6 ms·

Is this it? This is our brave new world of pervasive data gathering, social network analysis, and the dying gasp of any shred of privacy? This is the future we'

by novum 13y ago

Is this it? This is our brave new world of pervasive data gathering, social network analysis, and the dying gasp of any shred of privacy? This is the future we've built for ourselves? I haven't had a facebook account for 3 years. I'm certain FB has a shadow profile for me today and there's nothing I can do about it. My friends don't understand (or don't care about) the implications of everything they do online being tracked, in minute detail, and stored indefinitely. Real-time indefinite mass surveillance is a fact and yet failed to galvanize the public into action. What can I do other than allow the cynicism to take hold and become a recluse? I earn my livelihood from technology. I want to believe technology has great potential for medicine, exploration, and improving the human condition. The cognitive dissonance has to give somewhere.

pasiaj 13y ago
If 'has your contact info in a database' amounts to a "Shadow Profile", there are quite many shadow profiles of you laying around. It probably has relations to all the people on Facebook who have your contact info added, but overall this is much ado about nothing.
- novum 13y ago
  By what measure do you assess "quite many shadow profiles of you laying around" to be "much ado about nothing"? Isn't that exactly the problem? What of one -- and one is all it takes -- company, disaffected employee, or black hat desiring to analyze, filter, or publicize data about me, even in aggregate? What of user preference or control? What of the right to be left alone?
- mtarnovan 13y ago
  But how much can others fill in the "blanks" of your shadow profile compared to FB ?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- kintamanimatt 13y ago
  Facebook has nothing to do medicine, exploration, or improving the human condition. Facebook isn't a business created to fund biomedical research or somehow make the world a better place, Facebook exists to collect personal data and serve advertising.
  - hyperplane 13y ago
    According to Facebook[1], they exist to "give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected." I think it is arguable that Facebook has improved the human condition based upon anecdotal evidence of it mostly being positively regarded in our culture for exactly the mission statement above. Whether we personally agree or disagree with this, right now, most of the world's population still seems to believe that Facebook is a net positive, and I would argue that even if people turned away from Facebook, it would still be positively regarded with some nostalgia by the majority of its members after its obsolescence. Perhaps Facebook has strayed from that optimistic (and potentially naïve) goal, but in its infancy it didn't even have advertising, then had shitty banner ads, then had a pretty bad ad product, etc. Now they have a decent ad product. That is not very indicative of some type of pervasive corporate culture that exists to serve advertising. [1] https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info
    - a3n 13y ago
      > According to Facebook[1], they exist to "give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected." Yup, and the Morlocks feed the Eloi. They might even post signs saying so, if only the Eloi could still read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine
    - brymaster 13y ago
      Nope, Facebook is still in business to serve advertising. Their very long history of privacy snafus, especially Beacon, is quite indicative of this. Oh, and that part where they're a publicly traded company and 100% of their revenue comes from ads, user data being their product.
kintamanimatt 13y ago
We work with technology and love to see cool new things developed and released in the world, but like anything, it can be used for evil too. There shouldn't be any cognitive dissonance and it's good that you're cognizant of the possible downsides. I wish more people would think of the possible negatives before they lay finger to keyboard and start coding. What can you do? Keep talking about it; don't give up. Most people have to be exposed to an idea many, many times, and also see social proof (i.e. their peers accepting the idea too) before they will accept it. This is why we as entrepreneurs love early adopters because they give us the social proof we need to pull new, less adventurous customers on board. What else can you do? Don't code bad shit and compete against those that do. Make the privacy destroyers lose.
- novum 13y ago
  I admire your positivity. However, is it not the case that this: Don't code bad shit and compete against those that do. Make the privacy destroyers lose. ...has been disproved by facebook? They are (one of the larger) privacy destroyers. They are not -- at present -- losing.
  - kintamanimatt 13y ago
    Facebook made MySpace lose. MySpace made Friendster lose. Facebook isn't invincible, it's just that nobody has created the next Facebook. People are growing tired of Facebook and it's becoming passe. People are leaving and new generations are failing to sign up because it's not longer cool. Teenagers give a shit about Tumblr, Instagram, and Twitter, and less about Facebook. A growing number of people are getting tired of it and becoming less active or leaving. It's becoming cool to deactivate your Facebook account, and that's the most hazardous thing to Facebook's longevity. All brands die. Facebook isn't immune from this law.
    - novum 13y ago
      You are correct. Facebook was not the first social network and they will not be the last. I guess I'm more concerned about the precedent they've set, in terms of (mis)handling user data, and how other companies seem to be falling over themselves to add 'social' features. Very few companies begin with a commitment to user privacy. My fear is that FB has done some kind of irreversible damage, even if only as measured in terms of the attitudes other companies are adopting towards privacy.
otakucode 13y ago
> tracked, in minute detail, and stored indefinitely. Don't forget being analyzed and profiled. When I get arrested for conducting my life in a way that is more than 2 standard deviations outside the norm by some metric the government has deemed critical, it's on all your heads!
- RexRollman 13y ago
  Worse, you'll can labeled a security concern just because you express an opinion that differs from the government's POV. Just look at the surveillance the government does to peaceful protesters.
AJ007 13y ago
I wonder if FB also has deep facial recognition data sets for these shadow profiles?
- bennyg 13y ago
  How many people have a picture with their contact information for friends and family? My guess is a metric fuckton. Since they're allowed to access "contact information" then a few cross references of a different picture of you along with your name and phone number should be more than enough to add facial recognition data to your shadow profile. They can already guess who is in a picture of your friends. Why would this be any different?
  - RougeFemme 13y ago
    And add in the number of times you're tagged - often against your will - in others' photos. . .
hyperplane 13y ago
You think your cognitive dissonance is bad? You're heaps ahead of where the people that "don't care" are. I try to evangelize privacy to friends and family all the time, and 60-80% of the time I am written off or ignored. Most people don't seem to want to accept the fact that something terrible may ever happen to them, and will gladly drown out the pain of dealing with a potential future threat to prolong happiness in the short-term. How's that for dealing with cognitive dissonance? After all, the easiest way to remove the dissonance is to render the counterargument false without resorting to reason that might shake your emotional foundations. As for your own cognitive dissonance: I don't believe that you are death, destroyer of worlds, by default just because you have the ability to build technology, no more so than a man with the capacity to develop firearms is by default a murderer. Improve the human condition, engineer systems toward that goal, and just pay more attention to the question of "what would somebody evil possibly use this product for?" and try to mitigate against the evil bits. If you are terrified of ever having unintentionally built a weapon, then it is best not to be an engineer at all, as nearly every tool can be weaponized in the right environment with some degree of effectiveness by someone that means harm.
- RougeFemme 13y ago
  and then there are those engineers who have intentionally built weapons, hoping that they would be only be used defensively, but knowing that's likely not the case. . .
- Jupe 13y ago
  I have the same issue with the 60-80% - trying to convince others of the deep evil that can (and when there's a bad quarter probably will) be done. I generally let people know how absolutely permanent this stuff really is... More permanent than a tattoo. The information people put on facebook will, like it or not, outlive your grand kids.

