TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Privacy, Government, Surveillance, and You.

Go To

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#4576: Aug 17th 2021 at 8:41:08 AM

You going on about "police states" doesn't advance the conversation in any way, nor does me opining about privacy advocates being mainly anarchists, incels, and preppers. So maybe we can agree not to strawman each other and move on.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 17th 2021 at 11:42:58 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#4577: Aug 17th 2021 at 4:55:56 PM

How about "An inherent right to privacy" unless and until the government can show a compelling interest in violating it (like they did for hundreds of years). This is an argument in favor of legal restrictions on the invasion of privacy by both government and business.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#4578: Sep 16th 2021 at 2:31:42 PM

Potentially important developments in the world of online privacy:

The Battle for Digital Privacy Is Reshaping the Internet: "As Apple and Google enact privacy changes, businesses are grappling with the fallout, Madison Avenue is fighting back and Facebook has cried foul."

Since the 1990's, online content has largely been supported by advertising, first via cookies, then through smartphone apps. But resistance has been building:

"But distrust of these practices began building. In 2018, Facebook became embroiled in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where people’s Facebook data was improperly harvested without their consent. That same year, European regulators enacted the General Data Protection Regulation, laws to safeguard people’s information. In 2019, Google and Facebook agreed to pay record fines to the Federal Trade Commission to settle allegations of privacy violations."

The tech giants have been responding in different ways:

"In Silicon Valley, Apple reconsidered its advertising approach. In 2017, Craig Federighi, Apple’s head of software engineering, announced that the Safari web browser would block cookies from following people from site to site.

“It kind of feels like you’re being tracked, and that’s because you are,” Mr. Federighi said. “No longer.”

Last year, Apple announced the pop-up window in iPhone apps that asks people if they want to be followed for marketing purposes. If the user says no, the app must stop monitoring and sharing data with third parties...

...Facebook is now developing ways to target people with ads using insights gathered on their devices, without allowing personal data to be shared with third parties. If people who click on ads for deodorant also buy sneakers, Facebook can share that pattern with advertisers so they can show sneaker ads to that group. That would be less intrusive than sharing personal information like email addresses with advertisers...

...But Google also said it would not disable cookies until it had a different way for marketers to keep serving people targeted ads. In March, the company tried a method that uses its data troves to place people into groups based on their interests, so marketers can aim ads at those cohorts rather than at individuals. The approach is known as Federated Learning of Cohorts, or FLOC."

But developments are still ongoing. Check the article for details.

    Article 
Apple introduced a pop-up window for iPhones in April that asks people for their permission to be tracked by different apps.

Google recently outlined plans to disable a tracking technology in its Chrome web browser.

And Facebook said last month that hundreds of its engineers were working on a new method of showing ads without relying on people’s personal data. The developments may seem like technical tinkering, but they were connected to something bigger: an intensifying battle over the future of the internet. The struggle has entangled tech titans, upended Madison Avenue and disrupted small businesses. And it heralds a profound shift in how people’s personal information may be used online, with sweeping implications for the ways that businesses make money digitally.

At the center of the tussle is what has been the internet’s lifeblood: advertising. More than 20 years ago, the internet drove an upheaval in the advertising industry. It eviscerated newspapers and magazines that had relied on selling classified and print ads, and threatened to dethrone television advertising as the prime way for marketers to reach large audiences.

Instead, brands splashed their ads across websites, with their promotions often tailored to people’s specific interests. Those digital ads powered the growth of Facebook, Google and Twitter, which offered their search and social networking services to people without charge. But in exchange, people were tracked from site to site by technologies such as “cookies,” and their personal data was used to target them with relevant marketing.

Now that system, which ballooned into a $350 billion digital ad industry, is being dismantled. Driven by online privacy fears, Apple and Google have started revamping the rules around online data collection. Apple, citing the mantra of privacy, has rolled out tools that block marketers from tracking people. Google, which depends on digital ads, is trying to have it both ways by reinventing the system so it can continue aiming ads at people without exploiting access to their personal data.

