FTC Report Confirms: Commercial Surveillance Is Out of Control

229 pointsposted 10 hours ago
by glitcher

108 Comments

myprotegeai

7 hours ago

A company recently demoed to me that they have the ability to see the work history, credit report, and bank balance of a visitor that visits a site with some tracking code, in under 500ms. They use this information for a product that qualifies leads for sales teams, so the sales team knows who is a waste of time to go after and who isn't.

Creeps me the fuck out, and the owners seem to have no ethical qualms about buying, selling, and using this data.

ruined

an hour ago

free startup idea: trolley-solver-as-a-service.

integrate something like this with license plate data, property records, person recognition, and realtime location. when a self-driving automobile detects that it's out of control and unable to avoid imminent liability, it can make a cost-benefit analysis of each prospective casualty by querying an API that provides an avoidance score for each consumer and property in the vicinity. based on this score the client automobile will be able to identify a route of least liability. consumers may be encouraged to integrate with these services by assigning unidentified things a score of zero.

next_xibalba

6 hours ago

None of it is accurate and almost all of it is modeled from sparse, low quality training sets. Banks are not selling PII’ed account balance data to shady aggregators.

To me, the more interesting and outrageous story is how many aggregators are able to sell garbage data so successfully.

hammock

6 hours ago

>Banks are not selling PII’ed account balance data to shady aggregators.

But is Plaid?

And banks do sell account balance data, they also sell credit and debit transaction history

Seattle3503

3 hours ago

> But is Plaid?

Or any of those budgeting apps that integrate with your bank account.

prasadjoglekar

2 hours ago

That's probably the signal. But as one of the parent posters said, the # of folks who use such budgeting apps is quite small. For advertising, small samples are useless, so this data has to be modeled to the full US population.

For that, this very biased training set. And almost always the independent variables used for modeling are 7-10 standard demographics.

dml2135

6 hours ago

Seems like Plaid would be f’d six ways til Sunday if it got out that they were selling consumer data to 3rd parties, no? A huge part of their business model is based on trust and doing that would completely burn it.

hammock

5 hours ago

dml2135

4 hours ago

Sorry, maybe “third party” isn’t the correct term. Let me try to lay out my point a bit more clearly:

Plaid’s business model is — Company A needs a consumer’s data from Bank B. Plaid takes the consumer’s banking credentials, gets the data, and sells it to Company A.

At no point in this process does Plaid go and sell this data to another unrelated Company C. The lawsuit cited was about Plaid not sufficiently explaining its position between Company A and Bank B to the consumer. It was not about Plaid going and selling the data to the highest bidder.

mystified5016

4 hours ago

Pretty much no corporation in the last 40 years has suffered the consequences of their actions. Boeing has killed how many people and it's taking an act of Congress to even start talking about some consequences later, maybe.

gruez

2 hours ago

>Pretty much no corporation in the last 40 years has suffered the consequences of their actions.

There's hundreds of regulatory actions taken by governments per year. That's "consequence" by definition.

brewdad

an hour ago

Fines of a few percent of the revenues generated aren’t enough of a deterrent.

hedvig23

5 hours ago

That logic suffices as truth to you?

ethbr1

5 hours ago

> None of it is accurate and almost all of it is modeled from sparse, low quality training sets. Banks are not selling PII’ed account balance data to shady aggregators.

Part of the problem though is that much of this data is persistent, across order-of-human-lifetime.

How often does your employer salary history have to be obtained to be useful? Maybe once every 10 years?

I have zero faith that in jurisdictions without national laws prohibiting it (and laws that prevent usage of extra-national data) that's not happening.

bbarnett

32 minutes ago

Banks are not selling PII’ed a

You know how some banks have a service which tells you how you spend your money? With graphs, 20% on power, 15% on food, etc?

That service is provided by a third party, who is given the data anonymized. A unique id number assigned. Yet it's trivial to deanonymize, and that's what happens.

