cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
20,173
In the following video, John Stossel interviews Peter Schweizer who is the writer of the documentary "The Creepy Line." The documentary takes a hard look at Google and Facebook to determine if they are crossing ethical lines when they track and data mine every moment of our lives to sell the information to advertisers. The documentary suggests proactively regulating Google and Facebook in the same manner that other media corporations are regulated today, as this would be in our best interest.


They are constructing a profile of you. And that profile is real, it's detailed, it's granular and it never goes away. They don't sell you anything. They sell you.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
31,285
"The only winning move is not to play."

Except not playing doesn't even work anymore.

Both Facebook and Google purchase data from other sources (credit card records, banks, mobile networks, netflix viewing habits, etc. etc.) to add to their network even for people who are not signed up or any Google or Facebook service. And most ISP's these days attach non-removable tracking cookies to the TCP requests your computer makes on the internet these days, so even if you never log into anything, they can track who you are and what sites you visit.

Also, if your friends or family use Facebook or Google you get roped in that way. Email anyone with a Gmail account? Google has your emails. Been to a party where someone took a picture you were in and uploaded it to Facebook? Even if you don't have a Facebook account, Facebook has now started a profile on you based on face recognition data, and correlated it across its network to see who elses pictures you might show up in, and if it can figure out your name and where you live.

There is literally nothing an individual can do to avoid this shit these days no matter how hard they try. This is why we need draconian regulation to come down hard on these clowns. I don't care if it completely kills the industry. It is too important not to do.
 

Galvin

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
2,697
Far in the future, corps are going to have more power than the govt. But everyone will think the opposite
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,250
Except not playing doesn't even work anymore.

Both Facebook and Google purchase data from other sources (credit card records, banks, mobile networks, netflix viewing habits, etc. etc.) to add to their network even for people who are not signed up or any Google or Facebook service. And most ISP's these days attach non-removable tracking cookies to the TCP requests your computer makes on the internet these days, so even if you never log into anything, they can track who you are and what sites you visit.

Also, if your friends or family use Facebook or Google you get roped in that way. Email anyone with a Gmail account? Google has your emails. Been to a party where someone took a picture you were in and uploaded it to Facebook? Even if you don't have a Facebook account, Facebook has now started a profile on you based on face recognition data, and correlated it across its network to see who elses pictures you might show up in, and if it can figure out your name and where you live.

There is literally nothing an individual can do to avoid this shit these days no matter how hard they try. This is why we need draconian regulation to come down hard on these clowns. I don't care if it completely kills the industry. It is too important not to do.

Sadly unless you have hundreds of millions of dollars or even billions of dollars you are not going to shut down this cash cow of a service.

It is borderline stalking, should be illegal, and should be tightly regulated. But when a senator go's to try it then sees their search history in an email with ominous message of... "Sure would hate for THIS history to be searchable." I bet they do an about face. You will either need a group of squeaky clean politicians, OR a group of politicians willing to burn in the fires of righteous indignation in order to see something done about this. Sadly the first is as rare as Santa Clause, and the second would require term limits to see some politicians get a back bone... I don't see this happening.
 

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,838
Except not playing doesn't even work anymore.

Both Facebook and Google purchase data from other sources (credit card records, banks, mobile networks, netflix viewing habits, etc. etc.) to add to their network even for people who are not signed up or any Google or Facebook service. And most ISP's these days attach non-removable tracking cookies to the TCP requests your computer makes on the internet these days, so even if you never log into anything, they can track who you are and what sites you visit.

Also, if your friends or family use Facebook or Google you get roped in that way. Email anyone with a Gmail account? Google has your emails. Been to a party where someone took a picture you were in and uploaded it to Facebook? Even if you don't have a Facebook account, Facebook has now started a profile on you based on face recognition data, and correlated it across its network to see who elses pictures you might show up in, and if it can figure out your name and where you live.

There is literally nothing an individual can do to avoid this shit these days no matter how hard they try. This is why we need draconian regulation to come down hard on these clowns. I don't care if it completely kills the industry. It is too important not to do.

What kind of regulation do you have in mind?

I think GDPR was too little too late. These companies are enormous now, and will remain unstoppable for some time. In fact, some of them are just starting. Once they embed themselves deep enough with governments... oh wait

MS is already there. FB and google already provide valuable data to everyone: users, governments, anyone else with money. Each external party receives what they pay for. Nothing is wrong with the world
 

travisty

Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
815
Turn the hackers of the world loose on them all. Erase all of it.

