Buying commercially available location records from data brokers would be far less concerning without the capability to, per Anthropic’s CEO words, assemble from that data “a comprehensive picture of any person's life—automatically and at massive scale”. It’s a world of difference between when you have to work hard to construct (and keep up-to-date) such a picture for a single individual, and when someone can do it for an entire city with no effort.
samrus 2 hours ago [-]
Sure but the possession itself of that data without a warrant violates the spirit of the 4th ammendment. So its time that loophole was closed so its not a an issue anyway
I actually would be fine with the authorities having the ability to process this data to solve crime and stuff, but only as long as there were checks and balances and it was happening according to the constitution, which it is not right now
JumpCrisscross 9 minutes ago [-]
> possession itself of that data without a warrant violates the spirit of the 4th ammendment
Does it? An 18th-century tavern owner could keep tabs on the comings and goings of their customers. It would have just prompted pushback when they started sharing that list.
Possession isn’t the problem. Sharing is.
ra 2 hours ago [-]
Exactly this. I don't that believe most people can grasp the scale, speed and complexity at which this is has become our reality.
stingraycharles 40 minutes ago [-]
And, unfortunately, this is likely a major (potential) revenue source for AI companies that are all struggling for cash.
j-bos 26 minutes ago [-]
This story cones uo time and time again, people rail about the data buyer, but practically speaking any one or thing can buy that data and use it against you and yours. The very collection/assembly of life data is dangerous.
amelius 10 minutes ago [-]
Can't we just buy the data of politicians to make them aware of the problem?
kleiba 59 minutes ago [-]
Listen, this is nothing new. You can find articles like that going back years and years. The truth is: convenience trumps privacy in practice in a lot of cases. Two examples:
1. Theoretically speaking, my (data) privacy is of a high value to me! -- Then you should stop using a smart phone. -- Well...
2. I don't want anyone to create a profile of my habits because it's none of their business! -- Hi, do you have a Walmart+ card? -- Sure, here you go!
And I actually like the concept of reward cards (although I don't use them) because it is pretty much the only way how you can make money off your data.
applfanboysbgon 52 minutes ago [-]
> Listen, this is nothing new.
"Violations of your constitutional rights have been going on for decades now, so it's time to shut up about them" is certainly a take.
chii 43 minutes ago [-]
Action speaks louder than words. It doesn't matter what people say they prefer, their actions reveal a true preference.
noosphr 13 minutes ago [-]
Funny how we stopped drinking lead when they stopped putting lead in our water.
applfanboysbgon 25 minutes ago [-]
This is just idiotic to say. Nobody actually prefers to have their data siphoned off, in the abstract. If you make it a choice between "privacy" and "being able to participate in society in any way at all", obviously they're going to pick the latter. That's not a "revealed preference", that's coercion. It doesn't actually have to be that way. We can have a world where we have smartphones, and the government can't use those smartphones to track your location at all times.
22 minutes ago [-]
cheschire 23 minutes ago [-]
The majority of the population has been ok with this path for a very long time so it’s unlikely to change.
There are basic ways to act, not just talk, to support resistance to this path. And people, even some people reading this very comment, are unwilling to take those basic actions while also whining loudly and/or downvoting in angst.
applfanboysbgon 21 minutes ago [-]
There is nothing "basic" about preserving your privacy in this age. I go to ridiculously great lengths to preserve my privacy. That entails using VMs with separate VPNs for every different thing I do on the internet to avoid cross-pollination between my online identities, that entails never taking my smartphone out of the house, that entails using burner phones, that entails accepting that I simply can't use an increasingly large number of services that are being gated by identity verification, which is now trying to be forced on being able to use a computer at all at the OS-level. It is an absolute pain in the ass to worry about this, and it's completely understandable why people give up, but that doesn't mean they actually want it to be this way. Privacy should be the default, not something you have to fight for.
kleiba 33 minutes ago [-]
Putting words into other people's mouth isn't the best etiquette: where did I say "it's time to shut up about them"??
applfanboysbgon 23 minutes ago [-]
Your tone implies it. "Listen, this is nothing new" is a phrase dripping with "I'm tired of hearing about this". You surely know that the people pointing out continually escalating violations know that the violations are not new.
cheschire 19 minutes ago [-]
You inferred it. They did not imply it.
They might simply be tired of listening to armchair protestors who don’t take even the most basic actions to backup their words.
applfanboysbgon 19 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
cimaster 36 minutes ago [-]
The irony of npr.org welcoming me with
"We and our 474 partners store and access personal data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device."
474!!!
mattsimpson 1 hours ago [-]
Not enough people are talking about this. It seems to me like the vast majority of people just don't care, primarily because they don't understand the ways it could dramatically impact them in the future. Short term thinking is a scary phenomenon.
renegat0x0 3 hours ago [-]
I remember term "privacy laundering" and "surveillance capitalism".
I actually would be fine with the authorities having the ability to process this data to solve crime and stuff, but only as long as there were checks and balances and it was happening according to the constitution, which it is not right now
Does it? An 18th-century tavern owner could keep tabs on the comings and goings of their customers. It would have just prompted pushback when they started sharing that list.
Possession isn’t the problem. Sharing is.
1. Theoretically speaking, my (data) privacy is of a high value to me! -- Then you should stop using a smart phone. -- Well...
2. I don't want anyone to create a profile of my habits because it's none of their business! -- Hi, do you have a Walmart+ card? -- Sure, here you go!
And I actually like the concept of reward cards (although I don't use them) because it is pretty much the only way how you can make money off your data.
"Violations of your constitutional rights have been going on for decades now, so it's time to shut up about them" is certainly a take.
There are basic ways to act, not just talk, to support resistance to this path. And people, even some people reading this very comment, are unwilling to take those basic actions while also whining loudly and/or downvoting in angst.
They might simply be tired of listening to armchair protestors who don’t take even the most basic actions to backup their words.
"We and our 474 partners store and access personal data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device."
474!!!
Example 2019 article https://www.lawfareblog.com/facebook-encryption-and-dangers-...
In reality nothing new.