by novum 13y ago

pasiaj 13y ago

If 'has your contact info in a database' amounts to a "Shadow Profile", there are quite many shadow profiles of you laying around. It probably has relations to all the people on Facebook who have your contact info added, but overall this is much ado about nothing.

novum 13y ago
By what measure do you assess "quite many shadow profiles of you laying around" to be "much ado about nothing"? Isn't that exactly the problem? What of one -- and one is all it takes -- company, disaffected employee, or black hat desiring to analyze, filter, or publicize data about me, even in aggregate? What of user preference or control? What of the right to be left alone?
mtarnovan 13y ago
But how much can others fill in the "blanks" of your shadow profile compared to FB ?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

kintamanimatt 13y ago
Facebook has nothing to do medicine, exploration, or improving the human condition. Facebook isn't a business created to fund biomedical research or somehow make the world a better place, Facebook exists to collect personal data and serve advertising.
- hyperplane 13y ago
  According to Facebook[1], they exist to "give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected." I think it is arguable that Facebook has improved the human condition based upon anecdotal evidence of it mostly being positively regarded in our culture for exactly the mission statement above. Whether we personally agree or disagree with this, right now, most of the world's population still seems to believe that Facebook is a net positive, and I would argue that even if people turned away from Facebook, it would still be positively regarded with some nostalgia by the majority of its members after its obsolescence. Perhaps Facebook has strayed from that optimistic (and potentially naïve) goal, but in its infancy it didn't even have advertising, then had shitty banner ads, then had a pretty bad ad product, etc. Now they have a decent ad product. That is not very indicative of some type of pervasive corporate culture that exists to serve advertising. [1] https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info
  - a3n 13y ago
    > According to Facebook[1], they exist to "give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected." Yup, and the Morlocks feed the Eloi. They might even post signs saying so, if only the Eloi could still read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine
  - brymaster 13y ago
    Nope, Facebook is still in business to serve advertising. Their very long history of privacy snafus, especially Beacon, is quite indicative of this. Oh, and that part where they're a publicly traded company and 100% of their revenue comes from ads, user data being their product.