You do realize there are backups of all the data in multiple locations right? It would take a surgical missle attack on hundreds, if not thousands, of data centers around the world. OC that wouldn't work because not all the data is in data centers.
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
16,742
Except not playing doesn't even work anymore.

Both Facebook and Google purchase data from other sources (credit card records, banks, mobile networks, netflix viewing habits, etc. etc.) to add to their network even for people who are not signed up or any Google or Facebook service. And most ISP's these days attach non-removable tracking cookies to the TCP requests your computer makes on the internet these days, so even if you never log into anything, they can track who you are and what sites you visit.

Also, if your friends or family use Facebook or Google you get roped in that way. Email anyone with a Gmail account? Google has your emails. Been to a party where someone took a picture you were in and uploaded it to Facebook? Even if you don't have a Facebook account, Facebook has now started a profile on you based on face recognition data, and correlated it across its network to see who elses pictures you might show up in, and if it can figure out your name and where you live.

There is literally nothing an individual can do to avoid this shit these days no matter how hard they try. This is why we need draconian regulation to come down hard on these clowns. I don't care if it completely kills the industry. It is too important not to do.

Most of the time you are off the mark. This time you aren't. As a business owner I used to say I would hate for them to.lose their business, starting about 6 or 7 years ago that changed and I realized this is the one time it would be appropriate for the government to intentionally destroy a business or segment....and they should. Alphabet and Facebook have become real public threats.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
Most of the time you are off the mark. This time you aren't. As a business owner I used to say I would hate for them to.lose their business, starting about 6 or 7 years ago that changed and I realized this is the one time it would be appropriate for the government to intentionally destroy a business or segment....and they should. Alphabet and Facebook have become real public threats.
Yeah. I don't like gov't interference in...well..pretty much anything. Though I do think something must be done here. The creepy line was crossed years ago. We've been deep into frightening territory for some time.
This has to stop.
 

blkt

Gawd
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
666
It's just two heads of the hydra, just saying. These companies have all the benefits of being separate from the gov't, so full advantage is being taken of it. There will be no crackdown because it's fully supported and encouraged.
 

Danny Dawg

Gawd
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
589
You do realize there are backups of all the data in multiple locations right? It would take a surgical missle attack on hundreds, if not thousands, of data centers around the world. OC that wouldn't work because not all the data is in data centers.


Yep, I do realize it . . . that is why I said hackers with an "s" and said the world-- one group ain't gonna cut it for a project of this size. ;)

Maybe giant magnetic comet from space might be better. :)
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
31,285
Most of the time you are off the mark. This time you aren't. As a business owner I used to say I would hate for them to.lose their business, starting about 6 or 7 years ago that changed and I realized this is the one time it would be appropriate for the government to intentionally destroy a business or segment....and they should. Alphabet and Facebook have become real public threats.

Uh, thanks I guess?

I'm sorry you don't find my typical comments of value :p
 

Croak

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 16, 2006
Messages
1,138
Far in the future, corps are going to have more power than the govt. But everyone will think the opposite

Far in the future? How about now? Lobbyists already have an inordinate amount of power, and most of that is wielded by big corporations. That's before "big data" increased and concentrated that power by orders of magnitude.
 

Kdawg

Gawd
Joined
Aug 12, 2017
Messages
1,002
i don't mind that google knows I visit pornhub

go ahead and make a profile of me, and send me more porn
 

Skull_Angel

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
1,604
Far in the future, corps are going to have more power than the govt. But everyone will think the opposite

Far in the future? This is already a thing, most just don't realize it because all the smokescreen corporations use to turn the masses on themselves.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
31,285
What kind of regulation do you have in mind?

I think GDPR was too little too late. These companies are enormous now, and will remain unstoppable for some time. In fact, some of them are just starting. Once they embed themselves deep enough with governments... oh wait

MS is already there. FB and google already provide valuable data to everyone: users, governments, anyone else with money. Each external party receives what they pay for. Nothing is wrong with the world

Funny you should ask. I have given it a lot of thought over the last couple of years (and have posted this on these forums before)

I'd go for something like this, way beyond what the GPDR does:

