Privacy

[WizardStan]

it's just that consumers brought it on themselves

This is where we disagree.  It is the governments and corporations, the people in charge of those, that made the decision to start spying on people.  They are 100% culpable for their actions, just like the criminal that walks out with my TV is 100% responsible for their own actions: just because I didn't lock my door doesn't make it my fault, I didn't make them commit the crime, there was no mind control going on, it isn't my fault that they chose to take advantage of me.


The leaders could have chosen to not spy on people, instead they actively made the decision to start collecting data about everyone.  Neither myself nor anyone else is responsible for the actions of another person.  The victim is never responsible for the actions of their assailant.

 

[thatgui]

This is where we disagree.  It is the governments and corporations, the people in charge of those, that made the decision to start spying on people.  They are 100% culpable for their actions, just like the criminal that walks out with my TV is 100% responsible for their own actions: just because I didn't lock my door doesn't make it my fault, I didn't make them commit the crime, there was no mind control going on, it isn't my fault that they chose to take advantage of me.


The leaders could have chosen to not spy on people, instead they actively made the decision to start collecting data about everyone.  Neither myself nor anyone else is responsible for the actions of another person.  The victim is never responsible for the actions of their assailant.

Huh, so all the tracking facebook, Google, MS, etc. are doing nowadays has nothing to do with analyzing people so they can either sell that data or to use that in other products and services to make money, but was all "invented" because they did know that governments would some day want to forcefully gain access to that data thus hurting peoples trust in those companies ? For what reason ?
 


Edit: sorry, missed the vital "..and corporations" part of your post


Edit #2: I am with xno..., its consumers that accepted these business models in the beginning (its free, why not (?)) - so if the majority of consumers accepts a certain business strategy, why should a company not build upon that ?

 

[WizardStan]

Sorry, can you clarify?  I wasn't trying to give that impression, I think you misunderstood.  Can you point out what I said that makes you think that's what I was trying to say so I can fix it?


I wasn't trying to say that everything was some big government conspiracy.  In fact, that'd be the exact opposite of what I was saying, that everyone is responsible for their own choices.


It isn't the users fault that Facebook has been collecting their private data for years, that is a decision that Facebook officials made.  It is the user's decision on what to post, but it was Facebook that decided to keep it recorded forever and start collecting meta-data.


When the government came along and demands data, it was Facebook's choice to hand it over: they could have fought, just like Google did, but they chose not to.  Government officials made the decision to ask for the data, Facebook made the decision to hand it over, and the user is not, in any way shape or form, responsible for either of these decisions.  It is not the users fault that they're being abused, it is the fault of the corporation that chose to collect and hand over the data, and of the government that chose to request and misuse that data.

 

[___]

Yes, this is what I am saying: Of course government agencies are making laws and decisions to keep a close eye on their population. Of course they are going to spy on them if they can. This is wrong and terrible but does not surprise me. I was of the opinion that all governments are oppressive before all that. The surprising thing to me is that people are willingly buying "bugged" devices, knowing full well that they are giving out all their data and even voluntarily publish their opinions, photos et cetera on the open internet!!! They know full well that their government will listen in on them, so why the F are they buying a smart phone to carry around, without even attempting to get rid of the spyware?


EDIT: This was written before your clarification WizardStan! I agree with you on your last post. I am only saying, it's not the corporation alone, but the people enabling them aswell. This is a more complex problem where trying to find one party to blame is clearly an option.

 

[thatgui]

Sorry, can you clarify?  I wasn't trying to give that impression, I think you misunderstood.  Can you point out what I said that makes you think that's what I was trying to say so I can fix it?

Sorry, did miss a vital part of your post, edited that (and it looks like the option to show edit time and date isn't preselected anymore)

, so why the F are they buying a smart phone to carry around, without even attempting to get rid of the spyware?

You know exactly why, its free and they got nothing to hide...and they aren't able to see beyond their own nose. 

 

[WizardStan]

its consumers that accepted these business models in the beginning (its free, why not (?)) - so if the majority of consumers accepts a certain business strategy, why should a company not build upon that ?

am only saying, it's not the corporation alone, but the people enabling them aswell.

Again, I'm not saying that the corporations shouldn't have taken advantage, they have many reasons to want to keep the data in self interest.  The government has a lot of reasons, even some benevolent reasons, to want to track our every movement as well.  The situation is incredibly deep and I'm not going to even begin touching on whether it's a good thing or bad.


