Hacker News Reader

Comment by hsbauauvhabzb | Hacker News Reader

It’s becoming impossible to practice what you preach when it comes to data privacy. ‘Don’t like it, don’t buy it’ is difficult to execute unless you don’t mind not having a car, mobile phone, tv, browse the internet or even go out in a public place.

There needs to be regulation and at least the ability to at least easily opt out of any of this insanity, but until there’s one (or probably many) widespread data-breaches related to this total abuse of power, so I suspect we’re at least a decade off that, if it even happens at all.

Edit: location Australia, where political power is toothless due to the small scale of our country. Maybe we can fall in-line with GDPR or something someday, but currently there’s almost no discourse related to privacy (yet everyone is losing their minds over tiktok)

View on HN

The EU seems to have it's act together. Things in the US won't change until the elites feel that pervasive surveillance impacts them personally and negatively.

Did you miss the story about how spying on journalists is OK?

Yes, the EU is doing what needs to be done (criminalizing end-to-end encryption) /s

If you don’t want to be tracked then you have to make sacrifices on the scale of not carrying around a cellphone. But that really doesn’t scale.

Handing out your customers secrets doesn’t have a big red flag that automatically tells them you’re selling them out. That’s the core issue which has nothing to do with customer choices and why regulation is one of the few ways to give customers informed choices.

Name any major organisation that’s not selling data excluding companies such as signal and (presumably) apple…

That's ok, but there should always be transparency in who is collecting the data and the chain-of-custody of data collected. The ad agencies and everyone affilliated thrive in the current darkness...

Sorry that’s a valid point, my point is that I’d like to not have my data sold in the first place,

Google, Facebook, Microsoft

You don’t think they’re selling the data to other departments internally?

The only reason those 3 aren't selling data is that they have the vertical integration to launder and monetize it themselves.

They don't have to sell it, because they can keep it, productize it, and then sell the targeting information to advertisers, without revealing the underlying data.

Imagine a Google, Facebook, or Microsoft without an ad network and devices/apps to serve it on.

Then tell me they wouldn't immediately be selling their tracking data to anyone who would buy.

Yes, but that's because they do the dirty work themselves. The dirty work is still being done. It's marginally better that they don't "sell" the data, but their collection and use of it is still horrible.

Not carrying a cell phone is a pretty huge sacrifice now—it’s almost to the point where you have to have one in order to participate in society.

Giving up cellphones isn’t as big deal as you’re suggesting. At work and at home you can call or email em, they’re only out of contract for a few hours a day.

Being required to hand over cellphones when entering a secure facility makes them far less appealing.

Parent was likely talking about activities for which there is only a "mobile app" solution, with no fall-back human option.

The usual pattern is:

1. Company releases mobile app

2. Company directs users to mobile app, for data collection purposes, and releases new physical activities app-first. Backup, non-app methods are an afterthought

3. At some point, the non-app methods are so broken, under/unstaffed, that they're functionally useless

Consequently, you now can't do the thing without a device.

Do you have any examples? I’ve only seen something vaguely like that with Reddit.

I don't use my cellphone for anything like this, so I'm acutely aware of those things in my area.

Around here, not using cellphone apps means that you can't use about 10% of vending machines, about 33% of parking spots, and in some apartment complexes, the inability to use the laundry room.

That's about it, at least that I've seen. So far, all of that amounts to slight inconveniences.

I can't easily send money to an arbitrary person via Zelle because my bank only allows that through their app. Website only supports requesting that they mail a paper check to that person which will take some time.

I prefer not to have any connection between my phone, which is easily lost, and any financial data.

I actually disagree -- it's sneakily become a BIG deal to fully participate in society (esp post covid). Here's three real-world examples in a row:

Took my partner out on a date downtown last Saturday night. Dinner and a show.

Gotta have an app or at the least mobile browser to pay to park. No parking meters or out of order.

Gotta have a camera/mobile browser to scan the menu at the restaurant. No more paper menus.

Gotta have a phone to show your ticket to get into the theater. No more paper tickets. Just got bounced back and forth between staff when I tried.

It's so many little things like this that have crept up -- especially in the last couple years. It's just assumed that everyone has a working charged phone in their pocket at all times now.

Sure, can you get by and survive? Of course! But it's gonna be a giant pain in the ass and you're gonna be "that guy" to the people around you. Which again... pretty big sacrifice.

> If you don’t want to be tracked then you have to make sacrifices on the scale of not carrying around a cellphone.

If that's all that was required, I'd be thrilled.

Remeber the uproar over cameras on phones? Then the fury over a person bringing a google glass into a bathroom. Now people film themselves in the bathroom.

No one cares as we live in a very connected world where privacy is almost gone - in fact many people like broadcasting themselves. (To add - I don't like nor endorse it - "computas shoulda stayed hard!" is my motto. But that is reality. Hell, my friends kids ape youtubers and they're just 6 or 7 years old. I find it gross they find it cute. go figure. poh-tay-toe poh-toh-toe)

I’m not sure that your neighbours kids voluntary use of an app versus me not being able to buy a car that won’t track my location are really all that equivalent.

imo, if you don't want the government to track you, the battle is already lost, but there is probably room to limit what private companies are allowed to do on the regulatory front.

The problem here is that governments themselves became dependent on the insane amount of user tracking these companies do, to the point where it is against their own ‘best interests’ to stop these practices. Stuff like this happens all over the place—even the EU—under the guise of stopping terrorism and/or child pornography.

I'm actually less concerned about the government tracking me than I am about corporations or other private entities tracking me.

The parsimonious explanation is that most people do not care about this issue as much as you do, which suggests quite plainly that no such regulation is necessary. You might want to consider that your views on privacy are eccentric and unpopular and that nobody is asking for laws to "protect them" from something that doesn't bother them in the first place.

You’re kind of suggesting that most people understand this issue and still don’t care about it. I suspect that’s very much not the case.

Like with leaded gasoline, a lack of major public outcry does not imply there’s no need for government regulation.

Indeed. People cannot be said to be making a choice when they're uninformed about the relevant details.

Study after study has shown that the general public has no idea about how their data is bought and sold, beyond "Oh, yeah, some tracking is done."

Chain of custody and user visible notification would change that.

Not "data may be used by third parties" but rather "{Toyota} sold your {radio listening data} to {iHeartRadio} on {6/23/2023}."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com