Skip to content

Selling Surveillance as Convenience

Technology
13 10 0
  • Increasingly, surveillance is being normalized and integrated in our lives. Under the guise of convenience, applications and features are sold to us as being the new better way to do things. While some might be useful, this convenience is a Trojan horse. The cost of it is the continuous degradation of our privacy rights, with all that that entails.

    As appalling as it is, the truth is the vast majority of software companies do not consider privacy rights and data minimization practices strongly enough, if at all. Most fail to implement the principles of Privacy by Design that should guide development from the start.

    Whether this comes from ignorance, incompetence, greed, or malicious intent can be debated. It matters little, because the result is the same: Technologies collecting (and monetizing) a shameful amount of data from everyone.

    This horrifying trend ends up facilitating and normalizing surveillance in our daily lives. It is the opposite direction of where we should be going.

    The more we accept this normalized surveillance, the harder it becomes to fight back. It is critical that we firmly and loudly object to this banalized invasion of our privacy.

    There are countless examples of this growing issue, but for now let's focus on three of them: Airport face scans, parking apps, and AI assistants.

    Bluetooth everything that requires location permissions.

    Why u need my precise location to turn on a lightbulb?

  • Bluetooth everything that requires location permissions.

    Why u need my precise location to turn on a lightbulb?

    I'm not sure how many people know this but there is good reason why (at least on android) giving Bluetooth permissions also requires location permissions.

    The basic concept is that given enough Bluetooth data an app can pinpoint your location accurately anyways. So the android devs decided that they would just require any app that wanted Bluetooth data would also need to require access to location. That way users would be indirectly informed of the dangers.

    Why not just a pop-up to inform of the danger? Probably because most users will click past that warning and not read it.

  • Increasingly, surveillance is being normalized and integrated in our lives. Under the guise of convenience, applications and features are sold to us as being the new better way to do things. While some might be useful, this convenience is a Trojan horse. The cost of it is the continuous degradation of our privacy rights, with all that that entails.

    As appalling as it is, the truth is the vast majority of software companies do not consider privacy rights and data minimization practices strongly enough, if at all. Most fail to implement the principles of Privacy by Design that should guide development from the start.

    Whether this comes from ignorance, incompetence, greed, or malicious intent can be debated. It matters little, because the result is the same: Technologies collecting (and monetizing) a shameful amount of data from everyone.

    This horrifying trend ends up facilitating and normalizing surveillance in our daily lives. It is the opposite direction of where we should be going.

    The more we accept this normalized surveillance, the harder it becomes to fight back. It is critical that we firmly and loudly object to this banalized invasion of our privacy.

    There are countless examples of this growing issue, but for now let's focus on three of them: Airport face scans, parking apps, and AI assistants.

    Important.

    But news it is not, this has been the case ever since smartphones became a thing and probably before that too.

    Surveillance & convenience have been packaged together right from the start. It's the best way to get people to agree. Whoever designs these things created a false correlation between the two: you cannot have convenience without also having your data mined. Every schmuck who claims "I don't care, I have nothing to hide" has swallowed this. Because if there was no advantage to being mined, they'd say "Why should I agree to that, I'm not stupid" instead.

  • I'm not sure how many people know this but there is good reason why (at least on android) giving Bluetooth permissions also requires location permissions.

    The basic concept is that given enough Bluetooth data an app can pinpoint your location accurately anyways. So the android devs decided that they would just require any app that wanted Bluetooth data would also need to require access to location. That way users would be indirectly informed of the dangers.

    Why not just a pop-up to inform of the danger? Probably because most users will click past that warning and not read it.

    that really depends on the location. not everyone lives in big cities. is there a way today to give access to bluetooth without giving access to GPS?

  • that really depends on the location. not everyone lives in big cities. is there a way today to give access to bluetooth without giving access to GPS?

    Every Bluetooth device has a unique identifier. Any phone that has seen that Bluetooth device in the past could have told google/apple/whoever "hey BTW this device is at those coordinates".

    Google already uses this with WiFi to help "bootstrap" GPS localization. It is much faster to get a GPS fix if you already know roughly where you are (a few seconds vs a couple minutes), so they use nearby WiFi/Bluetooth devices to determine that. Remember 10-15 years ago when getting a GPS fix took forever? GPS didn't change, this did.
    Apple went further and does this with Airtags now. Every Bluetooth device that ever went near an iPhone is in Apple's database with GPS coordinates.

    So unless you live alone in a mountain cabin that has never been visited by someone with a smartphone before and you didn't disable the "enhanced localization" feature on your phone, yes your Bluetooth is at risk of giving up your location.

  • Every Bluetooth device has a unique identifier. Any phone that has seen that Bluetooth device in the past could have told google/apple/whoever "hey BTW this device is at those coordinates".

    Google already uses this with WiFi to help "bootstrap" GPS localization. It is much faster to get a GPS fix if you already know roughly where you are (a few seconds vs a couple minutes), so they use nearby WiFi/Bluetooth devices to determine that. Remember 10-15 years ago when getting a GPS fix took forever? GPS didn't change, this did.
    Apple went further and does this with Airtags now. Every Bluetooth device that ever went near an iPhone is in Apple's database with GPS coordinates.

