[nl]

humanity will be unrecognizable in 3 generations

It's hard to see why this particular thing is going to make any bigger change than those that have happened over the last 3 generations. Or those to come from other reasons: bio-engineering, implants, VR, AI etc.

Also, I'm unclear why you seem to assume this change is bad?

[fixermark]

One concern is that it is a cleave plane between the haves and the have-nots---in this case, the haves are "Those with nothing to hide."

In a future where these technologies are ubiquitous, the person who has to go off the grid for perfectly sane reasons---domestic abuse, witness protection, leaving behind a past that makes one a pariah---will find it that much more difficult. Not only will they no longer have access to the convenience of services that have tuned around their interests and desires---address books that know their work and home, voice recognition that knows what they sound like, personal assistants that can pull useful / valuable information out of the soup of the Internet and surface it to their benefit, etc.---the lack of these technologies in someone's presence will mark them as someone "with a past."

There's the potential that people will look at you a little funny in the future if you have a smartphone with voice recognition disabled, or you're always typing in addresses by hand to a self-driving car because it doesn't just know where you want to go today based on past habits.

[nl]

I grew up without a TV, and people looked at me funny.

I think the domestic abuse thing is bad, and I know Google has been burnt by that once before. But they fixed it once, and I'm not sure that it is something that is unfixable for any substantial reason.

Some people have always rejected technology, for both good and bad reasons. One can usually think of some very compelling case why a particular piece of technology is bad.

That still doesn't mean that the change is bad overall (indeed, the things the person is missing out on sound very useful). And nothing comes close to making it a "grave threat to humanity", or - like I said - a bigger change than something like implants, let alone CRISPR or AI.

[Silhouette]

There's the potential that people will look at you a little funny in the future if...

I'd say "potential" is being charitable at this point. We're now in a world where prospective employers have been demanding access to candidates' social network profiles. We're now in a world where national governments seriously propose requiring anyone visiting their country to disclose all of their social network profiles in advance. Privacy-minded individuals have objected strongly to these kinds of practices, not least because of the inferences that might be drawn if someone didn't provide such details (honestly or otherwise).

[Lordarminius]

I see this beyond the issue of tracking. It is one of relentless collection of data. Google is a private company, even if it were a government, it has no right to all that personal data. It collects it because it can.

With a little imagination it can become clear that so much data cannot be a good thing. Can the information be used to repress political opposition? Can it be used to enforce an agenda of say eugenics? Can a business be given undue advantage by promoting its "recommendations"? Can minorities and their views be suppressed?

In a few years with the maturing of AI to fine-tune the processes we will all think alike,behave alike, conform alike, to the wishes of our overlords who know who we are, where we are, what we eat,what illnesses we have who we f..k, what religion we practice, what books we read, and so on ...

Maybe that fellow Orwell was on to something.

See also fixermark and jtrip below

[nl]

In a few years with the maturing of AI to fine-tune the processes we will all think alike,behave alike, conform alike, to the wishes of our overlords who know who we are, where we are, what we eat,what illnesses we have who we f..k, what religion we practice, what books we read, and so on

On one hand we have people claiming that filter bubbles lead to the collapse of civilization, and on the other we have that the same services will lead to conformity.

Based on current trends, it seems like the filter bubble problem is winning. So maybe an all-knowing AI Google would be what saves us? ;)

The alternative view of course is that there won't be one AI, there will be many. And they will compete to please people more so people are more likely to use their services.

If you want to go hyperbolic again, Brave New World is how it ends. Personally, I'm more than happy to trade information for services that work well.

[jtrip]

Not the OP, but the central idea is 'Information is Power'. It has existed for a long time in the books of all the powerful people and is essential to the very fabric of our universe (not hyperbole; information, entropy, debates about conservation/loss of information instead of mass inside blackholes [0] and such).

Once you have all the relevant information about someone or some system, then you essentially control them. If I know everything about you, how can you ever hope to have an even footing with me?

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

[nl]

This is a good point. But Google's services make a person a more powerful agent compared to others: one can navigate quicker, find better services and access information faster and more accurately.

So yes, there is a trade off. But humans have been making trade-offs forever - civilization itself is one big compromise. Domesticating cattle meant human could not move as quickly and as fast as they used to. But they lived better and longer.

I don't see why information trade-offs are somehow different.

[the_other]

> This is a good point. But Google's services make a person a more powerful agent compared to others: one can navigate quicker, find better services and access information faster and more accurately.

Google could provide most of those services without tracking individuals.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> I don't see why information trade-offs are somehow different.

Because it is about power. We, as humanity, have plenty of experience with power trade-offs. We have so much experience with it that we have names for structures with centralized power, like "monarchy" and "dictatorship". Our experience with those trade-offs hasn't been particularly good. Maybe we should learn something from that.

[inanutshellus]

> I'm unclear why you seem to assume this change is bad?

I guess the idea is to stop assuming you know what the data will be used for. My office manager bought a book then several months later took a trip to NYC. She was pulled into a room and interviewed about it before they let her go, specifically mentioning the book, why she bought it, and asking why she was traveling to NYC.

Is this unreasonable use of data capture? I dunno. Seems okay, right? But it is an example of threat-assessment based on you bought a book. What if you instead had access to every email/text/web-search/webpage-i-have-accessed ever? Not to mention purchases. Of course credit cards are the same way.

Surely posting THIS thread is just as threat-indicating as buying a book, and even more telling because you have my words to back up your assertions. Ought I not have posted this HN post? Will it come back to haunt me? Computers don't forget. They'll never let me forget this post, or any other, and use it as justification for my future actions.

Examples only seem to weaken privacy conversations, since one inevitably internalizes "how likely am I to be caught by that?", but here goes anyway:

If I mention "Snowden" in a post on HackerNews/Reddit/email/Facebook ought I be denied a security clearance? I don't know, but the capability is there already. And of course you have to mention the cliché: If there were a Facebook in 1930, the collection of the Jewish people would've been trivial, and extraordinarily efficient. Heck, throw in today's public face recognition and you could net an entire population. You wouldn't even do it loudly. You'd just quietly identify nexus points in the community and start quietly working to discredit and weaken them. Help them lose their job, discredit them, have'm transferred to another city, hire a prostitute to help ruin their marriage... whatever it is that naughty folk do to get their way as quietly as possible.

I don't feel like these things are shocking, hard-to-execute, or so fabulously ficticious that one ought eye-roll at it. They're simply what any moral-less entity would do to stay alive/in-power/in-control.

[blacksmith_tb]

The capture of the data is only slightly offensive to me (my library knows a lot about what I like to read, too). Using it to hassle me when traveling is much more odious, in my mind mainly because there absolutely isn't any kind of data showing that "people who read title X were 10% (or even 1%) more likely to commit some atrocity." That's just nonsensical. So yes, technically easy to implement, but why?