All that is required is one buy with a points card, an airmiles card, and you are forever relinked to your data. It's how points cards make cash on the side, how air miles do. Exact time, date, amount, location of purchase is a great sync method.

If you pay for your phone with any form of traceable payment, they know who you are, your address, etc. From this immense data is gleamed, such as lot value, neighborhood, and so on. Companies can even get current location and geofence you, being alerted if you move in/out of a certain location.

Mobile phone companies sell this data/service via an easy api. Companies relink a phone from the app level via IMEI and number, which is sold to aggregators along with phone data (contacts, etc). The telco api links to real identity.

Once linked, forever linked.

Most people love free apps, and give up messages/sms, contacts, and more to save a dollar on an app. From this immense relationship data is gleamed, including likely employer and social circke.

Even if you are careful with your app permissions, certainly many acquaintances of yours aren't, so you get linked to their social circle, often with contact name/address.

This is just the simple stuff.

Source: I've dealt with these companies.

myprotegeai

6 hours ago

Maybe they are using garbage data, but at least for the credit checks, he was running them on-demand at $0.75 a pop. He also mentioned browser fingerprint databases that he has purchased. Half of his job seemed to be processing and importing different databases that he had purchased.

vundercind

6 hours ago

The first time I saw a session replay of all the mouse movements and input of a user on their own fucking computer that some marketing website-spyware had recorded was the moment I decided the Internet was a mistake.

mason55

6 hours ago

Pretty much every analytics product does this now. Amplitude, Statsig, Posthog, etc.

Not saying it’s a good thing but assume that most websites are recording your session at this point.

jerlam

5 hours ago

An intern at my company built a proof-of-concept of this within a month, under a mistaken direction to build "analytics tools". When the intern presented this to the team, everyone was horrified and we never brought it up again after the intern left.

rexarex

6 hours ago

You mean the free product Microsoft Clarity that everyone uses?

vundercind

6 hours ago

Nah, it was some smallish company’s SAAS thingy. This was maybe 2015.

a13n

6 hours ago

fullstory

vundercind

5 hours ago

It was already common then, I gather—the ex-developer-product-owner guy who showed it to me (in the course of doing something else) didn’t seem to think it was remarkable, just an assumed capability. I don’t recall the name of the product, but it’d record all the input and page content for an entire session, you could watch it play back like a video. Exactly like standing over someone’s shoulder while they used their computer. Creepy as fuck, but some genius renamed “spyware” to “telemetry” and that was enough to get every developer on board because we’re super insecure and will jump at the chance to pretend we’re building Mars rovers or something else real while we make yet another “app” the world doesn’t need (I suppose that’s why that label was so successful at changing attitudes, anyway)

jonhohle

5 hours ago

Isn’t this how heatmaps were generated as far back as the late 2000s?

vundercind

5 hours ago

Click-mapping came earlier, and there may have been a few places mouse-movement and cross-page-load session tracking some sessions, but I don’t think it was a “just turn it on and leave it on” thing for even most large sites. And a lot of early heat maps came from user studies, which is the right way to do that.

[edit] also, that just happened to be the first time I’d seen a single session represented that way, rather than aggregates. Again, it wasn’t some brand-new thing then, it’d been around long enough to have multiple companies offering it as a service, not just an internal tool at a couple giants.

m463

4 hours ago

What if it was your daughter?

22 years old, height proportional to weight, poor decision making skills.

What about your son?

I've seen this offered to young kids paying rent:

"Flex lets you pay rent on a schedule that works better for your monthly budget and frees up your cash flow."

"Help you pay rent on time. Improve your cash flow. Build your credit history."

riahi

28 minutes ago

This sounds like they are somehow identifying the user and querying theworknumber.

You can get a ton from a worknumber query.

zoltrix303

an hour ago

I had a similar experience once where a vendor demoed their tracking tech for advertising. This was in France (before GDPR) and they had partnered with many apps (Weather apps and such) to access user locations. I don't remember the size of their target but it was a big chunk of the French population. They showed a map of Paris showing the day of a particular user from leaving their home, which route they took, how long they stood in front of which store and how long the spend inside others etc. My boss at the time found the whole thing very exciting...

