Thanks for the recommendation on The Transparent Society. I haven't read it, but certainly will.
The idea that the surveillance tools are "put in the hands of masses" neglects the part where the "masses" includes corporations that do it better, because they have the ability to pay handsomely thousands of people to make it effective. So rather than accept the defeatist position -- "We are powerless to stop technology," even though surveillance capitalism is a choice, and one that we don't have to accept -- we can choose meaningful laws which restrict those actions. We can choose meaningful laws which change the economic imperatives so that corporations don't profit from tracking and shaping human behavior. Will it be perfect? Absolutely not. Is defeat inevitable? Perhaps. But sitting on the sidelines and choosing not to shape that future because of some sense of foregone inevitability.... that cannot be the future, unless we believe that those now with the ability to shape it (and someone will -- Google, Facebook, or someone else) deserve to have that right without being challenged.
I cannot accept that. I will not be gaslit into believing that I'm 'too concerned' or 'reading too much into it'. This does not have to be our future.
I don't have any expectations for how they will address their transgressions. They don't have a right to my personal data, don't have a right to track me, don't have a right to sell my attention to modify my behavior. People who are the target of their data collection -- which includes users and innocent bystanders -- are victims, and we don't expect victims to come up with performance improvement plans for their abusers.
That Google’s management is so unaware of their data collection software that they allowed engineers to drive around spying on people for three years does not inspire trust. Incompetence or malice is besides the point. Google did not take responsibility for the error, and in fact stonewalled Congress for more than a year when it was investigated.
Not saying you are one such person, or that you are doing so intentionally, but this argument is a clever sleight of hand employed by surveillance capitalists and their apologists to deflect attention away from the real issue: that thousands of well-paid, highly intelligent engineers devote 40+ hours a week to coming up with ways to influence your behavior.
“Selling personal data” — as if your particular affinity for left handed baseball gloves were of special interest to large corporations — is a red herring. Let’s stop perpetuating it.
I'm not comfortable assuming the best intentions from a $1.2T company whose business model relies on tracking my behavior. They burned that bridge after the war-driving "Wi-Spy" scandal, which went on from 2007-2010. [0].
It's clear that Google sees a threat to their business model, and they'll use any PR-friendly language they can to convince people that they're addressing the user concerns. Just like they did in 2010, when they ascribed their willful malfeasance to a "rogue engineer" who they then put in charge of StreetView.
If I'm "reading too much into it" it's because we collectively haven't been reading enough into it for the past 15 or so years, and in that time our Overton window has shifted too far.
Let's dispense with this fiction, once and for all, that "targeted" or "customized" advertisements were ever for the users' benefit. They are, and always have been, for the benefit of Google and the advertisers. Google wants you to believe that advertisements are an inevitable, unavoidable feature of the web, despite the fact that they didn't want to be in this business when they started the company. They even go so far as to tug at your heart strings to and say how "hard" they work to make sure their product is "safe, unobtrusive, and as relevant as possible," implying that capturing your attention to part you from your money effectively is the ideal outcome. [0]
This is gaslighting. Interest-based advertising on the web is not an immutable feature, a naturally occurring phenomenon. It's a scourge invented to further surveillance capitalism and it must be abolished.
All this is to say, I'd change your letter to say:
Dear Advertisers:
Stop tracking me or I'll block you entirely at every turn. Your business model does not concern me. My attention is not for sale. Change, or be regulated out of business.
I'm happy that HN has accepted a change in the article's title, which appears as "Google says it may have found a privacy-friendly substitute to cookies." This terminology -- "found" -- has been used by Google and others to imply that their capture of behavioral "exhaust" is somehow a natural phenomenon, rather than a conscious, deliberate, profit-driven choice. Google didn't "find" a substitute. They are developing it because they are getting pushback from users and companies who object to their tracking methods and they're desperate to find something that convinces users they've Really Changed This Time.
Don't fall for it. Break up with Google. They are abusive.
You should read “ IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation.” It’s not either/or, it’s both/and.
This fucking matters. Letting corporations off the hook because they were just following orders enables genocide.
Don’t worry. I already gave up on the sign-up flow when I entered my preferred username and password, then tapped register in the top right corner, only to be confronted with a prompt to —- again enter a username and password of my choice.
I would have to spend hours getting my family signed up for this thing.
You pose this as centralization vs decentralization. This is actually Facebook vs Open Source, and for every feature that isn’t at parity with the existing solution, you lose users.
Is now the time to be dogmatic about decentralization?
The first launch on iPhone asks me if I want to share my contacts, and then outlines a massive paragraph explaining something about identity servers that I’m expected to choose.
This is a friction-filled experience for someone coming from WhatsApp
I tapped this link on my iPhone. There’s nothing that says create account. It says I have to download an app called Element. But you said it was called Matrix.
This is the level of technical ability that you need to be targeting.
For all of you saying we should switch to Matrix, please outline the user sign up flow in your comment. Be detailed. Your audience is your 50 something aunt who calls her iPad her Facebook.
This theory implies a level of coordination and agreement that the US Government is simply not capable of. The group most interested in such backups (intelligence) does not coordinate with the regulatory committees, and even if they did such an agreement wouldn’t be disclosable to the public and wouldn’t hold up if demands for regulation got hot.
The most likely reason we haven’t seen antitrust action is more boring: it’s hard, our politicians are old and don’t even use email, and they’ve been consumed with more pressing matters.
The idea that the surveillance tools are "put in the hands of masses" neglects the part where the "masses" includes corporations that do it better, because they have the ability to pay handsomely thousands of people to make it effective. So rather than accept the defeatist position -- "We are powerless to stop technology," even though surveillance capitalism is a choice, and one that we don't have to accept -- we can choose meaningful laws which restrict those actions. We can choose meaningful laws which change the economic imperatives so that corporations don't profit from tracking and shaping human behavior. Will it be perfect? Absolutely not. Is defeat inevitable? Perhaps. But sitting on the sidelines and choosing not to shape that future because of some sense of foregone inevitability.... that cannot be the future, unless we believe that those now with the ability to shape it (and someone will -- Google, Facebook, or someone else) deserve to have that right without being challenged.
I cannot accept that. I will not be gaslit into believing that I'm 'too concerned' or 'reading too much into it'. This does not have to be our future.