You can be skeptical, but what you’re missing is that those companies also have a financial interest in having their users trust them. They’d rather be making money than helping the NSA and since Google has seen (thanks to Snowden) how the NSA is hacking their stuff without a care in the world, they have changed various things about their network infrastructure and business practices to make it harder or close the holes they were using and Google are now sure as hell not going to play nice with the NSA as much as they can.
I don’t think you understand how these companies make money.
Hint: it’s by doing exactly what the NSA does.
The pope talks the talk, but until something actually changes in the Catholic church, this choice for Person of the Year is as lame as when you were chosen.
That you allow them to.
Facebook is known to make shadow profiles for people who aren’t a part of its network.
Proof please.
I don’t think you understand how these companies make money.
Au contraire, I don’t think YOU understand how these companies make money. They make money from their users. If their users leave, they make less money.
Hint: it’s by doing exactly what the NSA does.
No it’s not. As @wrybread pointed out you can’t choose to not participate with the NSA. You can do many many things to avoid the companies he listed (including not visiting them or using their services).
A simple google search of “facebook shadow profile” (without the quotes) should suffice. It’s like you’re trying to be willfully blind. But, for just two examples (of many):
Au contraire to you: you don’t even need to be a user to have your data collected. This is not voluntary. This is not limited to users. This is about mass data collection, and then using collected data to serve targeted advertising. Try working in marketing. You’ll learn a lot about how this works. Location data lets these companies serve ads that aren’t geographically irrelevant. Demographic data lets these companies serve ads that are bought by demographically similar users. Frequent-shopper data lets these companies serve ads relevant to people who buy with similar purchasing patterns. It’s all done in an anonymized fashion, but to think that these companies don’t want exactly the same data the NSA wants is just completely inaccurate.
No, you can’t choose to opt out. If someone tags you in a photo on Facebook, whether you are a user or not, this goes into Facebook’s database as part of a profile Facebook builds on you. Same thing if you are in an uploaded contact list. Think wishfully if you like, but it’s an inaccurate way to think.
From the zdnet link:
researchers also say Facebook is hoarding non-user contact information
How do you think your email address ends up on spam lists, even if you’re meticulously careful? What the researchers are saying is happening is essentially no different from someone you know having their email compromised. I’m not being wilfully blind, I’m just not going to do the legwork for your claims especially when the phrase “shadow profiles” is so loaded and misleading. They’re collecting data from users’ address books. Contact information. There are a litany of shitty free apps that do exactly this and people download them without a care by the thousands.
you don’t even need to be a user to have your data collected. This is not voluntary. This is not limited to users.
The scope of what is collectable and useful is directly related to how honest you are about yourself on the internet. I’m still waiting for an explanation of what constitutes “your data” beyond location data (which you can spoof if you care to) and contact information which, as I’ve explained, has been compromised for longer than Google has been around.
using collected data to serve targeted advertising.
Since I run AdblockPlus on every computer and mobile device I own ad servers are refused connections to my computers. Try building an advertising profile on me when they have no record of clicks or views.
Try working in marketing.
Try being less condescending. I work in marketing and, among other things, make adsense ads for a living. I still think you’re just being a paranoid nihilist about this because that’s the cool thing to do right now. How about instead of throwing up your hands and giving up you try to figure out ways to obfuscate yourself?
but to think that these companies don’t want exactly the same data the NSA wants is just completely inaccurate.
If you say so. I don’t remember any cases where Google was trying to break security protocols and sabotage encryption for illegal information collection but hey… they must be if they want exactly the same things as the NSA.
If someone tags you in a photo on Facebook, whether you are a user or not, this goes into Facebook’s database as part of a profile Facebook builds on you
What if your actual facebook profile is not under your real name? They either have a record of you that has entirely the wrong name for your picture or they have your real name and think you’re a separate entity to this other account which doesn’t have your name. And what the hell use is a picture of me anyway? What ads will they serve me since I block all of them, never click ‘like’, run no FB apps and log on to FB less than 5 times a year (This year I think I’m up to 3, as I was last year).
it’s easy to be humble when you are sitting on your elaborate golden throne
Try being a big-picture thinker here. It’s not the photo that’s a big deal. It’s the social graph. You get connected with all of the people who are also tagged in the photo, as well as the person doing the tagging. Add that to the layers of social graph data provided by your friends who upload their contact books, and they have a pretty complete picture of who you are. Further, when your fake named profile has all of the right connections, I.e., is highly correlated with the shadow profile helpfully built for Facebook by your friends, they just assume that you’re lying about your name. This isn’t paranoia. It’s applied statistics in today’s world of social networking.
The reason this gets bad is because of things like the ACLU post put up by boingboing earlier today. (Or maybe a day or two ago.)
You are thinking wayyyyyy behind the curve of technology, bud.
You think you know something that others don’t but you’re wrong. Respond directly to my arguments instead of repeating your tripe or just shut up. I’m still waiting to hear why this “social graph” matters when I don’t participate and control the pipeline between advertisers and me. I’m also still waiting to hear what you think makes you so knowledgable on this matter.
they have a pretty complete picture of who you are.