Mountain_Skies

an hour ago

While out hiking one day, I started thinking about buying a small ladder for the kitchen. When I got home that evening, I started seeing ads for ladders even though I had not searched for ladders, spoke to anyone about ladders, or even texted anyone about them. It was just a thought I had while hiking. Was it a coincidence or something else?

Finally figured it out a day later when reviewing my hike on the Fitbit app. At the end of my hike I forgot to shutoff route tracking. On my way home, I had stopped by Walmart to grab a few things and while there, looked at their ladders. I could see on the app the path I took through the store, including when I stopped for a few minutes in front of the ladders. That was enough data to trigger ads for ladders for the next couple of days.

We leak data about ourselves constantly without realizing how much we're doing it or where it ends up going. Lots of it is also circumstantial and makes me wonder what erroneous ideas some of these databases might have accumulated over the years and who gets to see that "information". What happens if you walk through a part of town where there's an activist rally for "We Love Kitten Torture" going on? Do you forever get tagged in a bunch of databases as an animal torturer?

anjel

7 hours ago

Soon to be combined with palantir face recognition tech. No need to chip your citizenry!

luckylion

7 hours ago

"A visitor" as in "any visitor"? Or rather "a visitor", i.e. a specific one, about whom they already possess all this data and it's just a look up?

The latter I absolutely believe. The former I'd file under sci-fi marketing tales that anyone with some amount of knowledge about web technologies wouldn't fall for.

A4ET8a8uTh0

7 hours ago

Wait.. physical site like a store or a web site? Not that either would make it that much better than the other, but you got me really curious.

ranger_danger

6 hours ago

Nothing like this exists for data on the general public and it would be illegal anyways. Either one of you is not aware of what that product actually isn't, or are being intentionally deceitful and spreading FUD.

whycombinater

7 hours ago

Just beat them to death.

Jury nullification.

Or vote, or whatever the site rules permit, good luck with that.

bofadeez

7 hours ago

Sounds like vaporware. Might be possible for a negligibly small % of visitors. And even then cold outreach is not very effective.

drdaeman

4 hours ago

It's basically same as classic approach of correlating salaries with ZIP codes, just with more parameters. Which sort of works statistically, because there are correlations - but is nothing more than a hallucination at individual visitor scale.

agentultra

8 hours ago

Finally. We all “know” that corporations will always choose profits over literally anything else. Glad to see the come back of the FTC. It seems we only get meaningful progress when there’s strong regulation.

Other notable examples: the EPA. There was a time when people had to wear gas masks out doors in some cities because the pollution was so bad before regulations and enforcement came into place. Similar stories with CFC emissions.

The development of the Internet has been accelerated under mostly conservative leadership which has been walking back regulations. And while much innovation has happened in that time I think a great deal more could have been achieved if it weren’t focused on this kind of profit-at-all-costs environment it’s been simmering in.

musicale

24 minutes ago

> Other notable examples: the EPA

I wish the EPA hadn't dropped the ball on noise pollution.

chung8123

an hour ago

People also pick money over privacy. People do not turn down working at these companies. They make a ton of money to implement these systems.

mgraczyk

6 hours ago

Needing to wear gas masks outside sounds like a pretty bad, tangible harm caused by a lack of pollution regulation.

Do you have any examples of similar tangible harm caused by lack of regulation on data collection?

hotspot_one

6 hours ago

People in Texas facing murder charges for traveling to other states to get an abortion.

People facing criminal charges for helping people in Texas learn about what options for managing their own reproductive health and bodies.

mgraczyk

6 hours ago

Do you have a link for the first one? I don't think that has happened (although it could under Texas law as I understand it)

Is there an actual case where data described in the article was used for anything like what you're suggesting? The actual cases involve people reporting each other (a man reporting a woman he is dating for example).

Sounds to me like blaming the acid rain on the acid detectors

shiroiushi

an hour ago

>a man reporting a woman he is dating for example

That sounds like a good reason for any women in Texas to avoid dating any men in Texas.