I am saying one thing here and one thing only: it doesn't matter if I hand you the keys to my car, if you drive away with it that is a decision that you, not me, has made. You are 100% responsible for your actions, your decision to take my car.  I am 100% responsible for my decision to give you my car keys, yes, but that is where my decision ends, I have zero control over you as you get into my car, turn the ignition, and joyride off into the sunset.


So to, the consumer is not at all responsible for the corporate decision to monitor people. It doesn't matter if people accept it, it doesn't matter if it's in the company's best interest, it doesn't matter if it'll bring the downfall of society or somehow bring about a puppy eutopia, the decision to record that data is entirely on the people that made that decision.  Don't blame the victim, blame the people choosing to collect and abuse the data.

 

[___]

I am just saying this: in 1987 there was a government program to count the population (only count how many people there were living!) and people took it as such a big invasion of privacy, that there were massive protests and public outrage. Today noone would give a shit anymore. Consumerism is definitely a huge motor in this.


The fact that people are dumb enough to install cameras in their own homes and carry microphones in their pockets obviously doesn't change the fact that whoever steals and records that data is a criminal/evil-doer. Also the fact that people spout all their private data knowingly onto the internet has nothing to do with websites storing or not storing the information. It's just a fact that most people are way more open to sharing everything private with everyone else. I find this alienating and wrong. I do not care what you just had for dinner as a general status information update. In a private conversation, this might come up as a topic. Until then: keep your shit to yourself! Just an example, there is way more volatile information than what people had for dinner, that they will post and publish everywhere. I fail to see how this is somehow facebooks mistake. Two pairs of shoes, that belong together inseparably.


I have had many conversations in which people argued pro total surveillance stating "that they don't have anything to hide". I want to slap these people with my smart phone, turn on the camera and follow them to the bathroom, because they don't have anything to hide anyway, right? And lets face it: there is an abundant mass of naked butts readily available on the internet for your discretion and pleasure, no shame in being naked on camera, it's just for security anyway.

 

[thatgui]

Again, I'm not saying that the corporations shouldn't have taken advantage, they have many reasons to want to keep the data in self interest.  The government has a lot of reasons, even some benevolent reasons, to want to track our every movement as well.  The situation is incredibly deep and I'm not going to even begin touching on whether it's a good thing or bad.


I am saying one thing here and one thing only: it doesn't matter if I hand you the keys to my car, if you drive away with it that is a decision that you, not me, has made. You are 100% responsible for your actions, your decision to take my car.  I am 100% responsible for my decision to give you my car keys, yes, but that is where my decision ends, I have zero control over you as you get into my car, turn the ignition, and joyride off into the sunset.


So to, the consumer is not at all responsible for the corporate decision to monitor people. It doesn't matter if people accept it, it doesn't matter if it's in the company's best interest, it doesn't matter if it'll bring the downfall of society or somehow bring about a puppy eutopia, the decision to record that data is entirely on the people that made that decision.  Don't blame the victim, blame the people choosing to collect and abuse the data.

The first problem I have with your analogy is that from my point of view, this only applies to the beginning of the current big data trend. My version of your analogy would be: You gave your friend your car key the first time, and everything went fine. You gave your friend the car key a second time and he got a speeding ticket, you weren't very happy about it, but did not bother very much. You give it to him a third time, and again he gets a speeding ticket again, this time you also get to know that he was intoxicated while driving your car. this goes on and on till at some point, you give your friend the car keys again and he drives off. 10 min later he stops at your house, you look at your car and you see that he has several other people in the car. He tells you that some of these people are friends of him, and some of them are total strangers, but they pay him money. And he also asks you whether it is ok for you if he is borrowing your car to those people when he sees fit. And all you do is nodding, while he drives away. Are you not to blame too, at least in some way ? 


For the second problem I see, I want to expand your analogy a little bit further. Substitute the speeding tickets with collision, preferably with cars in your direct neighborhood (=friends and family) > he always crashes into cars from your neighbors while driving off, but you don't care much about it because your got this big bullbars (and a lot of ignorance). Wouldn't it be understandable if your neighbors would ask you whether this is a good idea or not ?

 

[EvilDragon]

I don't plan to save anything, never did.


No idea who has which serial number.


Giving out an private data or registering anywhere will always be optional, the forum will stay fully readable and the repo can also be used without any registration.


But we could add a new field here at the boards where users can enter their serial number, hidden from the public but readable by me as admin.


That would be a bit of a safety and it would be optional and keep your privacy.

