[collective-intl]

Personally, I think Google would be much more competent at designing a good city than the government. Privacy fears are way overblown.

It's popular right now to hate on big US companies, but this project always sounded promising to me, and I really hope they get to finish it. Maybe they would come up with technical innovations that could improve other cities.

[Jasper_]

> Personally, I think Google would be much more competent at designing a good city than the government.

They couldn't even keep fiber wires in the ground for two years before getting bored and losing their attention span. I don't want to see what they would do with more complicated infrastructure.

[crooked-v]

I picture one of those Our Incredible Journey-type posts, capped with "and all city utilities and emergency services will be shut down at the end of the month".

[foobiekr]

Not to mention they failed to lay the fiber competently.

[yogthos]

The fact that anybody could say that privacy fears are overblown given what we know today is absolutely surreal.

[collective-intl]

So what harm have all these privacy invasions caused? Frankly, I think they make me better off.

- Google or YouTube search history helps show me more relevant search results. Ditto for Chrome browser history.

- Google Android's location tracking means I can look back at my timeline and see where I've been on any day. I can see which countries and cities and restaurants I've been to. That's neat, kind of like an automatic diary.

- Facebook keeps track of my likes and interests and shows posts and ads that are more relevant to me. How is that worse than getting generic posts and ads?

The only bad effects I can think of are if Google or Facebook starts leaking all my data, and it being personally identifiable. Luckily, as a profit-seeking company, they have tremendous incentive not to do this (especially with so many privacy obsessed people keeping them honest).

[rendall]

Think bigger-picture. Not only do you have to trust these corporations with your data, but also the data of your family, friends and community. Not only now, but through future changes in political climate, regimes, and cultural shifts. You have to trust every employee who has or has ever had access to that data.

You may not feel that the targetting of political opponents (or, forfend, ethnicities) using such data is likely or realistic, but there is recent historical precedent even in the US.

"The only bad effects I can think of are if Google or Facebook starts leaking all my data, and it being personally identifiable"

What's the worse that could happen in that case, multiplied across your entire community or nation? It does not even have to be personally identifiable to do damage. It could, for instance, correlate your clothing and hair style preferences with likely political affiliation, to start.

Let me know if you find any of this incredible, and I can find sources.

Ps: I dont understand your being down-voted. Your question is a reasonable one.

[thinkloop]

Part of op's point is that this exercise only works when you "think bigger-picture", but in practice it hasn't been panning out. Things have already been leaked, and what has the material damage been? Doesn't seem like much so far, especially weighed against the benefits.

I personally don't agree, but I believe that was op's point. I think the low probability dystopian possibilities are severe enough to outweigh the casual benefits.

[rendall]

<< I think the low probability dystopian possibilities are severe enough to outweigh the casual benefits. >>

I agree, although perhaps I am hypocritical, because I use gmail and google maps. I have jettisoned FB though.

<<Things have already been leaked, and what has the material damage been?>>

I think you're probably right, that this was their main point. To address it, I'll just briefly point to

(Edit: I may not have directly addressed their point here, but I dont think personally that I need to actually see something bad happen on US soil to assume it can't or won't happen if there is no principle to prevent it)

- the myriad oppressive regimes and violent drug cartels that use even publicly-available information to target political opponents.

- the ability of even casual users to create advertisements targeting (or excluding) ever-smaller circles of identifiable traits

- vast and secret subpoena powers by the US government and her allies

- severe political polarization centered on the US, in which the government and its powers flip poles every few years: what is okay for "our guy" to do (e.g. secret assassination lists, secret trials, rendition) will be available for "their guy" in a short while.

- AI being to identify ever-accurate and surprising correlations between lifestyle choices and political views.

Hopefully, nothing bad will happen.

[piokoch]

Information about can be used against you in many different ways: you can get higher prices in online stores (if, for instance, online store gets data that you are a rich person).

You can get higher insurance price if you insurer knows "something" about you or you can be denied insurance at all if they suspect that you are, say, an addict (and this does not have to be true, some "clever" AI will just qualify you as an 34% addict and good luck if such nonsense data, derived by some SF "move fast, break things" startup, will be interpreted in a sensible way by the insurer).

From the information Google/FB has they can derive that someone has a mistress and those who will learn that might try to blackmail such person. Or someone is looking for a new job and informed person can sell this konwledge to one's current employer.

[Karunamon]

This is non-responsive to GP's point, though. This is all hypothetical. Where's the actual, concrete, demonstrated harm?

"Someone in the future might do something untoward" is not concrete.

[vageli]

Facebook used to have "potentially treasonous" [0] as a user attribute that advertisers, etc could use to target users. This is only the beginning. I have no doubt that more conservative regimes have used their legal systems to compel Facebook to hand over all information on all gay users, for example.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/07/20/faceboo...

[sciurus]

Do you have another source? That link 404s.

[henryackerman]

About (leaked) data falling in the wrong hands:

Dutch municipalities used to register your religion in the early 1900s. Then the Germans invaded and boom. The NAZIs had a list of every jew in the country and the rest is history.

About the incentive you mention: have a look at the facebook privacy incidents. Whether or not this incentive exists, data leaks will happen. The only questions are when, to whom, and what that actor will do with said data.

[wstrange]

An oppressive government doesn't need Facebook or Google to figure out your religious leanings.

[tehlike]

Check fb stock price, it will tell you investors have short term memory.

It is about what is possible. Because if something is possible, someone will obtain the data in a way it is not legal, or borderline legal.

[stordoff]

I'm not really worried about the now, I'm worried about the future. What happens if they start leaning on future politicians - "wouldn't it be a shame if people were to learn about that questionable video you watched 5 years ago?" It's a massive _risk_ even if it hasn't been realised.

[basetop]

Especially on hacker news. It's an odd push towards orthodoxy, authoritarianism and government governance which goes against the hacker ethos. Strange to see many "government knows best" and "multinational corporations know best" arguments. Where did this love of government nanny-state or corporate paternalism come from?