    So unless you live alone in a mountain cabin that has never been visited by someone with a smartphone before and you didn't disable the "enhanced localization" feature on your phone, yes your Bluetooth is at risk of giving up your location.

    bluetooth is short range isn't it? so while this is a problem, it is not the exact same thing. network based location is not a replacement for GPS.

    Google already uses this with WiFi to help "bootstrap" GPS localization. It is much faster to get a GPS fix if you already know roughly where you are (a few seconds vs a couple minutes), so they use nearby WiFi/Bluetooth devices to determine that.

    I think you mean A-GPS, which is not related to wifi and bluetooth, other thqn being able to use wifi to access a server for downloading current constellation data. phones that have google mobile services installed, have an additional fused location source (besides a network based and a gps based location source) that tries to fuse the 2 sources while the gps signal is not precise enough. but as I know fused location computation happens locally

  • Increasingly, surveillance is being normalized and integrated in our lives. Under the guise of convenience, applications and features are sold to us as being the new better way to do things. While some might be useful, this convenience is a Trojan horse. The cost of it is the continuous degradation of our privacy rights, with all that that entails.

    As appalling as it is, the truth is the vast majority of software companies do not consider privacy rights and data minimization practices strongly enough, if at all. Most fail to implement the principles of Privacy by Design that should guide development from the start.

    Whether this comes from ignorance, incompetence, greed, or malicious intent can be debated. It matters little, because the result is the same: Technologies collecting (and monetizing) a shameful amount of data from everyone.

    This horrifying trend ends up facilitating and normalizing surveillance in our daily lives. It is the opposite direction of where we should be going.

    The more we accept this normalized surveillance, the harder it becomes to fight back. It is critical that we firmly and loudly object to this banalized invasion of our privacy.

    There are countless examples of this growing issue, but for now let's focus on three of them: Airport face scans, parking apps, and AI assistants.

    I have very little faith that this ship will be turned around. It's not even the explicit invasions of privacy from facial recognition that are the most damning. Its the hordes of people willingly providing their data through social media. Our culture has embraced the erosion of privacy and autonomy with such enthusiasm it almost feels engineered. In fact, it very well might be. When we let money dictate the stories we tell and who tells them, it shouldn't come as a surprise that culture becomes yet another tool to entrench the inequality we live in.

  • I have very little faith that this ship will be turned around. It's not even the explicit invasions of privacy from facial recognition that are the most damning. Its the hordes of people willingly providing their data through social media. Our culture has embraced the erosion of privacy and autonomy with such enthusiasm it almost feels engineered. In fact, it very well might be. When we let money dictate the stories we tell and who tells them, it shouldn't come as a surprise that culture becomes yet another tool to entrench the inequality we live in.

    The problem is the next generation is being brought up to accept this as normal.

    One day, there won't be anyone alive who remembers a time without surveillance.

  • I'm not sure how many people know this but there is good reason why (at least on android) giving Bluetooth permissions also requires location permissions.

    The basic concept is that given enough Bluetooth data an app can pinpoint your location accurately anyways. So the android devs decided that they would just require any app that wanted Bluetooth data would also need to require access to location. That way users would be indirectly informed of the dangers.

    Why not just a pop-up to inform of the danger? Probably because most users will click past that warning and not read it.

    That's just classic google/android retardation at play.

    Literally making the bad guys' jobs easier by taking away control from the user.

  • bluetooth is short range isn't it? so while this is a problem, it is not the exact same thing. network based location is not a replacement for GPS.

    Google already uses this with WiFi to help "bootstrap" GPS localization. It is much faster to get a GPS fix if you already know roughly where you are (a few seconds vs a couple minutes), so they use nearby WiFi/Bluetooth devices to determine that.

    I think you mean A-GPS, which is not related to wifi and bluetooth, other thqn being able to use wifi to access a server for downloading current constellation data. phones that have google mobile services installed, have an additional fused location source (besides a network based and a gps based location source) that tries to fuse the 2 sources while the gps signal is not precise enough. but as I know fused location computation happens locally

    This is separate from A-GPS. Google seems to be using WiFi rather than Bluetooth, but the broader point remains the same. No one is stopping any vendor from crowdsourcing the location of every BT device... which is what Apple has done, for Airtags which don't have the battery capacity to run a GPS chip.

    Sure without GPS it wouldn't be very effective to rely on only nearby devices to guess the current location. But an attacker only has to get lucky once to get your home address. So the only safe approach is to hide nearby devices/networks from unauthorized apps.

  • I have very little faith that this ship will be turned around. It's not even the explicit invasions of privacy from facial recognition that are the most damning. Its the hordes of people willingly providing their data through social media. Our culture has embraced the erosion of privacy and autonomy with such enthusiasm it almost feels engineered. In fact, it very well might be. When we let money dictate the stories we tell and who tells them, it shouldn't come as a surprise that culture becomes yet another tool to entrench the inequality we live in.