 

[WizardStan]

Are you not to blame too, at least in some way ?

No, not at all. I have zero control over my friend's actions. I am not, in any way, to be blamed for the things that he does.  Zero. None. Nothing.


The victim is never, under any circumstance, responsible for the actions of their aggressor.  I cannot even conceive of the possibility that there may be a hypothetical situation where this isn't true.

 

[WizardStan]

The fact that people are dumb enough to install cameras in their own homes and carry microphones in their pockets obviously doesn't change the fact that whoever steals and records that data is a criminal/evil-doer.

It doesn't matter if they're dumb enough to do this, it doesn't change the fact that it is not their fault that other people are actively making the decision to violate acceptable privacy.

Wouldn't it be understandable if your neighbors would ask you whether this is a good idea or not ?

Indeed, it would be understandable, if I can do something to prevent it then I should.  That doesn't mean for even a single iota of a second that it is in any way my responsibility, however.  The fault for my friend's actions lie entirely, 100% on the choices that my friend is making.  If I do nothing and my friend makes a bad decision then that is my friend making that decision.  If I lend my friend my car and he again makes a bad decision then he has still made that choice entirely of his own volition, I didn't make him.

 

[Haraldur]

One might argue, though, that the victim does have a responsibility to take reasonable precautions to protect themselves, as they are usually not the only people affected when they become victims: for violent crimes, the family of the victim is often affected; for theft, there are likely effects on the economy, while, for privacy breaches and so on, data about people known to the victim is often leaked, too -- most of my photographs on Facebook were not put up there by me, so I keep my, normally dormant, account there so that I am, at least, aware of the stuff other people put up.


It is also too much to expect for most people to not leave their data lying around the internet in the control of large corporations, or indeed for them never having done so. This is because most people, even now, start using the internet in a rather naive, uneducated fashion (it is still relatively new, after all). If they have not been taught about the dangers -- in the UK, as a rule, they have not -- then why should they expect that their every action can/shall be watched? Or that indiscretions can be discovered after many years? These people often were children when they first started using the internet. As a result, there are some very strongly-formed habits for many people, and habits can be hard to change. Attempts to use the internet in a less naive way are often rather frustrating, as many websites do not work properly, or speed is slow.

 

[___]

It doesn't matter if they're dumb enough to do this, it doesn't change the fact that it is not their fault that other people are actively making the decision to violate acceptable privacy.

 

[thatgui]

No, not at all. I have zero control over my friend's actions. I am not, in any way, to be blamed for the things that he does.  Zero. None. Nothing.


The victim is never, under any circumstance, responsible for the actions of their aggressor.  I cannot even conceive of the possibility that there may be a hypothetical situation where this isn't true.

Ok then, I guess we can just simply agree that we have a different pov in that matter. Still I feel the need to clarify:I don't think that you should be (legally) held accountable for your friends action. But on a societal level, I think the old rule should still be valid: "you are free to do what you want, as long as you don't impair the freedom of others". But this means responsibility to avoid/prevent actions that would counter that, which in turns leads to some form of "punishment" if you fail to do that willing or unwillingly. Unfortunately most people nowadays are so self centered that they are unable to see beyond their own wants and needs so they don't care about. Which lead me to the conclusion, that a lot of people that use social media are actually showing anti social behavior.

 

[___]

I hate the new forum software... can't add anything to the quote above so I am double posting.


That is exactly what I am saying in the sentence you are quoting Wizardstan. I am just saying that there is a side to this which is indeed the consumers fault, not trying to diminish the fact that governments and corporations who do this are criminals.


EDIT: LOL you guys are typing too fast for me. I get ninjad like every second post ^^


Anyway: I do think that a victim is a victim first. There might be precautions you need to take... it depends strongly on the case. Should you protect yourself? Ofcourse, if you know how and if you can actually protect yourself from it at all.


Should you be willingly uploading all your private holiday pictures to a social media platform? I would advise not to, that's a precaution you can take. Should you protect them with a password/by restricting access? Most definitely, this is your responsibility especially when there is pictures of other people in there. If someone decides to steal those pictures, they are a criminal asshat. If a corporation decides to monetize your private photos in any way, be it storing and analyzing them or whatever without your explicit consent, that is criminal asshattery aswell. But if you, the private person that you are, an individual, decide to upload all your private holiday pictures and make them available to everyone or a remote circle of "friends" that are in fact just some people you know the names of, then you are a massive idiot. If I am in these pictures (or anyone else for that matter), then you possibly are a criminal as well, and if I find out and meet you, I will punch you. The fact is, that this is a culture nowadays, not an individual. It's an entire generation of people who do this willingly and have a completely different definition of privacy and personal rights. Constant exposure and publication of every moment and thought is the trend and the shizznit with young people right now. This is a problem!!! It won't go away until people learn, that privacy is important. It must remain choice if you want your image and identity transparent and for the public to see.


