Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 125

Thread: Surveillance capitalism.

  1. Top | #71
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    10,233
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    28,139
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    We all know that our private information
    And round and round she goes, how she defines "private" nobody knows.
    It's not a tremendously difficult definition to make:

    ''Information that a user wishes to keep from public viewing. Credit card, social security and financial account numbers, along with passwords to websites and other venues, are commonly kept private.''

    Types of personal information

    ''The term ‘personal information’ encompasses a broad range of information.

    A number of different types of information are explicitly recognised as constituting personal information under the Privacy Act.

    For example, the following are all types of personal information:

    ‘sensitive information’ (includes information or opinion about an individual’s racial or ethnic origin, political opinion, religious beliefs, sexual orientation or criminal record, provided the information or opinion otherwise meets the definition of personal information)[3]

    ‘health information’ (which is also ‘sensitive information’)[4]

    ‘credit information’[5]

    employee record’ information (subject to exemptions [6]), and
    ‘tax file number information’.[7]

    Although not explicitly recognised as personal information under the Privacy Act, information may be explicitly recognised as personal information under other legislation. For example, under the Telecommunications (Interceptions and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), certain telecommunications data (sometimes referred to as ‘metadata’[8]) is taken to be personal information for the purposes of the Privacy Act.''

  2. Top | #72
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,014
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    The information is the knife. Clear now?
    About what your analogy (or perhaps I mean metaphor) is, yes, I am now. About your point? no. And I'm rapidly losing interest in it, whatever it was.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 12-08-2019 at 03:55 AM.

  3. Top | #73
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,014
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    that has nothing to do with whether or not it's justified to equivocate marketing with capitalism.....
    I see you've changed the wording even more this time around. Now it's 'marketing' and 'capitalism' for some odd reason.

    I'm also not sure why you used the word equivocate, but it may not matter.

    I equated monetising with capitalising, and I'm still happy with that, especially after checking some dictionaries. Now, if for some reason you want to post a 3000 word essay on how you disagree, bust a gut, but at least stop changing what I said.

    Furthermore, and more importantly, you suggested I likened the two things in order to shoe horn capitalism into the issue. But as I already said, capitalism does not need to be shoe horned into the issue because its in the issue up to its neck, and probably further. No shoe horning needed.

    So I have no idea what your point is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    ... and then capitalism with black hat "surveillance."
    I have no idea where you got that from.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 12-08-2019 at 04:05 AM.

  4. Top | #74
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,014
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    The Koch Brothers arguably exemplify a certain version of capitalism.
    Perhaps in an ironic sense....
    No, in the literal sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    ....the destruction of free markets, the destruction of competition, not its champion.
    That would seem to be quite a bit like Monopoly Capitalism.

  5. Top | #75
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    10,233
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    28,139
    Rep Power
    75
    I get the impression that some people, businesses or marketeers believe that the whole economic system will fall apart by having reasonable laws in place to protect private information.

  6. Top | #76
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,014
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Bully for the UK. I didn't realize you spoke for it.
    I don't know what you mean by the 'spoke for the UK' part. I was merely informing you that caveat emptor is not applied in consumer law in the UK.

  7. Top | #77
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,648
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    I get the impression that some people, businesses or marketeers believe that the whole economic system will fall apart by having reasonable laws in place to protect private information.
    I get the impression that this is yet another example of binary thinking and false assumptions based on ignorance. There already ARE reasonable laws in place to protect "private information" and steps you can take to protect yourself against data mining. The problems are (1) defining exactly what "private information" is, (2) BAD ACTORS and (3) you can't put a genie back in a bottle.

    As should be painfully clear at this point, what YOU may personally think should be private often isn't. Such as your home address. That is a matter of public record. Anyone who cares to can request that information from your county clerk's office (at least here in America). This has always been the case (including "back in the day"). That's precisely how you used to get catalogues all the time and other "junk" mail.

    Other information about you that you may personally think should be private, however, is often already not and by your own doing. You may not have known that was the case--because you didn't actually read the TOS you agreed to--but there it is.

    And, as has been repeated ad nauseum, there is other information that can't ever be considered "private" no matter what, because you did it in public.

    Then there's the genie in a bottle; the fact that all of this information is already out there, so there's often fuck-all you can do to stop it from being circulated no matter what.