    Yeah, I could they trust a for profit corporation to help them connect with others by sharing about their lifes.

    What stupid fools, the only thing that should be given to corporation is the pointy end of a 105mm round and you should share the details of you personal life with nobody you don't have a blood relation with.

  • Increasingly, surveillance is being normalized and integrated in our lives. Under the guise of convenience, applications and features are sold to us as being the new better way to do things. While some might be useful, this convenience is a Trojan horse. The cost of it is the continuous degradation of our privacy rights, with all that that entails.

    As appalling as it is, the truth is the vast majority of software companies do not consider privacy rights and data minimization practices strongly enough, if at all. Most fail to implement the principles of Privacy by Design that should guide development from the start.

    Whether this comes from ignorance, incompetence, greed, or malicious intent can be debated. It matters little, because the result is the same: Technologies collecting (and monetizing) a shameful amount of data from everyone.

    This horrifying trend ends up facilitating and normalizing surveillance in our daily lives. It is the opposite direction of where we should be going.

    The more we accept this normalized surveillance, the harder it becomes to fight back. It is critical that we firmly and loudly object to this banalized invasion of our privacy.

    There are countless examples of this growing issue, but for now let's focus on three of them: Airport face scans, parking apps, and AI assistants.

    Trying to get my peers to care about their own privacy is exhausting. I wish their choices don't effect me, but like this article states.. They do in the long run.

    I will remain stubborn and only compromise rather than give in.

  • Pimax: one more brand exposed for promoting "positive reviews".

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    55 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    moose@moose.bestM
    This doesn't really surprise me, I've gotten weird vibes from Pimax for years. Not so much to do with their hardware, but how their sales / promo team operates. A while back at my old workplace we randomly got contacted by Pimax trying to have us carry their headset, which was weird since we didn't sell VR stuff or computers even, just other electronics. It was a very out of place request which we basically said we wouldn't consider it until we can verify the quality of the headset, after which they never replied.
  • 62 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    merde@sh.itjust.worksM
    is the linked article or the title edited? This was a post about VA GPT
  • 93 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    G
    You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying. I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself. I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help. So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that. As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it. No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference. But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law. True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult. I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day). You then charge the guilty parents after the offense. Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ? Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?
  • The people who think AI might become conscious

    Technology technology
    8
    1
    6 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    ?
    List of people who know what the fuck consciousness even is:
  • Digg founder Kevin Rose offers to buy Pocket from Mozilla

    Technology technology
    7
    2
    1 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    H
    IMO it was already shitty.
  • 163 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    stroz@infosec.pubS
    Move fast and break people
  • Microsoft Bans Employees From Using DeepSeek App

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    122 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    L
    (Premise - suppose I accept that there is such a definable thing as capitalism) I'm not sure why you feel the need to state this in a discussion that already assumes it as a necessary precondition of, but, uh, you do you. People blaming capitalism for everything then build a country that imports grain, while before them and after them it’s among the largest exporters on the planet (if we combine Russia and Ukraine for the “after” metric, no pun intended). ...what? What does this have to do with literally anything, much less my comment about innovation/competition? Even setting aside the wild-assed assumptions you're making about me criticizing capitalism means I 'blame [it] for everything', this tirade you've launched into, presumably about Ukraine and the USSR, has no bearing on anything even tangentially related to this conversation. People praising capitalism create conditions in which there’s no reason to praise it. Like, it’s competitive - they kill competitiveness with patents, IP, very complex legal systems. It’s self-regulating and self-optimizing - they make regulations and do bailouts preventing sick companies from dying, make laws after their interests, then reactively make regulations to make conditions with them existing bearable, which have a side effect of killing smaller companies. Please allow me to reiterate: ...what? Capitalists didn't build literally any of those things, governments did, and capitalists have been trying to escape, subvert, or dismantle those systems at every turn, so this... vain, confusing attempt to pin a medal on capitalism's chest for restraining itself is not only wrong, it fails to understand basic facts about history. It's the opposite of self-regulating because it actively seeks to dismantle regulations (environmental, labor, wage, etc), and the only thing it optimizes for is the wealth of oligarchs, and maybe if they're lucky, there will be a few crumbs left over for their simps. That’s the problem, both “socialist” and “capitalist” ideal systems ignore ape power dynamics. I'm going to go ahead an assume that 'the problem' has more to do with assuming that complex interacting systems can be simplified to 'ape (or any other animal's) power dynamics' than with failing to let the richest people just do whatever they want. Such systems should be designed on top of the fact that jungle law is always allowed So we should just be cool with everybody being poor so Jeff Bezos or whoever can upgrade his megayacht to a gigayacht or whatever? Let me say this in the politest way I know how: LOL no. Also, do you remember when I said this? ‘Won’t someone please think of the billionaires’ is wearing kinda thin You know, right before you went on this very long-winded, surreal, barely-coherent ramble? Did you imagine I would be convinced by literally any of it when all it amounts to is one giant, extraneous, tedious equivalent of 'Won't someone please think of the billionaires?' Simp harder and I bet maybe you can get a crumb or two yourself.
  • *deleted by creator*

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet