Why is this story a surprise? I assumed it has been happening for a long time.
[1] http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/10/african-states-...
Why is this story a surprise? I assumed it has been happening for a long time.
[1] http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/10/african-states-...
It's just such a useless statement. "Why is this a surprise?"
Well, first of all, I'm sure there are plenty of people who might not have had any idea cell data was being used this way and on this scale. Second, I'm willing to bet of the many who might have had a vague idea, this gives a more concrete background with rough numbers to solidify the idea. Third, It's not a surprise to those of us who have been paying attention, but the problem is when we have said something in the past it almost invariably has been ignored or dismissed as paranoid or crazy... At least until a good story or leak comes out and gets enough attention to grab enough media mindshare. Edward Snowden was a classic example of this at work. Sure, many of use knew about tempest and echelon and five-eyes, knew about cell tower metadata issues via watching ownership of said towers. Everytime with few exceptions though, publicly stating these things got us called "conspiracy theorists".
Maybe you just use this as a rhetorical and are one of us that have been paying attention, but this statement is not condusive whatsoever to intellectual discussion of a subject, and we need to address it's fallacy when we see it because it's too pervasive.
/agree
next instruction?
You left that pretty open so I took it where I wanted...
> It's well known that a very widely used strategy is to collect as much information as possible about end users by businesses for targeted sales and marketing
Yes, but it's usually limited to free services, or low cost services. It's rarely applied wholesale to a group who is already paying through the nose for crappy service.
Why would you expect that? There's nothing about increased privacy levels in ToS or in product marketing, nor there was ever in history an actual, significant demand for privacy services. It may change now, as all the stories broken over the years slowly make people care about tracking. But why would anyone assume that if you pay for something, you get special treatment? You get only the minimum required treatment that's spelled in the contract. That's how it always has been everywhere.
Why is it relevant whether the story is a "surprise"?
Expressing your blasé attitude does nothing but downplay the significance of this.
The type of people that express arguments like this are the reason that these sort of things continue to happen.
"Oh, the Iraq war was based on lies? Yeah, everyone knows that".
Just because it's an accepted reality does not mean that you should just let things get a free pass. That's how you allow the same things to keep happening.
Congratulations on not being surprised. Everyone is very impressed.
Sorry for the rant. This is probably my #1 pet peeve.