They have a list of who I’m “friends” with, my contact details (which they are not allowed to use to contact me or on-sell to people who’ll send me unsolicited email) and rough location data if the person whose photo I’m in has geotagging on. That’s not a very complete picture. Unless you care to respond to the actual things I’ve said instead of just riffing on why we’re all fucked and “companies are bad m’kay” then consider this conversation over.
Boy, that list is something
Hit a nerve, did I?
You mean like this?
That is as direct a response as one could provide.
As I replied…
Admittedly, I should have linked it. I was being lazy.
Here: http://boingboing.net/2013/12/10/life-from-the-near-future-of-l.html
To rebut: it is not a “list.” (And incidentally, by calling it a list, you out yourself as either ignorant of what it is, or knowledgeable enough to have a reason to misrepresent it as a list.) Would that it were a list. A list contains orders of magnitude less information. Think about it this way: a list’s information is a linear function of its length. What tech companies have (and the NSA wants) is a network. A network’s information increases proportionally to the square of connected users. (Metcalfe’s law: Metcalfe's law - Wikipedia )
I never said we’re all fucked. I just said that a) Edward Snowden’s actions have had little to no concrete results and b) Facebook, Twitter, et. al. don’t really want strong data privacy rights for individuals. I also never said
You’re making that up; its an ad hominem straw man.
Hit a nerve, did I?
No, you’re just arguing like an idiot while behaving like you have some inside knowledge on the subject. To an ill-informed reader your confidence might be misconstrued with authority or being actually informed on a subject.
You mean like this?
No I mean like all the other posts I made which you’ve merely ignored and instead of addressing what I’ve said you’ve re-hashed your original commentary 6 times, as if you think it’s such a factual, revolutionary, insightful concept that I must simply not be able to grasp it the first time. I understand entirely what you’re saying but I think you’re wrong.
That is as direct a response as one could provide.
No, those are your contentions and are unsupported by any explanation or proof. You presume the people attached to my facebook page are the same as the ones that I spend most of my time with, which is vital for your argument to hold water. It’s your conjecture and, judging by your mental fortitude to this point, you’ll forgive me for doubting it.
The reason this gets bad is because of things like the ACLU post put up by boingboing earlier today. (Or maybe a day or two ago.)
I know the article to which you were referring but the ideas laid out in that post would simply be impossible using the data that facebook gets on me, irrespective of who shares what.
While we’re here pretending to answer question, why don’t you answer the one you even copied in your reply: I’m also still waiting to hear what you think makes you so knowledgable on this matter.
You smugly tell me to work in marketing, which I do, and then don’t say a word about whatever qualifications you think you have that make you knowledgable on this.
while these actors [tech companies] are saying one thing publicly, they hoover up all available data–just like the NSA–at the same time.
That’s pretty close to “companies are bad m’kay”. Your contention that Edward Snowden’s actions have had little to no concrete results also illustrates your entire ignorance on the subject. When google found out that the NSA was snooping on their internal server communications, because they weren’t being encrypted inside the company network, they moved to now encrypt all internal communications.
You might want to look up ad-hominem as well… an ad-hominem attack would be like “I don’t think you understand…” or “trying to be willfully blind” or “Try being a big-picture thinker here” or “You are thinking wayyyyyy behind the curve of technology” or “you out yourself as either ignorant of what it is, or knowledgeable enough to have a reason to misrepresent”. Sound familliar?
Consider this discussion over now.
Not to beat this dead horse too hard, but:
My response was not that I expect nothing to change, merely that [Google, Facebook, etc] are saying one thing publicly, they hoover up all available data--just like the NSA–at the same time.
That’s the thing, there’s vastly more data available to the NSA than to even the Googles and Facebooks of the world. The NSA doesn’t only know your phone number, they know what you’re saying on the phone. Even if you want to argue that Google is snooping on Gmail users, even you’d have to admit that using Gmail isn’t obligatory. And even if Facebook has a “shadow profile” on you, the amount of data in it is absolutely nothing compared to what the NSA does or could potentially know about you.
And very importantly, the Googles and Facebooks can be shamed, regulated or boycotted into respecting our privacy, whereas we had absolutely no recourse against the NSA, mostly since the lying bastards would deny everything. Now, thanks to Snowden, that defense is gone, and their only remaining defense is that they do it for our own good. But that’s at least a stated argument which we can rebut, and rebut it we are, and things are changing every day because of it, all over the world.
In all fairness, he’s doing okay on the whole throne thing.
1 Like
I suppose he could have opted for a folding chair…
A folding chair? Luxury!
He should have to sit on a rolled up newspaper in a septic tank.
once again, raining men. everyone must be so proud.
I think I’m going to like this Pope a lot more that those prior, but it’s too early to tell. Snowden is the obvious choice for me. I think the Time bosses lacked the courage to choose him.
I bet it’s canny hard to stay humble seated on a golden throne. I know I’d just be childishly excited.