    And, finally, there is the problem so evident itt; which is a fundamental misunderstanding of how service providers and white, gray or black hats operate. Facebook, for example, doesn't sell your information; they sell their target marketing algorithm in the form of ad space. Marketers like me don't buy your information; we buy an ad and set certain demographic offerings (i.e., we want the ads to be seen by single latina women between the ages of 25-35 that live within a five mile radius of New York and have shown an interest in yoga, or whatever the product we're promoting is). That's it. We don't need your name or actual home address or anything more granular than that first hand; just the fact that Facebook can do that for us is more than enough for most consumer-oriented marketing campaigns.

    Being able to personally address you is likewise not something we need to do; it's something that service providers can do and it helps to ensure whatever message we're trying to get to you is opened/read by you, but not even that is a necessary bit of information for us to know first hand.

    What bad actors like the Koch brothers have done, however, is hunted down the individuals, most likely starting with the voter registration rolls and then built profiles from there. That's what harvesting means and it's the same thing as stalking you in the public square. And the reason they want that level of information is because they aren't trying to sell a good or service; they're trying to brainwash individuals into voting a particular way.

    It's not cutting cake, it's slitting throats and it's ALSO the kind of information that they could get if the internet never existed in most states.

    So, again, you're talking about two DIFFERENT things that use the same knife, but your blaming the knife.
    Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 12-08-2019 at 09:16 PM.

  8. Top | #78
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,648
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    The information is the knife. Clear now?
    About what your analogy (or perhaps I mean metaphor) is, yes, I am now. About your point? no. And I'm rapidly losing interest in it, whatever it was.
    Then fuck off. No one asked you to further muddy already muddy waters with false equivalences and strawmen.
    Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 12-08-2019 at 09:17 PM.

  9. Top | #79
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,014
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    The information is the knife. Clear now?
    About what your analogy (or perhaps I mean metaphor) is, yes, I am now. About your point? no. And I'm rapidly losing interest in it, whatever it was.
    Then fuck off. No one asked you to further muddy already muddy waters with false equivalences and strawmen.
    Well at least that was mercifully short, for a change.

  10. Top | #80
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,648
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post

    Then fuck off. No one asked you to further muddy already muddy waters with false equivalences and strawmen.
    Well at least that was mercifully short, for a change.
    Yes, I forget that I'm dealing with intellectual inferiors who find reading--on a fucking text-based discussion board--too taxing, while at the same time they get so many things wrong about what I've just written that I have to spend the majority of my time wading through obvious straw and correcting the sophistry spewing out their asses at every turn.

    But sure, that's somehow MY fault for being overly detailed and exhaustive in my argumentation. Got it.

    ETA: This post being a perfect example. Let's revisit:

    At no point did I argue marketers are “necessarily good actors”; at no point did I argue that people being manipulated into doing something harmful to them is a good idea; at no point did I argue that the “scope, subtlety and scale of the data collection and end uses is irrelevant” (the exact opposite in fact); I said that when you walk into the public space you axiomatically lose privacy—except for your thoughts—because what you do in public can be seen by the fucking public HENCE THE WORD PUBLIC; I repeatedly went “far past” toothpaste by specifically delineating the use of the same knife for political reasons, noting EXPLICITLY that it is there where the throat slitting occurs, i.e., “getting further away from ‘good actors’ and possibly in an area becoming rife with propaganda and misinformation;” nor did I argue that “capitalism is not in some way, possibly even closely, tied up in that” (I argued the false equivocation of surveillance).

    And it isn’t “monetizing (i.e., capitalising) data by selling it to political lobbyists...etc.”. You don’t get to slip another false equivalence of “monetizing” with “capitalising” to try and shoe horn in Capitalism. The government doesn’t BUY the data from Google. Politicians and lobbyists don’t BUY the data from Facebook.

    Congratulations. You literally got every single thing wrong in one post.
    The only thing you responded to was the last part about falsely equating "monetizing" with "capitalising" to try and shoe horn in Capitalism, ignoring the fact that such data that would relate to what we're talking about isn't bought by either the government or politicians/lobbyists.

    So you tell me, ruby, exactly what am I supposed to do when someone gets ALL OF THOSE THINGS WRONG in just one post?

    Don't blame others for your own shortcomings.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •