Is privacy dead in an online world?

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by Krusty, Oct 6, 2017.

  1. reasonablePrivacy

    reasonablePrivacy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2017
    Posts:
    922
    Location:
    Member state of European Union
    It is better to not inform "them" that you have some valuable information.
     
  2. RockLobster

    RockLobster Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Posts:
    1,812
    I am of the opinion if you have not detected obvious surveillance, intrusion, it is because they already have pwnage.
    Its like a game of poker.
    Whatever privacy tools you play, they will up the anti.
    There is no point at which they will fold.
    The only way to win the game is if your adversary doesn't know your playing.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
  3. Rmus

    Rmus Exploit Analyst

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Posts:
    3,989
    Location:
    California
    By privacy, if you mean one or more of the following:
    • the state of being free from unwanted or undue intrusion or disturbance in one's private life or affairs;
    • freedom from damaging publicity, public scrutiny, secret surveillance, or unauthorized disclosure of one’s personal data or information, as by a government, corporation, or individual:
    then, the Death of Privacy has been a fact of life prior to the online world.

    In the USA, if you:
    • have a social security card
    • file a tax return
    • have a library card
    • use credit cards for purchases
    • have rewards cards at stores
    • have a bank account
    • have purchased anything on credit (auto, home, etc)
    • _____________ (fill in the blank)

    then a profile of you is to be had for anyone proves a need to know, even if you do not want them to know. And to be had by anyone else who illegally gets the above information.

    The Credit reporting agencies have a long history that predates the internet.

    From a New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/23/business/equifax-data-breach.html

    "Equifax's roots as a behind-the-scenes data collector stretch back to 1899, when it began as the Retail Credit Company. Grocers and other retailers kept notes on their customers to determine who could be trusted to run tabs and pay them. Two brothers in Atlanta went door to door to collect that information. They compiled it into a publication called "The Merchant's Guide" and sold annual subscriptions for $25.

    Ordinary people are not Equifax's customers. They are the company's product. The "Big Three" credit bureaus, Equifax, Experian and TransUnion, collect 4.5 billion pieces of data each month to feed into their credit reports.

    "From birth to death, the record grows. Decades' worth of addresses and identifying information, including drivers' licenses and Social Security numbers. Utility accounts like telephone and cable subscriptions. Criminal records, medical debt, as well as rental and eviction histories.

    "Equifax's records on any given individual, scattered throughout dozens of databases, typically stretch across hundreds or thousands of pages."​

    "New analytic products have been a priority. Equifax has a team of mathematicians who mine its data to develop algorithms predicting how consumers will behave. Those insights are sold to companies like lenders."​

    The internet has provided more opportunities:

    "At a financial conference last year, Mr. Smith [former CEO] described a new system that searched four billion public tweets for keywords like "car" and "automotive lease." It paired the tweets with a person's Equifax credit file. In real time, the credit bureau could identify potential buyers and provide its customer, a company selling car leases, with everything it wanted to know about those people."​

    The Internet, unfortunately, has made it easier for unauthorized access to this data.

    ----
    rich
     
  4. Reality

    Reality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,172
    It's a pity more people don't subscribe to this, but they've largely traded privacy for all the on tap bells and whistles, exacerbating the problem. Meanwhile you do what you can. You CAN lessen the odds of nosy companies tying certain activities you do to other data held about you.

    That about sums it up. As I've said above though, I still think there's value to be had by adopting certain practices rather than letting the world know everything about you on places like Facebook. I guess some of us wanting to keep privacy intact, is tied up in principles. To others, that's an unpopular stand.
     
  5. illumination

    illumination Guest

    There is no such thing as online privacy. Concerning personal/intimate details, they can only scoop up what you are willing to divulge.
     
  6. RockLobster

    RockLobster Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Posts:
    1,812
    I don't agree. Prior to the online world government agencies and law enforcement only had the resources to gather intelligence on those they strongly believed were engaged in criminal activity.
    This meant a warrant had to be issued by a judge because otherwise they would be wasting those limited resources because any evidence they found would be inadmissable in court.
    Everyone else did not have their communications intercepted and stored.
    This is very different today. In the online world EVERY communication, everything you say, everything you read about everything you purchase is stored and they can use and apply complex algorithms on all that data to create a psychological profile.
    You can be sure almost everyone today is profiled in that way and the likelihood that you would steal, commit sexual offences, be prone to violence, get hysterical or irrational under pressure, is openly gay or bisexual, is secretly gay or bisexual, is likely to cheat on your partner, get depressed, be neurotic, commit murder, lie to your boss, slack off at work, use drugs, be racist, be bigoted, do not like authority etc etc etc has already been evaluated.
    That is what we mean when we talk about privacy or the lack of in the online world and anyone who thinks they have nothing to hide,
    think again.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2017
  7. RockLobster

    RockLobster Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Posts:
    1,812
    Further to that, of course this is just the beginning, at some point in the future you can be sure your profile score will be bandied around like your credit score and there will be people that sabotage other peoples profiles and all kinds of other unforseen consequences will arise out of this. Imagine the conversations...

    "Can you imagine dating some one with a profile of less than 400?"
    "OMG no way, they better be at least a 480"
    "Well I saw Sandra out with that guy from sales and I know hes only a 350, I have a friend in HR she checked him out last week!"
    "Ewwwwww a 350!! Sandra is such a tramp she always dates losers!!"
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2017
  8. reasonablePrivacy

    reasonablePrivacy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2017
    Posts:
    922
    Location:
    Member state of European Union
    IIRC in China they are already experimenting with tying social media profile to credit score.
     
  9. deBoetie

    deBoetie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,805
    Location:
    UK
    Even worse, you have the perfect trifecta of problems with databases linked to official exercise of power:
    • garbage data (at least 10% of Home Office data in UK is wrong), Someone Else's Problem;
    • opaque data mining algorithms that can't explain their justifications, humans too bored or unskilled to put it right;
    • zero accountability for failures, zero recompense for harm resulting from incorrect assignments.

    These things will increasingly affect everything one does in contact with power and official money - right of residence, ability to travel, ability to get work, to drive, to get money, getting harassed by stops etc.
     
  10. reasonablePrivacy

    reasonablePrivacy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2017
    Posts:
    922
    Location:
    Member state of European Union
    Actually when it comes to AI based on neural networks it turns out that it is caused be its nature. You don't write complete alghorithms in code. You design neural network and then feed data to teach it. Even people designing neural networks with deep theoretical understanding of AI and math are not 100% sure how it will behave after feeding a large set of data to them. And if one employee feeds inappropriate data to AI, AI could become biased,prejudiced and this can be hard to detect.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017
  11. deBoetie

    deBoetie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,805
    Location:
    UK
    Agree, the neural network approach based on large - and often effectively biased - large datasets for training and update - has the huge advantage of self-learning, but the huge disadvantage of lack of self-awareness. Which make them extremely dangerous when dealing with peoples' lives and innocence. It's one thing getting the wrong advertisement, but unacceptable when used as a replacement for human judgement.

    There's quite a lot of evidence from the policing trials which demonstrate data bias and what amounts to confirmation bias (the AI sent a lot of cops to these areas because there's a lot of reported crime, and - lo and behold! - there is more reported crime in those areas!) Ironic because some of this AI was supposed to reduce rather than reinforce bias.
     
  12. DesuMaiden

    DesuMaiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Posts:
    599
    Used to be "innocent until proven guilty". These days it is simply a matter of survelliancing everyone at all times because the government has the resources to do so.
     
  13. RockLobster

    RockLobster Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Posts:
    1,812
    Yes and there is no one to stop it.
    Who would appoint criminals to make and change the law?
    We do. Every four years.
     
  14. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    8,980
    The major change has been automation of signal collection and processing, and of intercept analysis and information extraction. It's true that TLAs intercept at major ISPs, undersea cable landing points, satellite uplinks, and so on. However, TLAs have always intercepted international communications, be it letters, telegraph, teletype, telephone or radio. It's true that the US, and other nations with guaranteed right to privacy, have typically required warrants for domestic surveillance. But overall, limitations in processing and analysis made mass surveillance problematic. East Germany and other Soviet client states got around that somewhat by enticing people to spy on each other. As China is doing now.

    But yes, mass surveillance is the new normal. We only have as much privacy as we're willing to create for ourselves.
     
  15. JoWazzoo

    JoWazzoo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    241
    Location:
    Ether
    NSA in USA has shown much of this to no longer be correct assumption or worse yet - fact. And done with no warrants. ISPs. Microsoft, Google et cetera pretty much open handedly hand over data to the alphabet soups. Even in certain cases where a "warrant" is required, a case is only presented by one side - to wit FISA. Much of what we historically thought of as "privacy" is now a meaningless joke.
     
  16. Yuki2718

    Yuki2718 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2014
    Posts:
    1,781
    NN can be biased but not prejudiced 'cause it doesn't have such intelligence. Who can have prejudice is human who interpret and use results w/out awareness. As a note, unpredictability for the results is common in most other algorithms where unlike NN its internals are 100% clear, and IMO 'blackbox' itself is not a problem as we already use blackboxes in many field before ML arises. Ideally, those who use ML should have at least basic knowledge of the nature of the algorithm he/she's using to take it into account many possible failure, but the reality appears to be going different way just like many ppl now use PC w/out knowledge of how it works.
     
  17. DesuMaiden

    DesuMaiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Posts:
    599
    Like George Carlin said, "if you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you are gonna have selfish, ignorant leaders. And the term limit isn't going to do you any good because you are just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans".

    You gotta remember the golden rule of our society:everything is done with the profit motive in mind. All actions are dictated by whether the government and the corporations that support it make a financial profit and gain more political power and control over the citizens.

    Anyone saying the police are there to "serve and protect" is telling a lie because the truth is the police are primary there to serve and protect the interests of the ruling, elite super wealthy oligarchy that rule America and the world and NOT protect the average citizen. The police are there just to oppress citizens and enforce many stupid and harmful laws. I think the term "Criminal Justice System" is very misleading because it is more like the "Criminal Justice Business" because the truth is police, lawyers, judges and other parasites in the legal system make a lot of money off enforcing stupid laws (such as drug laws and anti-Internet piracy laws) and they would otherwise be out of business if certain things were legalized (like drugs for example). The penal system is one big, money-making racket that is very profitable to the government and other people involved in it and benefiting from it (both from a financial and political perspective).

    How does this have to do with government mass survelliance? Well let me explain. It is because once various government agencies (particularly law enforcement) have greater access to your personal info, they can more easily investigate so called "crimes" and thereby increase their profit margins. And damn do those parasites enforcing and prosecuting drug crimes and Internet piracy crimes, for example, make a huge amount of money off the war on drugs and war on Internet piracy And with more mass survelliance, they can even prosecute more "criminals" of mostly victimless crimes to make even more profit.
     
  18. RockLobster

    RockLobster Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Posts:
    1,812
    @DesuMaiden I am litterally in awe at your post. I read it three times and you did not just describe exactly how it is then up is not up and down is not down.
    Edit: ...and when you look at current events it is clear that that like you said, internet surveillance is not intended to prevent crime or terrorism.
    Nicholas Cruz had every warning sign you can think of, even his classmates predicted he would be the one to do that.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...rida-shooter-had-flagged-threat-talked-using/
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2018
Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.