If personal information is no longer the currency that people give for online content and services, something else must take its place. Media publishers, app makers and e-commerce shops are now exploring different paths to surviving a privacy-conscious internet, in some cases overturning their business models. Many are choosing to make people pay for what they get online by levying subscription fees and other charges instead of using their personal data. Jeff Green, the chief executive of the Trade Desk, an ad-technology company in Ventura, Calif., that works with major ad agencies, said the behind-the-scenes fight was fundamental to the nature of the web.

“The internet is answering a question that it’s been wrestling with for decades, which is: How is the internet going to pay for itself?” he said. The fallout may hurt brands that relied on targeted ads to get people to buy their goods. It may also initially hurt tech giants like Facebook — but not for long. Instead, businesses that can no longer track people but still need to advertise are likely to spend more with the largest tech platforms, which still have the most data on consumers.

David Cohen, chief executive of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, a trade group, said the changes would continue to “drive money and attention to Google, Facebook, Twitter.”

The shifts are complicated by Google’s and Apple’s opposing views on how much ad tracking should be dialed back. Apple wants its customers, who pay a premium for its iPhones, to have the right to block tracking entirely. But Google executives have suggested that Apple has turned privacy into a privilege for those who can afford its products.

For many people, that means the internet may start looking different depending on the products they use. On Apple gadgets, ads may be only somewhat relevant to a person’s interests, compared with highly targeted promotions inside Google’s web. Website creators may eventually choose sides, so some sites that work well in Google’s browser might not even load in Apple’s browser, said Brendan Eich, a founder of Brave, the private web browser.

“It will be a tale of two internets,” he said.

Businesses that do not keep up with the changes risk getting run over. Increasingly, media publishers and even apps that show the weather are charging subscription fees, in the same way that Netflix levies a monthly fee for video streaming. Some e-commerce sites are considering raising product prices to keep their revenues up.

Consider Seven Sisters Scones, a mail-order pastry shop in Johns Creek, Ga., which relies on Facebook ads to promote its items. Nate Martin, who leads the bakery’s digital marketing, said that after Apple blocked some ad tracking, its digital marketing campaigns on Facebook became less effective. Because Facebook could no longer get as much data on which customers like baked goods, it was harder for the store to find interested buyers online.

“Everything came to a screeching halt,” Mr. Martin said. In June, the bakery’s revenue dropped to $16,000 from $40,000 in May.

Sales have since remained flat, he said. To offset the declines, Seven Sisters Scones has discussed increasing prices on sampler boxes to $36 from $29.

Apple declined to comment, but its executives have said advertisers will adapt. Google said it was working on an approach that would protect people’s data but also let advertisers continue targeting users with ads.

Since the 1990s, much of the web has been rooted in digital advertising. In that decade, a piece of code planted in web browsers — the “cookie” — began tracking people’s browsing activities from site to site. Marketers used the information to aim ads at individuals, so someone interested in makeup or bicycles saw ads about those topics and products.

After the iPhone and Android app stores were introduced in 2008, advertisers also collected data about what people did inside apps by planting invisible trackers. That information was linked with cookie data and shared with data brokers for even more specific ad targeting.

The result was a vast advertising ecosystem that underpinned free websites and online services. Sites and apps like Buzz Feed and Tik Tok flourished using this model. Even e-commerce sites rely partly on advertising to expand their businesses.

But distrust of these practices began building. In 2018, Facebook became embroiled in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where people’s Facebook data was improperly harvested without their consent. That same year, European regulators enacted the General Data Protection Regulation, laws to safeguard people’s information. In 2019, Google and Facebook agreed to pay record fines to the Federal Trade Commission to settle allegations of privacy violations.

In Silicon Valley, Apple reconsidered its advertising approach. In 2017, Craig Federighi, Apple’s head of software engineering, announced that the Safari web browser would block cookies from following people from site to site. “It kind of feels like you’re being tracked, and that’s because you are,” Mr. Federighi said. “No longer.”

Last year, Apple announced the pop-up window in iPhone apps that asks people if they want to be followed for marketing purposes. If the user says no, the app must stop monitoring and sharing data with third parties.

That prompted an outcry from Facebook, which was one of the apps affected. In December, the social network took out full-page newspaper ads declaring that it was “standing up to Apple” on behalf of small businesses that would get hurt once their ads could no longer find specific audiences.

“The situation is going to be challenging for them to navigate,” Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, said.

Facebook is now developing ways to target people with ads using insights gathered on their devices, without allowing personal data to be shared with third parties. If people who click on ads for deodorant also buy sneakers, Facebook can share that pattern with advertisers so they can show sneaker ads to that group. That would be less intrusive than sharing personal information like email addresses with advertisers.

“We support giving people more control over how their data is used, but Apple’s far-reaching changes occurred without input from the industry and those who are most impacted,” a Facebook spokesman said.

Since Apple released the pop-up window, more than 80 percent of iPhone users have opted out of tracking worldwide, according to ad tech firms. Last month, Peter Farago, an executive at Flurry, a mobile analytics firm owned by Verizon Media, published a post on Linked In calling the “time of death” for ad tracking on iPhones.

At Google, Sundar Pichai, the chief executive, and his lieutenants began discussing in 2019 how to provide more privacy without killing the company’s $135 billion online ad business. In studies, Google researchers found that the cookie eroded people’s trust. Google said its Chrome and ad teams concluded that the Chrome web browser should stop supporting cookies.

But Google also said it would not disable cookies until it had a different way for marketers to keep serving people targeted ads. In March, the company tried a method that uses its data troves to place people into groups based on their interests, so marketers can aim ads at those cohorts rather than at individuals. The approach is known as Federated Learning of Cohorts, or FLOC. Plans remain in flux. Google will not block trackers in Chrome until 2023. Even so, advertisers said they were alarmed.

In an article this year, Sheri Bachstein, the head of IBM Watson Advertising, warned that the privacy shifts meant that relying solely on advertising for revenue was at risk. Businesses must adapt, she said, including by charging subscription fees and using artificial intelligence to help serve ads.

“The big tech companies have put a clock on us,” she said in an interview.

I think that these are positive developments. It demonstrates that pro-privacy public outcry against invasive targeting can cause changes in the industry.

I never thought I would say it, but perhaps I should consider switching to Apple products for the privacy protections.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#4579: Sep 16th 2021 at 2:43:23 PM

Me, I wonder at which point we begin to run up against the "who pays for this?" factor.

Hosting websites isn't free and taxes (for government run websites and the like) and donations (think Wikipedia) only work for some of them. So it's either paywalls which many people don't want to pay for, advertisements with numerous issues including privacy and user data with biggish privacy issues.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#4580: Sep 16th 2021 at 3:07:22 PM

As the saying goes: you pay with your eyeballs or with your wallet.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#4581: Sep 16th 2021 at 3:54:26 PM

Apple makes money off of hardware, so that's a factor. Google and Facebook seem to be moving toward aggregating data at a group level. If they think they can make money off of that, more power to them.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#4582: Sep 17th 2021 at 6:49:12 AM

Ars Technica: Telegram emerges as new dark web for cyber criminals

I've said all along that the relentless demand for privacy serves criminals and others with ill intent far more than it does the general public. Telegram is facing scrutiny as its combination of anonymity and lax moderation allows cybercriminals to thrive on its platform.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#4583: Sep 17th 2021 at 7:13:17 AM

Ethical people only need to encrypt their data because they can't trust their governments to protect their privacy. Were that level of trust there, apps like Telegram could be dispensed with.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#4584: Sep 17th 2021 at 7:14:18 AM

Well, this comes back to the Digital Wild West theory, wherein everyone is basically on their own to figure out privacy and security. It's not sustainable indefinitely: something has to give. The economic costs of cyber crime alone are increasing exponentially.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 17th 2021 at 10:14:43 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#4585: Sep 17th 2021 at 7:22:14 AM

Well, the first step would be the government expressing some sort of interest in protecting it's citizens' online privacy. The US government, to take one example completely at random, has a spotty record at best, and a net negative one at worst (as opposed to the European Union, which has actually passed real laws).

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#4586: Sep 17th 2021 at 7:23:24 AM

Where I continue to disagree with you is that I don't regard my government as the most important threat to my privacy. But I do agree that it is not doing enough to combat cyber crime.