Const-me

3 hours ago

> similar tangible harm caused by lack of regulation on data collection?

There’s a spike in teenager suicides, girls in particular. The phenomenon is well researched, it correlates with popularity of social media among teenagers. I believe that’s causation not just correlation, because social media didn’t became popular everywhere at once, they did gradually for different countries/languages, the teenager suicides spike follows.

Restricting data collection will fix that by dismantling the business model. Will be harder for tech companies to convert screen time into profits. Will even flip the motivation developing addictive apps: the more time users will spend there the more bandwidth they consume i.e. profits will turn into costs. Which is good for most people, except employees and stock owners of social media companies.

P.S. Personally, I prefer more radical approach: total ban of advertisements on the internets. Many cities did it for billboards, I don’t see why we shouldn’t do the same online.

mgraczyk

2 hours ago

Banning online advertisements would essentially cripple small businesses in the US. Even local businesses today rely on online ads for foot traffic. Banning ads would send us back to the economy of the 1950s, where most profit accrues to a number of powerful corporations, and small manufacturers and creators have no market power.

I used data and ran experiments to measure and mitigate teen well being and harm at Instagram. I was not on the team responsible for this, but I worked on organic ranking and was responsible for understanding and measuring the impact of these things. I can say with certainty nobody cares more about teen well being than Meta. It's their future, and the success Instagram over Snapchat is essentially completely due to better positive interventions for well being. We measured this carefully with RCTs and had more data than anyone on the planet.

Overall Instagram is net good for the majority of teens across a wide variety of well being metrics, and net negative for a small percentage. Meta spends hundreds of millions trying to fix those latter, rarer cases.

Const-me

an hour ago

> where most profit accrues to a number of powerful corporations, and small manufacturers and creators have no market power

You’re describing the status quo with online ads still legal. Amazon has 37.6% share of e-commerce; small manufacturers can’t compete. Google hosts 79% of videos viewed over the internets, and it abuses small creators really bad, with no ways to appeal or contact humans.

One of the reasons how these corporations became that powerful was unrestricted and legal digital surveillance. Another reason, anti-monopoly regulators asleep at their job allowing big tech companies to easily acquire competitors (e.g. Google was competing with YouTube for a year or so with “Google Video” product, failed, then acquired the competitor).

> net good for the majority of teens across a wide variety of well being metrics, and net negative for a small percentage

Many researchers who don’t work for FB were warning for years. Couple years ago some of that internal research was leaked, here’s a copy-paste “Thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse” https://archive.is/qBpaq#selection-915.1-915.113 I would not call 32% “a small percentage”.

Another thing, “negative for just a small percentage” is a poor defense. Even if it’s indeed tiny, it still doesn’t mean the business model should be legal. Imagine a lottery where 0.1% people win $1M, 1% people win $10k, 10% people win $1k, 89.9% don’t win or lose anything, and 0.01% lose their life – don’t you think a business model like that should be illegal?

aierou

5 hours ago

Many people fear that a corrupt or authoritarian regime might misuse data to cause harm. However, the reality is that such regimes tend to carry out harmful actions regardless of the data they collect. Data can make their efforts more efficient, but the real danger lies in the regime's intent, not necessarily the data itself.

mgraczyk

5 hours ago

Exactly, historical authoritarian states got by just fine by reading the mail and listening to conversations. You don't need to know which fragrance I bought last week to oppress me, and it wouldn't help anyway

monkaiju

4 hours ago

But they broadly didnt actually get along just fine... Almost without exception they have falleb, commonly due to internal resistance. Making that internal resistabce harder via enhanced surveillance is the issue that could make future scenarios even worse.

mgraczyk

4 hours ago

Is there an example of an authoritarian state that failed due to internal resistance?