Here is the type of legislation I would personally support:
  1. No entity shall collect any data regarding any individual or organization without said individual or organizations explicit consent.
  2. In such cases where data needs to be collected in order to provide a requested product or service or where data is accumulated as a side effect of providing a product or service, consent must explicitly be provided by the individual or organization for whom the data pertains in order for it to be used for any other purpose.
  3. No service or product may be provided contingent upon consent to use collected data for purposes not directly tied to providing said service or product. If a service or product is provided free of charge to those who consent to share their data, it must also be provided free of cost to those who don't. No discount may be provided in exchange for consent to use data.
  4. Data preferences must always default to decline consent. sharing of data for purposes other than those explicitly tied to the product or service being provided must always be opt in. If the affected service involves a user setting permissions of who can see a profile or page, settings must always default to the most private. (I.E. display nothing to anyone.)
  5. Consent forms/pages must be constructed in such a way as to inform users of their rights under this law without fine print, without using any methods to "trick" users into providing consent.
  6. This law applies to all U.S. citizens while on U.S. soil, regardless of the physical location or nationality of the electronic service being used.
  7. Violations of this law will result in a fine no less than $5,000 per individual database entry of data collected in violation of this law, half of which will be due to the individual or organization whose data was incorrectly collected, and half of which due to the enforcing agency to offset the costs of enforcing this law.

In other words, companies may collect and use data only if they have permission to do so. Permission must always be opt in, and lack of providing permission may not be used to decline use of the service.

And yes, I fully expect something like this would be watered down and opposed by industry lobbyists. If we all get together and threaten politicians jobs it IS possible to do though.
 

c3k

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
2,241
Funny you should ask. I have given it a lot of thought over the last couple of years (and have posted this on these forums before)

I'd go for something like this, way beyond what the GPDR does:

Here is the type of legislation I would personally support:
  1. No entity shall collect any data regarding any individual or organization without said individual or organizations explicit consent.
  2. In such cases where data needs to be collected in order to provide a requested product or service or where data is accumulated as a side effect of providing a product or service, consent must explicitly be provided by the individual or organization for whom the data pertains in order for it to be used for any other purpose.
  3. No service or product may be provided contingent upon consent to use collected data for purposes not directly tied to providing said service or product. If a service or product is provided free of charge to those who consent to share their data, it must also be provided free of cost to those who don't. No discount may be provided in exchange for consent to use data.
  4. Data preferences must always default to decline consent. sharing of data for purposes other than those explicitly tied to the product or service being provided must always be opt in. If the affected service involves a user setting permissions of who can see a profile or page, settings must always default to the most private. (I.E. display nothing to anyone.)
  5. Consent forms/pages must be constructed in such a way as to inform users of their rights under this law without fine print, without using any methods to "trick" users into providing consent.
  6. This law applies to all U.S. citizens while on U.S. soil, regardless of the physical location or nationality of the electronic service being used.
  7. Violations of this law will result in a fine no less than $5,000 per individual database entry of data collected in violation of this law, half of which will be due to the individual or organization whose data was incorrectly collected, and half of which due to the enforcing agency to offset the costs of enforcing this law.

In other words, companies may collect and use data only if they have permission to do so. Permission must always be opt in, and lack of providing permission may not be used to decline use of the service.

And yes, I fully expect something like this would be watered down and opposed by industry lobbyists. If we all get together and threaten politicians jobs it IS possible to do though.

^^^
this.

I'd add the same for images.
 

skates15

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
112
Snake Plissken, you are our only hope!.....Snake Plissken, you are our only hope!

I worked in IT for one of the world's largest software publishing companies when the original browser was released and the internet was 'born' (from Arpa net to a public network). We were right on that pivot because of the nature of our products, i.e. some of the first videos (the size of post stamps) embedded onto CDs.

Anyway, we had quite a few Unix (SCO, HP) administrators who had second lives running an organization called the Cult of the Dead Cow, which was a gathering of coders and network professionals who wanted to ensure anonymity existed for users of the internet. I didn't appreciate their vision then because this was back when Coke and large corps Excluding IBM and HP didn't even have a domain name. This was before domain parking and when most of us accessed the net via telnet, archie/gopher, etc to view job boards and the like (hello 1500 baud modem with an array of dip switches).

So long story short, they were a group of pretty smart people who immediately saw the (very) future impact of the internet and privacy and a couple built some tools to stay anonymous on the net, etc which at the time I thought, meh, why build that?!?

