logoalt Hacker News

everdriveyesterday at 5:21 PM4 repliesview on HN

The privacy crowd seems to be incapable of grey areas. Are all these the same thing? Are they all the same severity of problem?

  - A web site logs traffic in a sort of defacto way, but no one actually reviews the traffic, and it's not sent to 3rd parties.

  - A government website uses a standard framework and that framework loads a google subdomain. In principle, Google could use this to track you but there's no evidence that this actually happens.

  - A website tracks user sessions so they can improve UI but don't sell that data to 3rd parties.

  - A website has many 3rd party domains, many of which are tracking domains.

  - Facebook knows exactly who you are and sells your information to real-time-bidding ad services.

  - Your cell phone's 3G connection must in principle triangulate you for the cell phone to function, but the resolution here is fuzzy.

  - You use Android and even when your GPS is turned "off" Google is still getting extremely high resolution of your location at all times and absolutely using that information to target you.
A LOT of the privacy folks would put all those examples in the same category, and it absolutely drives me up a wall. It's purity-seeking at the expense of any meaningful distinction, or any meaningful investigation that actually allows uses to make informed decisions about their privacy.

Replies

roncesvallestoday at 3:48 AM

>A web site logs traffic in a sort of defacto way, but no one actually reviews the traffic, and it's not sent to 3rd parties.

If data exists, it can be subpoenaed by the government.

Personally, I don't understand people's mindless anathema about being profiled by ad companies, as if the worst thing ever in the world is... being served more relevant ads? In fact I love targeted ads, I often get recommended useful things that genuinely improve my life and save me hours in shopping research.

It's the government getting that data that's the problem. Because one day you might do something that pisses off someone in the government, and someone goes on a power trip and decides to ruin your life by misusing the absolute power of the state.

johnnyanmacyesterday at 8:34 PM

The issue isn't about the present but the future. You don't just assume Google one day won't try to compromise government data.

Even if they don't, it opens up more attack vectors for malicious 3rd parties who want that data. That's why you can't be careless.

show 1 reply
dylan604yesterday at 8:11 PM

> - A web site logs traffic in a sort of defacto way, but no one actually reviews the traffic, and it's not sent to 3rd parties.

Even if this sounds innocent, these must be turned over if you are provided a warrant or subpoena (which ever would be appropriate, IANAL).

show 1 reply
Rygianyesterday at 6:36 PM

They belong in the same category: the end user has zero agency over how their privacy is impacted, and is at the whim of the wishes/agency of whoever is serving content to them.

Whether the one serving the content is exploiting data at the present moment has very little relevance. Because the end user has no means to assert whether it is happening or not.