Tanoc

2 hours ago

The most defined example would probably be Apartheid South Africa. Despite being in a weak position, having few resources, and dealing with constant losses, the ANC were so successful in harassing the National Party over three decades that the National Party finally ceded power in 1993. This was enabled by radio broadcasts, fast printing, and starting in the late 1970s digital espionage. Information and the spread of information was tightly controlled by the National Party, which is one of the three major reasons why it took so long and why slow erosion was the only viability rather than full immediate revolution.

gaganyaan

6 hours ago

Targeted advertising dragging people down rabbit holes into extremism

mgraczyk

6 hours ago

Ads don't do that. Maybe you're thinking of organic posts, which are not ads? Or do you have examples of "extremist" ads?

Having worked on this stuff, I can tell you that the data relevant to extremist rabbit holes is not what the FTC is talking about. Facebook learns enough from which posts you click on to know which extremist content to suggest (and then they intentionally do not suggest it)

t0bia_s

4 hours ago

Consumerism makes society less conflict. This idea was implemented by propaganda in 30's by Edward Bernays. Propaganda was later changed to term public relations after connection with Nazism during WW2.

vaindil

3 hours ago

I'm sick of needing to spend weeks researching which couch or mattress to buy because corporations will happily sell me a terrible couch for $3,000 that only cost them $50 to make. It'll fall apart in a year or two, conveniently after the warranty expires, but hey, their profits are going up so who cares about the buyer?

I'm sick of events like the Boar's Head listeria outbreak killing 10 people happening with regularity now. Last year it was eye drops causing blindness. The companies don't care beyond the lawsuits they'll face, who cares if people die as long as their profits go up?

I'm sick of oil companies lying about the environmental harms they cause. Their profits are going up, so why should they care about climate change or the tainted groundwater their fracking causes?

I'm sick of seeing ads and billboards for corporations everywhere I go. I'm sick of being tracked because corporations can make x% more money with my data than they can without it. Installing uBlock Origin is easy, but we now have facial recognition systems with physical cameras in the real world. Can't do anything about those unless I just never leave my home.

I'm sick of people defending this behavior by asking "what tangible harm have you experienced?". The tangible harm is that I'm fucking tired. I'm tired of living in a society that requires expending so much mental energy just to exist.

I should be able to just trust (within reason, of course) that a $1,000 mattress will work for X years without needing to research whether the company is decent or known to be awful. I should be able to buy chocolate from the grocery store without needing to research whether the corporation (or any of its 24 parents and subsidiaries) used slave labor to produce it. I shouldn't need to worry about bottled water being stolen from aquifers by corporations that will simply move on after destroying the communities that depend on that water.

I vote, because it's all I can do, but that accomplishes nothing because we're stuck in a two-party system that won't let me vote for a candidate far enough left to actually fix things. Instead we continue to maintain the status quo, because corporations have more money and political power than civilians.

I'm well aware that this reads like an overdramatic manifesto. I'm just sick of everything feeling like it's getting worse all the time, and it seems pretty causally linked to the rise of corporations. Is it too much to ask that I be able to live without them invading _every single aspect of my life_? I don't think it is, but I think we're too far gone at this point for it to ever change.

throwaway35imi

3 hours ago

> I'm well aware that this reads like an overdramatic manifesto.

No, it reads like you are reading my mind. Well said, especially the point that this is _every single aspect_ not just an infraction here and there.

candiddevmike

38 minutes ago

You sound like you're mad as hell, and you aren't going to take it anymore

mgraczyk

3 hours ago

None of these have anything to do with data collection.

Billboards don't use your data

Oil companies don't use your data to drill for oil

Listeria isn't caused or made worse by your data

Sorry I don't care that you are tired. Some people would say the same about seeing the sun (Asimov famously) but that doesn't mean we should ban windows on buildings

rrdharan

2 hours ago

Try not worrying about as much stuff?

100 years ago well before the invention of so-called surveillance capitalism, people were making soft drinks out of radium, and inhaling asbestos.

Many things are better since then. Some new things are probably worse, but every reasonable measure of human welfare suggests we are better off than we were previously.