I miss those wild west times and the punk DIY nature of everything. Perhaps that's looking at things thru rose glasses, but I don't think so.
 

chaos4u

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
349
Yeah they have crossed the line. while i cant be 100% certain i have reason to believe the android cellphones of late are now actively listening for keywords.

case in point:

was using the phone the other day to flip through youtube videos of songs my mother remembered. was not using the you tube app, but was using the youtube webpage through the slepnir browser.

the songs where some Waylon Jennings, Rodd Stewart, Kenny Rogers, Peter Gabriel, Blondie and some skrillex (just to amuse my self).

anyways the conversation drifted and she mentioned texas holdem (the card game)

it wasnt a minute, before the you tube page suggested videos went from country music songs and soft rock artists, to texas holdem tournaments and other related channels.


if this is actually the case something needs to be done about it , its just way to invasive for any good to come of this.
 

lironmiron

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2016
Messages
267
Funny you should ask. I have given it a lot of thought over the last couple of years (and have posted this on these forums before)

I'd go for something like this, way beyond what the GPDR does:

Here is the type of legislation I would personally support:
  1. No entity shall collect any data regarding any individual or organization without said individual or organizations explicit consent.
  2. In such cases where data needs to be collected in order to provide a requested product or service or where data is accumulated as a side effect of providing a product or service, consent must explicitly be provided by the individual or organization for whom the data pertains in order for it to be used for any other purpose.
  3. No service or product may be provided contingent upon consent to use collected data for purposes not directly tied to providing said service or product. If a service or product is provided free of charge to those who consent to share their data, it must also be provided free of cost to those who don't. No discount may be provided in exchange for consent to use data.
  4. Data preferences must always default to decline consent. sharing of data for purposes other than those explicitly tied to the product or service being provided must always be opt in. If the affected service involves a user setting permissions of who can see a profile or page, settings must always default to the most private. (I.E. display nothing to anyone.)
  5. Consent forms/pages must be constructed in such a way as to inform users of their rights under this law without fine print, without using any methods to "trick" users into providing consent.
  6. This law applies to all U.S. citizens while on U.S. soil, regardless of the physical location or nationality of the electronic service being used.
  7. Violations of this law will result in a fine no less than $5,000 per individual database entry of data collected in violation of this law, half of which will be due to the individual or organization whose data was incorrectly collected, and half of which due to the enforcing agency to offset the costs of enforcing this law.

In other words, companies may collect and use data only if they have permission to do so. Permission must always be opt in, and lack of providing permission may not be used to decline use of the service.

And yes, I fully expect something like this would be watered down and opposed by industry lobbyists. If we all get together and threaten politicians jobs it IS possible to do though.

That seems very effective, if the objective is to stop all data collection based advertising.
But that's not my objective, so I don't want this.
I don't want to have to pay to use google, or hotmail, or gmail, or websites.

It sounds really ominous when they say that they are not selling me anything; they are selling me. But they are not selling me. They are selling my metadata. Which I don't use, don't need, and can't monetize myself. By selling it, they can't limit any of my freedoms (unless they sell it to the government).
(They are also selling access to me, which is OK, because they also create filters to eliminate that access to me.)
For that useless metadata on my online activity I can now get valuable services and information, if I choose to.
If your regulation passed (specifically article 3), I could not get anything in exchange for my useless metadata, even if I wanted to. I would actually have to use money (which I do need and can use) to get those same services and information.

Privacy protection is necessary, but this goes so far that it goes against my personal interests so I vote no.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,507
That seems very effective, if the objective is to stop all data collection based advertising.
But that's not my objective, so I don't want this.
I don't want to have to pay to use google, or hotmail, or gmail, or websites.

It sounds really ominous when they say that they are not selling me anything; they are selling me. But they are not selling me. They are selling my metadata. Which I don't use, don't need, and can't monetize myself. By selling it, they can't limit any of my freedoms (unless they sell it to the government).
(They are also selling access to me, which is OK, because they also create filters to eliminate that access to me.)
For that useless metadata on my online activity I can now get valuable services and information, if I choose to.
If your regulation passed (specifically article 3), I could not get anything in exchange for my useless metadata, even if I wanted to. I would actually have to use money (which I do need and can use) to get those same services and information.

Privacy protection is necessary, but this goes so far that it goes against my personal interests so I vote no.

You really don't understand how this data can be used against you, you don't need a government involved to do so.

The hewn cry of 'cheap is better' is the precursor to 'we lost the war somehow'.
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
31,285
That seems very effective, if the objective is to stop all data collection based advertising.
But that's not my objective, so I don't want this.
I don't want to have to pay to use google, or hotmail, or gmail, or websites.

It sounds really ominous when they say that they are not selling me anything; they are selling me. But they are not selling me. They are selling my metadata. Which I don't use, don't need, and can't monetize myself. By selling it, they can't limit any of my freedoms (unless they sell it to the government).
(They are also selling access to me, which is OK, because they also create filters to eliminate that access to me.)
For that useless metadata on my online activity I can now get valuable services and information, if I choose to.
If your regulation passed (specifically article 3), I could not get anything in exchange for my useless metadata, even if I wanted to. I would actually have to use money (which I do need and can use) to get those same services and information.