EDIT2: Wording corrected.

 

[WizardStan]

I am just saying that there is a side to this which is indeed the consumers fault

Then you are NOT saying what I'm saying. I'm saying there is no situation where it is the consumers fault.  Period.  Ever.  Never in a million years is there a situation where I (or anyone else) can be held responsible for your actions.  You are a human being capable of making your own choices.


Outside of literally mind controlling someone, that is.

But on a societal level, I think the old rule should still be valid: "you are free to do what you want, as long as you don't impair the freedom of others". But this means responsibility to avoid/prevent actions that would counter that, which in turns leads to some form of "punishment" if you fail to do that willing or unwillingly.

This may all be true, I could have prevented it and perhaps by not doing so there should be some kind of punishment, but that's entirely orthogonal to what I'm saying: even if you can prevent it that does not mean that you are actually responsible for the actions of another.  If I can prevent something and choose not to then that is my choice, but my friend also makes his choices and should be held responsible for them entirely.  No "it is your fault, you could have prevented this if you didn't give him your keys"; yes "it is your friend's fault, he could have prevented this if he had made better choices".

 

[___]

well we are talking about two different things here! I am talking about volunteering to willingly provide data, you are talking about the cases in which it is stolen from people/abused in some way. Which is where I totally agree. You just fail to acknowledge that there is another dimension to the issue of privacy than the abuse. I do not understand, where the misunderstanding is coming from. That certain parties abuse their technical advantages to monetize on people is obviously not the consumers fault. That's like saying a rape victim is at fault for wearing an inviting dress... This is totally not my point. I was sarcastically remarking, that I am not surprised by the ongoing abuse. 

 

[EvilDragon]

I hate the new forum software... can't add anything to the quote above so I am double posting.

You can. Just clicking above the quote works fine for me.


If you want multiple selective quotes, just mark the part you want to quote in the post, select "Quote This", do this for all the other posts you want to quote something and then start replying

 

[___]

Ah! Okay didn't know this. But clicking above the quote wouldn't work for me nomore. It might have been a browser hiccup, but I am online with chromium right now. I tried clicking above and besides and below multiple times before giving up.

 

[WizardStan]

well we are talking about two different things here! I am talking about volunteering to willingly provide data, you are talking about the cases in which it is stolen from people/abused in some way

Nope, we are talking about the same thing.  It doesn't matter one bit whether the data was provided willingly or stolen: regardless of how it is collected, if it is used or abused then it is entirely, 100%, without exception, the fault of the people that have chosen to use it in that way.  I am not responsible for the actions of anyone else.  Period.  If I willingly give up information that is my choice, and if the person I'm giving it to decides to use that information for evil then that is their choice: these are two different choices made by two different people and neither one is responsible for the actions of the other.  I am not responsible for


If I walk around town screaming out my credit card number it is and will always be the fault of the person who finally writes that number down and goes on a shopping spree.


The credit card company will come after me because I violated their TOC, which was my choice, but the police will go after the guy who committed the actual fraud, as that was his choice.


You can argue that I'm an idiot for trusting that people won't take advantage of the situation, but you cannot present an argument that will make me think that I am in any way responsible for the person who actually decided to abuse it.

That's like saying a rape victim is at fault for wearing an inviting dress

This is exactly the problem and the source of the confusion: you are drawing a line.  Why is a rape victim not responsible for their rapists actions despite wearing an inviting dress, where the computer user putting themselves in a position to be compromised is?  Obviously two different scenarios with different forms of violation but in both cases the person did what they felt comfortable doing, an action which hurt no one, but was willfully taken advantage of by a third party.


And the problem comes because there are people that draw that line differently.  There are people that fully believe that a woman wearing a revealing dress IS responsible for her rapists actions, and these rapists have received reduced (and in some cases, none) sentences based on testimony on what the victim was wearing.  It is bullshit.


I refuse to draw that line.  The victim is never, ever, responsible for the choices of their aggressor.  If someone chooses to do evil then they are 100% responsible for that decision.