Something some subset of us are worried about right now, whether it’s WiFi or 5G or Covid vaccines, will turn out to have had horrible consequences and you can’t really fault the rest of us that we didn’t listen to the crazies.

Just embrace panglossian optimism because the alternative is to just be angry and exhausted and indignant all the time and then you’re no fun at parties.

Tanoc

an hour ago

When you go across a long enough timeline variations occur. Nothing over time in human history is a constant linear improvement. We may be better off than we were in 1924 in terms of health and safety, but we're definitely not better off than we were in 1994. Legislation hasn't kept up with chemical science and social engineering, and enforcement has been tentative as fights between executive power and judiciary power create years long arguments that get in the way of preventing harm. For example Red 40 is a dye that's well known to cause cancer with a high degree of certainty (not probability, certainty), while the artificial sweetener sucralose is genotoxic. You go drink a can of Faygo Cherry and it's got both. The FDA hasn't been able to regulate either because they haven't been legislated the power to do so, are now even more crippled thanks to the overturning of Chevron, and companies keep funding "alternative studies" that they can present to lobbyists.

It's hard not to be angry and exhausted when you have to be a chemical engineer just to know what's even safe to eat.

DonnyV

14 minutes ago

People like you are part of the problem.

DonnyV

15 minutes ago

I agree with all of this 110%!!!

So tired of people making excuses so that some billionaire can buy another yacht. Can we finally actually start investing in people and putting people first instead of corporations.

bitnasty

6 hours ago

Identity theft

mgraczyk

6 hours ago

Do you have any examples where the data was obtained from sources that collected it for ads? As I understand it, the sort of data that is collected for behavioral advertising isn't useful for identity theft and has not been used in that way.

For identity theft you need things like names, addresses, SSN, W2 income, etc

glitcher

10 hours ago

techjamie

6 hours ago

> Based on the data collected, the staff report said many companies assert that there are no children on their platforms because their services were not directed to children or did not allow children to create accounts.

Funny how they have advertising cohorts drilled into every niche interest or happening, but they just can't perfect the technology to determine if someone is a child. Very elusive tech they've definitely been working day and night to implement for years.

Almost like they benefit from acting blissfully ignorant.

fromMars

3 hours ago

The information Credit Bureaus and Banks store is much scarier. They know your salary every place you've worked and lived. And with all the recent links anyone can find this information on the dark web.

motohagiography

6 hours ago

that horse left the barn over a decade ago. my attitude has changed to where I used to do security and privacy work to mitigate risk from a coming corporate cyberpunk dystopia, but now I think the idea of governments getting a monopoly on surveillance is the worst possible outcome.

a real solution would be to legally privilege and disqualify classes of personal information from civil and non-violent criminal legal proceedings based on how they were collected, and PII collection sources material to commercial decisions must be disclosed in offers and contracts.

insurers and creditors would actually have to take risk again instead of being rentiers, police are servants and not governors, and the provenance of PII as evidence would have to be proven as from a legal and prescribed source that included explicit consent. there is no stopping the flow of data collection, but we can improve laws to manage it.

mrbluecoat

8 hours ago

A four year investigation to tell us what we already know. The real question is: What is the federal government (or anyone else) going to do about it?

janalsncm

7 hours ago

A lot of people wonder why we study and document things that are already “common knowledge”. This is true of scientific studies as well. What a waste of money, right?

The answer is, until you actually do the work you don’t actually know. Scientists and government officials can’t cite common knowledge. And even if you were right about the conclusion, the details matter. The amount matters. The mechanisms matter.

SoftTalker

7 hours ago

> government officials can’t cite common knowledge

Government officials can cite whatever they want, including stuff they pulled out of their ass, as long as they have the votes.

iterance

7 hours ago

High-quality studies also lay out a methodology for evaluating, assessing, and ultimately characterizing the issue, so that the impact of policy changes can be properly assessed. Even showing that well-known investigatory methods function adequately for a given problem is of value.