Privacy protection is necessary, but this goes so far that it goes against my personal interests so I vote no.


I have no doubt it would reduce their profitability, but I'm not 100% sure they couldn't continue operating in some capacity. They would just have to shift from their creepy profiling model to one based more heavily on contextual ads.
 

iamjanco

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
460
In the following video, John Stossel interviews Peter Schweizer who is the writer of the documentary "The Creepy Line." The documentary takes a hard look at Google and Facebook to determine if they are crossing ethical lines when they track and data mine every moment of our lives to sell the information to advertisers. The documentary suggests proactively regulating Google and Facebook in the same manner that other media corporations are regulated today, as this would be in our best interest.


They are constructing a profile of you. And that profile is real, it's detailed, it's granular and it never goes away. They don't sell you anything. They sell you.

Won't happen, but it might be fun watching the following sort of response to their efforts:

 

skates15

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
112
That seems very effective, if the objective is to stop all data collection based advertising.
But that's not my objective, so I don't want this.
I don't want to have to pay to use google, or hotmail, or gmail, or websites.

It sounds really ominous when they say that they are not selling me anything; they are selling me. But they are not selling me. They are selling my metadata. Which I don't use, don't need, and can't monetize myself. By selling it, they can't limit any of my freedoms (unless they sell it to the government).
(They are also selling access to me, which is OK, because they also create filters to eliminate that access to me.)
For that useless metadata on my online activity I can now get valuable services and information, if I choose to.
If your regulation passed (specifically article 3), I could not get anything in exchange for my useless metadata, even if I wanted to. I would actually have to use money (which I do need and can use) to get those same services and information.

Privacy protection is necessary, but this goes so far that it goes against my personal interests so I vote no.

However you justify it, just look at what is happening in China today with their roll out of assigning a social credit score to everyone. Please take a look at this and tell me that just because they are selling data you don't use that somehow this means it won't impact you one day. In fact, the data google collects in China per Chinese government requirements is used by the government to drive their AI social credit score. If you think that can't happen here, you are wrong because it appears no one, not even the US government can stop the likes of Google and Facebook.

And just to give you a glimpse, if a Chinese citizen has a low social credit score, they are denied services, or put on lower priority rungs and in some cases denied work altogether. It's a very short hop from where they are at now, to complete subjugation of the population to the point where they will need to get approval from the government for their very livelihood and ability to receive basic human rights, such as access to food, water, etc. It will also be just as easy for the government to deny those basic rights, which would lead to death.

You may think this is conjecture or over reacting, but it's happening now. I think this very web site posted some news recently on the Chinese social credit scoring.
 

WhoMe

Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2018
Messages
827
Except not playing doesn't even work anymore
It's a little odd, I'm using my deceased father's account but on my computer, maybe that'll at least confuse them. I don't really care about myself anyway at this point, I don't anticipate being on this planet for more than a few years. Maybe for the younger generations coming up they won't care as they are so used to having most everything about them known anyway starting with all those embarrassing early childhood photos their parents posted.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
31,285
It's a little odd, I'm using my deceased father's account but on my computer, maybe that'll at least confuse them. I don't really care about myself anyway at this point, I don't anticipate being on this planet for more than a few years. Maybe for the younger generations coming up they won't care as they are so used to having most everything about them known anyway starting with all those embarrassing early childhood photos their parents posted.

That's a bit dark, man. Ever considered talking to someone?
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
31,285
By coincidence I just watched the first episode of season 3 of Black Mirror, titled "Nosedive".

Strangely relevant to this topic.
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,936
As a law abiding citizen I fail to see the problem.
They collect my data. So do all companies.
Shit, the dentist in Thailand kept a record of me when I visited them the year after. They were like "oh wait, lemme look up your name and see your history". And I only was there once and only for teeth whitening.
 

Oldmodder

Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2018
Messages
706
You think ?

I saw that creepy line pretty much within a year of both companies setting off, and the line just keep getting thicker and thicker to me.
And i really have to cut back on my use of google products, think i will make 2 new mail addresses this weekend, and then start to move my stuff over towards them.
And stop being such a whining lazy bastard, cuz really all it take is to man up.
 

cptnjarhead

Crossfit Fast Walk Champion Runnerup
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
1,669
While i do not use google as my primary search or browser... they do not put a gun to your head and make you use their products. Its still a consumer choice. Not a fan of google... but any time you here the term.. "regulate".. run.. run fast
 
Top