kintamanimatt 13y ago

We work with technology and love to see cool new things developed and released in the world, but like anything, it can be used for evil too. There shouldn't be any cognitive dissonance and it's good that you're cognizant of the possible downsides. I wish more people would think of the possible negatives before they lay finger to keyboard and start coding. What can you do? Keep talking about it; don't give up. Most people have to be exposed to an idea many, many times, and also see social proof (i.e. their peers accepting the idea too) before they will accept it. This is why we as entrepreneurs love early adopters because they give us the social proof we need to pull new, less adventurous customers on board. What else can you do? Don't code bad shit and compete against those that do. Make the privacy destroyers lose.

novum 13y ago
I admire your positivity. However, is it not the case that this: Don't code bad shit and compete against those that do. Make the privacy destroyers lose. ...has been disproved by facebook? They are (one of the larger) privacy destroyers. They are not -- at present -- losing.
- kintamanimatt 13y ago
  Facebook made MySpace lose. MySpace made Friendster lose. Facebook isn't invincible, it's just that nobody has created the next Facebook. People are growing tired of Facebook and it's becoming passe. People are leaving and new generations are failing to sign up because it's not longer cool. Teenagers give a shit about Tumblr, Instagram, and Twitter, and less about Facebook. A growing number of people are getting tired of it and becoming less active or leaving. It's becoming cool to deactivate your Facebook account, and that's the most hazardous thing to Facebook's longevity. All brands die. Facebook isn't immune from this law.
  - novum 13y ago
    You are correct. Facebook was not the first social network and they will not be the last. I guess I'm more concerned about the precedent they've set, in terms of (mis)handling user data, and how other companies seem to be falling over themselves to add 'social' features. Very few companies begin with a commitment to user privacy. My fear is that FB has done some kind of irreversible damage, even if only as measured in terms of the attitudes other companies are adopting towards privacy.

otakucode 13y ago

> tracked, in minute detail, and stored indefinitely. Don't forget being analyzed and profiled. When I get arrested for conducting my life in a way that is more than 2 standard deviations outside the norm by some metric the government has deemed critical, it's on all your heads!

RexRollman 13y ago
Worse, you'll can labeled a security concern just because you express an opinion that differs from the government's POV. Just look at the surveillance the government does to peaceful protesters.

AJ007 13y ago

I wonder if FB also has deep facial recognition data sets for these shadow profiles?

bennyg 13y ago
How many people have a picture with their contact information for friends and family? My guess is a metric fuckton. Since they're allowed to access "contact information" then a few cross references of a different picture of you along with your name and phone number should be more than enough to add facial recognition data to your shadow profile. They can already guess who is in a picture of your friends. Why would this be any different?
- RougeFemme 13y ago
  And add in the number of times you're tagged - often against your will - in others' photos. . .

hyperplane 13y ago

You think your cognitive dissonance is bad? You're heaps ahead of where the people that "don't care" are. I try to evangelize privacy to friends and family all the time, and 60-80% of the time I am written off or ignored. Most people don't seem to want to accept the fact that something terrible may ever happen to them, and will gladly drown out the pain of dealing with a potential future threat to prolong happiness in the short-term. How's that for dealing with cognitive dissonance? After all, the easiest way to remove the dissonance is to render the counterargument false without resorting to reason that might shake your emotional foundations. As for your own cognitive dissonance: I don't believe that you are death, destroyer of worlds, by default just because you have the ability to build technology, no more so than a man with the capacity to develop firearms is by default a murderer. Improve the human condition, engineer systems toward that goal, and just pay more attention to the question of "what would somebody evil possibly use this product for?" and try to mitigate against the evil bits. If you are terrified of ever having unintentionally built a weapon, then it is best not to be an engineer at all, as nearly every tool can be weaponized in the right environment with some degree of effectiveness by someone that means harm.

RougeFemme 13y ago
and then there are those engineers who have intentionally built weapons, hoping that they would be only be used defensively, but knowing that's likely not the case. . .
Jupe 13y ago
I have the same issue with the 60-80% - trying to convince others of the deep evil that can (and when there's a bad quarter probably will) be done. I generally let people know how absolutely permanent this stuff really is... More permanent than a tattoo. The information people put on facebook will, like it or not, outlive your grand kids.