being under the Stasi also recently.

Why people in the US aren't more afraid of personal data ending up in privately held data banks where they are subject to National Security Letters, hackers, anti-union organizations working with big business, anti-native American rights activists and whatever else -- I don't know.

Maybe most people think that the next group to be frozen out of the job market won't be communist but Muslims -- and, hey, I don't know any Muslims -- so why should I be worried?

[1] Note the electronic bit. This is due to how trivial it is to link digital data, and how trivial it is to copy/get hold of a copy without the original missing etc.

If you aren't ok with public information being re-broadcasted, don't go outside.

Rights and freedoms that you can only exercise by giving up any semblance of normal life are no rights and freedoms at all. The idea that the moment you step outside of your home or go on-line you forfeit any right to the slightest respect for your privacy and we should just accept this is silly.

And if you think the only people who care are a few internet warriors, please consider the likes of Google's Glass and Street View, where some people have felt strongly enough about the invasions to resort to actual criminal violence in response, and some entire countries have clamped down on the surveillance in response to public concerns.

In any case, with many of these systems, we aren't talking about public information. We're talking about technologies that systematically abuse friendships and commercial relationships by getting one party to tell the technology operators information about another party without that other party's knowledge or consent and potentially even if that information had been given in confidence.

So you agree that you have no such rights and freedoms. That seems like the practical view. The alternative is the path of craziness, filled with things like the "right to be forgotten".

So you agree that you have no such rights and freedoms.

No, I think that just because we can do something, it doesn't mean we should.

In a literal sense, you have no rights or freedoms that you are not prepared to protect with your life. You can lose anything else to someone willing to try hard enough to take it from you. Fortunately, in civilised societies, we do not generally require everyone to die to defend basic human rights that most of us think are worth protecting. Instead we adopt laws and punish those who would break them.

The alternative is the path of craziness, filled with things like the "right to be forgotten".

And as you can probably guess, I support the basic idea of the right to be forgotten as well. I have no problem with requiring companies that specialise in providing easy access to data -- and that make huge amounts of money because of the immense volumes of data they deal with -- to make it harder to access information about, say, victims of abuse or mistaken identity. When the statistics came out about who was really making use of the right to be forgotten ruling in Europe, contrary to all the naysayers, it mostly wasn't people like criminals and politicians who arguably invited negative publicity.

That said, I have no problem with reducing the profile of criminals with spent convictions either, nor those who have done things that were not criminal but which society frowned upon at some point in history. A society that never forgets, full of people who want to hold everything someone ever did against them for all eternity, is not a healthy society. I believe most people can be rehabilitated even after a dark past, and the evidence about how successful different legal systems around the world are at preventing recurrence of damaging behaviour overwhelmingly supports that position as well.

I'm not talking about public information. I'm talking about private communication between you and I. Like truly private, private where you are happy to keep our communication confidential. Except now you have to have the technical know-how and proactive burden of keeping it confidential because Microsoft (and Google in other cases etc) sweep up everything you do.

In other words, if you consent to Microsoft tracking you, it means I cannot trust you in private communication even if you would otherwise be trustworthy person.

This is completely distinct concern from what is true public information.

> You can stick with Windows 7 if you want

Not indefinitely. It will get EOL'ed, and at that point it might not be possible to opt-out of the upgrade.

Which isn't bad given that MS isn't going to keep supporting W7 forever: It's a genuinely bad thing to have unpatched OSes with known security holes (zero-decade, I suppose?) out in the hands of non-technical users. That kind of thing was moderately acceptable when Average Windows User was behind a dial-up line, but those are going away, too.

Not indefinitely. It will get EOL'ed, and at that point it might not be possible to opt-out of the upgrade.

It's always possible to opt out of the upgrade with Windows 7. I have a perpetual licence to use it, and I can turn off any automatic updates that would break it.

The worst that will happen, short of Microsoft as a business going under or similarly dramatic changes, is that I will only enjoy free security updates from Microsoft until the end of the guaranteed support period (still several years away) and then I will have to use alternative means to secure my systems against any remaining threats.

As demonstrated by the large organisations still on XP, one of those means may simply be paying more money to Microsoft to continue supporting an older platform you want to keep using.

a genuinely bad thing to have unpatched OSes with known security holes

If the OS is popular enough, once they get known, they will be fixed by the community if not MS. Look up "Windows 98SE Unofficial Service Pack" and "KernelEx". In fact the 98SE community is still very much alive... and has added support for a lot of things that MS didn't.

Gradually, I predict the same will happen with XP, and possibly 7 when MS stops supporting it.

I would never put my client data on a Windows machine.

But how many people will?

There's a danger of looking at things from within the tech bubble. Perspective is everything and I'm not convinced mainstream will be so accepting when the privacy concerns gain greater visibility. The same drive that is making ad blockers a concern will probably come into play. It'll take one successful hack for reality to set in for many. I personally don't want that type of personalization or targeting.

> I can see why some people might not, and to be fair I use Linux on my work laptop because the work I do demands it. I would never put my client data on a Windows machine.

How do you handle business e-mail ? Only on the linux laptop ? Is the windows device only for personal and entertainment purposes ?

Correct. I have all my work stuff on my work laptop and the Windows desktop is just for Netflix and games and reddit and stuff that happens when I'm done with work. In fact I can't even have business emails on my personal computer because you need to be connected to my work's VPN to get email and you can't connect to the VPN with Windows without getting in serious trouble.

Windows 7 but with more features would be nice.

Windows 7 with speed of 8.1 and virtual desktop support is all I ever wanted. Not the Metro abomination.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com