Put another way, "you can't control what you can't measure" (or in this case, characterize more generally).

llamaimperative

8 hours ago

There are plenty of people who "know" things that are actually wrong. This investigation is an important first step for the government to feel confident they know what's going on before exercising state power, which is, you know, a good thing. Vibes- or rumor-based exercise of state power is ill advised.

The Biden FTC has been quite aggressive against all sorts of anti-consumer practices throughout the economy which tend to follow these types of reports. I suspect action is coming relatively soon.

sixothree

6 hours ago

This report gives us a framework for legislation. In no way does it "tell us what we already know".

fallingknife

6 hours ago

Nothing because the government wants to do this surveillance itself but can't by law. The availability of corporate surveillance means the government can use it too, so it benefits them.

kristjank

4 hours ago

I have become more and more inclined to deem the advertising industry considerably worse than the military industrial complex, and I hope that some higher force smites the executives involved with great vengeance and furious anger someday.

t0bia_s

4 hours ago

For me it's hypocrisy to regulate surveillance of private companies by state. You have option to not use their data collecting technologies. You cannot opt out to surveillance by state!

Let's not play game to makes states good guys and companies the bad boys.

kristjank

4 hours ago

I really hate to defend state surveillance here, but at least that provides me with some (arguably false) sense of security and uninterested crimefighting. The private sector private eyes provide me only with never-ending ad slurry that's been wearing me down by the day.

JumpCrisscross

4 hours ago

> it's hypocrisy to regulate surveillance of private companies by state

Now do arms.

OneLeggedCat

8 hours ago

> "While not every investigated company committed the same privacy violations, the conclusion is clear: companies prioritized profits over privacy. "

Why wouldn't they? A capitalist shareholder system requires that they do exactly this, to whatever extent it does not impact sales.

It's on citizens to demand regulation, and yet in the US, a probable majority of voting citizens don't like regulation, and think that government is too large or too untrustworthy. Combine that with the control that corporations have over our politicians, and further combine that with low public understanding of the issue, and there is nothing realistic that can be done.

So I consider surveillance capitalism to be permanent in the US. Regardless of the fact that most people don't like being spied on and manipulated constantly. Perhaps some really large, really bad event could galvanize the public, but I doubt it.

tsunamifury

7 hours ago

This will make optimal global pricing an insane world where everything will cost the maximum you can pay but the overall system will collapse as people will consume way less and be more miserable within it.

29athrowaway

7 hours ago

And what was the FTC doing all these years?

Scipio_Afri

6 hours ago

Under a different administration in the previous 4 years.

Any large institution takes some time to change, senate confirmations for the leads of major agencies don’t occur immediately upon swearing in of a new President - it’s often months later. Then, after that occurs, change from the top down occurs.

Additionally for any sufficiently large group of people it takes a long time to get people to take any sort of collective action, let alone an organization with processes, years long funding and contracts already in place. Then there are sometimes/often legal challenges to the awarding of contracts, the issuing of regulations.

How long do you think this study would’ve taken to execute by itself? Okay now how long do you think it would’ve taken to plan the methodology for what they should do to execute. Before that they have to have a proposal of what they would like to study and then get the money approved / allocated to do the previous work I just mentioned, such as a detailed methodology.

Again, this administration has been in charge of the FTC for only 3 ish years and had to probably rebuild it towards focusing on holding businesses to account.

Not quite sure what else you’re expecting, it takes companies as well many months and even years to change focus, or to deliver a robust product. And that’s generally with an agreed upon a singular focus.

A4ET8a8uTh0

7 hours ago

Election year. The assumption is it is simultaneously posturing for current administration, validating its existence and funding to potential new one, and PR for the public.

Before that? I don't remember that much from the past few years, but I think a good chunk of federal agencies were kinda in a weird stalemate ( which is kinda what the US is system is built for anyway ).

kibwen

5 hours ago

> Election year.

