[LA_Banker]

I'm ceaselessly amused by the folks fearing Amazon Echos or Google Homes as though they're constantly listening microphones sent to the NSA. As though we don't already carry devices on our person everywhere we go that have mics (smartphones).

Also, while we trade our privacy to Google (or Amazon, or whomever) in exchange for customization and convenience (a social contract I'm generally happy to sign off on), those companies have even more incentive to keep our data safe.

Google is one of the most valuable companies in the world precisely because it, and only it, has the AdSense knowledge (and whatever other knowledge Google collects about me) to target me.

Insurance companies go to Google and say "show our ads to people Googling insurance companies" – that's how Google makes money. It's not as though Google says "here you go State Farm, here's everyone who's been looking up car insurance." It's business model is based on proprietary customer knowledge. It can't give away this data; it's incentivized to limit it to its own ad-targeting tech.

Are there still problems with this model? Sure. If the government decides to subpoena Google on me, they'll turn over my Gmail. But is it a hell of a lot easier getting access to Google services (e.g. Google Maps knowing where I generally go and what the traffic is like) versus using, say, Duck Duck Go on a VPN (let alone Tor or Tails)? For me, and I'd assume most people, yes.

EDIT: I would also point out that we've long been facing the privacy vs. convenience issue. It used to be that merely signing up for a landline meant getting your phone # listed in the White Pages. Paying utility bills makes your name and home address a matter of public record (unless you choose to shield them via owning and paying through a corporate shell). Ditto real estate transactions involving your name/address. All public records, unless you choose to hire attorneys to setup shell corps for the sake of privacy. Not so expensive to do this now in the age of LegalZoom, etc., but this used to cost quite the pretty penny.

This debate is nothing new; it's merely evolving.

[CaptSpify]

> those companies have even more incentive to keep our data safe.

Then why aren't they doing it, and why aren't they informing us when breaches happen?

I absolutely think providing that data should be voluntary. If you want to send it to them, go ahead! But in many ways it's not. I can't remove my data from those companies, nor can I control what they do with it, and that's a serious problem.

[threeseed]

You really don't get it do you. Most of us aren't worried about Amazon and Google per se but rather what happens to our data when (a) they are compromised and (b) government surveillance increases in scope.

There have been countless incidents (and these will only increase in frequency) where people's sensitive information have been stolen and used for blackmail and identity fraud. There is also the increasing use of private data by governments for example in deciding on visa entry or immigration cases. The use cases for criminals and governments are only going to increase in scope and sophistication and will be applied not just to future data collected but current data.

These are all legitimate situations which are completely unprecedented and only possible because of the increased data collection policies of site like Google or Facebook.

[TheOtherHobbes]

The problem isn't really privacy, it's privacy asymmetry.

Would Facebook agree to make all of their employee web searches public? Would Google? How about all phone traffic? Emails?

Thought experiment: imagine a world where everyone can see what everyone else is doing all of the time.

Assume absolutely no exceptions or restrictions. You can eavesdrop on anyone in the world. Anyone can eavesdrop on you.

How many "I am fine with no privacy" advocates would be happy with this?

It's an extreme thought experiment to highlight how asymmetric the current model is. In the current model privacy is becoming a privilege that is available more and more selectively.

To eliminate the privilege, you either need user controls and permissions for specific profitable use cases, or you need full openness - which I think most people would find terrifying, for all kinds of reasons.

[threeseed]

Exactly.

I would have far more respect for no privacy advocates if they made public a daily ISO of the contents of their computer.

Would they really have the same position once their identity had been stolen, their credit cards maxed out and every thing they have said taken out of context and made available to their friends, family, boss and the TSA.

[newscracker]

> It's an extreme thought experiment to highlight how asymmetric the current model is. In the current model privacy is becoming a privilege that is available more and more selectively.

Slightly tangential to this topic, your comment reminded me of this short talk titled "Your smartphone is a civil rights issue" by Christopher Soghoian. [1] It truly is a great privilege to be able to control one's privacy in today's world (to whatever extent it is possible).

[1]: https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_soghoian_your_smartpho...

[newscracker]

> I'm ceaselessly amused by the folks fearing Amazon Echos or Google Homes as though they're constantly listening microphones sent to the NSA. As though we don't already carry devices on our person everywhere we go that have mics (smartphones).

> ...

> Are there still problems with this model? Sure. If the government decides to subpoena Google on me, they'll turn over my Gmail.

It seems to me like you've read about the Snowden revelations but don't see any issues with warrantless tapping and mass surveillance. As I said in another comment, privacy is not just about you or me. It's about all humans and the rights that we have granted ourselves in many countries around the world.

[tanilama]

Prepare to be downvoted to death, but I think some people just want attention and feel important by crying doom.