The EU is doing a lot more, I'll admit, but some of its decisions are sketchy. For example, requiring websites to delete user information on request doesn't make sense in all contexts. Fortunately, the rules are written in such a way that sites like TV Tropes should be able to claim an exemption, but Wikipedia has been in a bit of a pickle over them.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 17th 2021 at 10:25:46 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#4587: Sep 17th 2021 at 7:33:31 AM

Laws can be refined over time—that's what policy experts are for. But the law has to exist before it can be improved, so I would say the EU is ahead of us in that regard.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#4589: Oct 2nd 2021 at 6:18:26 AM

Ars Technica: WhatsApp “end-to-end encrypted” messages aren’t that private after all

The reason? Recipients can flag messages for moderation, at which point they are sent to a queue for human and AI review. Facebook contracts for this service. The WhatsApp service also logs metadata, such as who messaged whom and when, that can be used very effectively by law enforcement.

As always, "end-to-end encryption" only works to the extent that the endpoints are themselves secure.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#4590: Oct 2nd 2021 at 6:40:21 AM

As the top comment says, and as my first response was: you can also do that just by copying the message. Or screenshotting it.

"Message isn't private once one of the people decides to share it with someone else": dictionary definitions in action.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#4592: Oct 2nd 2021 at 7:44:48 PM

What do "privacy nuts" have to do with it? I'm not sure this counts as a failure at all, but regardless of that, here are Six messaging services that promise end to end encryption and stronger privacy.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#4593: Oct 4th 2021 at 4:36:58 AM

The basic failing of privacy is that the endpoints are always the least secure part of the transmission. No matter how secure the service is, the person you send the message to has to be able to read it unencrypted, and they can do whatever they want with that.

Of course, my concern with privacy apps isn't that part, but that they are primarily adopted by criminals, sort of like how an estimated 80 percent of cryptocurrency transactions are in service of crime of some sort.

Edited by Fighteer on Oct 4th 2021 at 7:38:46 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#4594: Oct 4th 2021 at 9:14:28 AM

That's like saying the basic failure of marriage is that you have to trust your partner. Yes, you have to trust the person you are sending your message to, that's basic to all human communication.

Have you any data to back up your assertion that privacy apps are primarily adopted by criminals? If you are including browser extensions, I really don't think that's true. And since most of those extensions used to be stand alone apps, I doubt it's true in that case either \.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#4595: Oct 4th 2021 at 6:55:02 PM

So y'all know that Facebook's going through some shit now.

Well, here's some more shit.

Newsweek: 1.5 Billion Facebook Users' Personal Information Allegedly Posted for Sale

Personal information from roughly 1.5 billion worldwide Facebook users was allegedly put up for sale following a recent leak.

A member of a known forum for hackers claimed to be in possession of the information in late September and offered to sell it in chunks to others on the forum, according to a report from Privacy Affairs. One user claimed to have gotten a quote of $5,000 for the information of 1 million users.

The user allegedly in possession of the leaked information claimed that it included the following for each Facebook account: name, email address, location, gender, phone number and user ID.

The whole thing could be a scam though.

Samples shared by the user appear to have been authentic, according to Privacy Affairs. The outlet also checked the information against previous leaks and found that alleged info was a legitimately new leak, not old data being resold. The hacker claimed to be in charge of a four-year-old data scraping operation with 18,000 clients.

However, several users on the forum reported that they had not received anything after sending money to the original poster. This could indicate that the alleged leak was, in fact, a scam, or that the alleged holder of the data was running late.

Edited by M84 on Oct 4th 2021 at 9:56:12 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#4596: Oct 4th 2021 at 7:17:42 PM

Interesting, the exact same thing happened with Linked In last week. The site was scraped and hundreds of millions of public profile data gathered and sold.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#4597: Oct 4th 2021 at 7:25:08 PM

I'm unclear what these sites are supposed to do about scraping of public-facing data.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#4598: Oct 4th 2021 at 7:41:22 PM

Limit how many pages you can access per minute?

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#4599: Oct 4th 2021 at 7:42:25 PM

When tens of thousands of bots are simulating real user behavior? We've grown far beyond someone setting up a single machine to do things like that.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#4600: Oct 4th 2021 at 8:12:21 PM

Oh right, so this is done with those botnets.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times

Total posts: 4,776
Top