This FTC has been extremely active and assertive since 2021, for which I'm thankful. People only pay attention in election years.

dartos

15 minutes ago

Recently they’ve been starting to do shit, but they’ve been dropping the ball for the last 16 years.

exfildotcloud

8 hours ago

Agreed. Out in public yet encrypted is something I've been playing with as https://exfilcloud.com has no protection against access other than encryption.

meonkeys

6 hours ago

This looks kinda sus. Why would or should anyone use this, @exfildotcloud?

exfildotcloud

6 hours ago

Good question. All encryption happens in the browser. I may release the code but it's really just Go Age WASM with a KV backend.

What's suspicious?

meonkeys

19 minutes ago

Closed source, and the HN account just for this purpose/service.

dartos

13 minutes ago

Second the closed source nature. Believing that something closed source is actually encrypting messages is the same as believing in “trust me bro”

Tho, you can be open source without being FOSS if you want to give customers the ability to verify what you’re doing without giving away your IP.

OutOfHere

7 hours ago

As true as that is, I think the people should still worry 100x more about government surveillance than about commercial surveillance. Commercial surveillance is only trying to sell you something you don't need. In contrast, government surveillance, with or without cooperation from commercial entities, is trying to lock you up for victimless crimes or on flimsy evidence because they have run out of real terrorists to fight. The government's data collection is vastly larger than of anyone else, all paid for by you with your taxes. Encryption, cybersecurity, and minimizing data retention are the primary ways to fight it.

politelemon

7 hours ago

> Commercial surveillance is only trying to sell you something you don't need.

This simply isn't true. Commercial surveillance is a means and method of inserting itself further into your workflows or lives. Just think of all the health and identity related 'features' being rolled out (and celebrated), and how governments are readily capitulating to them. It isn't far fetched or tinfoil to consider that these commercial entities, at some point in the future, can become the arbiters of decisions that affect you.

This isn't even about commercial vs government surveillance, they are equally dangerous, and of both you should be equally wary; governments are far more careful with actions, even with malicious intent, whereas commercial entities with deep pockets are often abstracted away sufficiently to escape blame or consequences. However, governments that delegate to commercial for decision making means that there is little to no difference in the 'type' of surveillance.

Minimizing your own ecosystem lockin is extremely important.

SoftTalker

6 hours ago

> health and identity related 'features'

But it's easy enough to just opt out of all that. I don't use fitness or health wearables. I don't have my DNA or ancestry analyzed. I don't use online/telehealth services. Hell I don't even visit the doctor very often. I don't trust healthcare at all because it's very easy for them to use "scare" marketing to get people to pay for all kinds of stuff that (a) they don't need and (b) has very little real benefit and (c) that in most cases is for conditions that common sense and a little self-discipline can avoid.

You're free to think that doctors and health organizations operate on some higher plane of morality but the truth is they are businesses and need to compete for customers just like any other business does.

janalsncm

7 hours ago

When the government is allowed to buy information which would otherwise require a warrant, private surveillance becomes government surveillance.

pixl97

7 hours ago

Exactly, there is no difference. In fact in some ways it is worse because the government can say with a straight face they aren't collecting your data and monitoring you... they just pay someone else for that service.

A4ET8a8uTh0

7 hours ago

Yep, and I keep harping on that one simple point. If that data is collected at all, it will be used. Even with laws protecting it. Look how HiPAA has become something of a joke now between regular breaches and app everything, which skirt as much as they can.

fallingknife

6 hours ago

They lean on social media companies to violate your 1st amendment rights and then buy from them to violate your 4th.

throwawayqqq11

7 hours ago

> Commercial surveillance is only trying to sell you something you don't need.

Besides the maximimization of revenue, the profit motive also dictates the reduction of risk. Consider any application for insurance, membership, coverage...

>government surveillance, is trying to lock you up because they have run out of real terrorists to fight

"Government is surveilling/fighting you because who else" is easily applicable to $EvilCorp monopolies, because its tautological.

red_admiral

7 hours ago

I assume that all data the commercial providers have on you, the government can access too if they would like to. Probably the government is even happy they can "outsource" a lot of data collection.

dartos

12 minutes ago

This exactly.

I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks like this.