Alright you motherfucking dickstenches, get in here. I've got a question for you bastards. No copypasta, no trolling, no triggering intended. But I am calling you out.
You motherfuckers are concerned about your privacy. An understandable concern given the world around us, and the businesses in it. However, this board is, if I was to give a ballpark percentage, I'd say 75% filled with Linux fags and smartphone conspiracists who scream from mountaintops the dangers of giving all of your information to big companies.
With the importance of security and internet awareness withstanding, I want to know what makes your fear of personal information being available to corporations reasonable. I ask this on a personal level. Do you think Microsoft really has people watching your every move from your Win10 PC? Do you really think Samsung is maliciously documenting your mother's bank cadocumentinen she uses Samsung Pay? Are you really concerned that Apple has minutes upon minutes of your sister's FaceTime minutes stored in some facility somewhere?
Do you personally fear that companies will use your information for more than advertising/sales to advertising agencies? Do you really fear that (as LESS than a technological criminal) entities do MORE than the most basic of information mining?
tits or gtfo
>>52522523
I got your slightly above average dick right here. Now answer the question, b.
bumping for pizza
>tfw big companies repoace you with a synth version of yourself with the same interests and likeness
>it'll have access to your bank account, credit card and other personal information like passwords, since you willingly used those companies platforms
>>52522474
I'll answer this bait.
The spying act isn't wrong as it is but the possible acts you open by allowing spying is.
>>52522474
A wild anon asking a reasonable question appears!
Now it's gonna be interesting to see how long it'll take /g/ tards to devolve this into ad hominems since they don't have much of a point besides "CORPORATE§/SHEKELS§/STALLMAN§/MUH PORN SECRETS§".
No because that would be impossible, but the fact that they can do it with no consequences is worrying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqJ8EMwj7zY
>>52522474
To answer your questions in the third paragraph, they do all those things. Data storage is cheap as hell nowadays, and they have computer programs that automatically parse the meaning from text/speech conversations and photos for easy searching.
The problem isn't in the corporations themselves, but the people they work with, and they're willing to work with anyone for the right price. Sure they mostly just work with advertisers and companies trying to sell you stuff, but you never know, they could be working with insurance companies looking for any reason to raise your premiums/deny coverage, or employers doing background checks, or worse, government agencies who can ruin your life.
Now you might say "if something is so bad you wouldn't want people to know about it, then don't do it!" But that kind of thinking ruins the freedom of thought that the (psuedo) anonymity of the internet provides. All of this invasive data mining just ruins what the internet was: a place where you could create a life separate from reality, where you can be your true self. All this data mining just creates a mentally oppressive atmosphere where you're constantly thinking "oh, I can't say that, even though I'm in private conversation with someone I trust - it might be used against me some day" or "I probably shouldn't search for these things, they seem vaguely drug related".
Even assuming all the official parties involved (tech companies, advertisers, govt) are 100% acting ethically, it's just a bad idea to have so much data about yourself with a handful of companies. There's always the risk of the data going public or getting into the hands of "bad guys", for example, companies getting hacked or some disgruntled IT guy stealing and leaking data.
>>52522785
>>52522758
OP here. Thanks for recognizing that I was asking a real question.
I do consider and understand everything you've said, >>52522785, but is also the reason I asked on a personal level rather than on a macro scale or for a moral response.
I get that holding your data in the first place is bad, selling it off is worse, and using it maliciously is the pedigree of dirt, but I meant for you to think literally selfish-ly. For example, I like your point about having to theoretically look over your shoulder when surfing the internet, because everyone has to - and does, including myself. But more recently, I've cared less about my usage of the internet, simply because of the sheer number of people using it. Over 7 billion people on earth, and I'll assume about 1.5 to 2.5 billion have infrequent-to-constant internet access. Not much room to focus on those doing anything inherently dirty, I'd assume.
As for data leakers, I've noticed lots of hacked companies having consumer information compiled and pasted to websites for all to see, but what is actually done with that info? It's usually just posted to make a point about the importance of security or about the power of a hacking team (e.g LizardSquad), but most people don't actually do anything with the info. Most people change card numbers and other things in response to data leaks faster than any makicious entity could get to them and make a move.
As for leaked data that puts a real threat to your privacy (see Ashley Madison leak), I guess I could give a hesitant "Shit Happens?"
My point is, I feel like the "tape over webcam" "data stored on encrypted hard drive" "I only browse through VPN or masked IP guys are just doing a bit too much.
>>52523085
>asking real question
>calls everyone motherfucking dickstenches
>>52522758
>waits for /g/ to post ad hominems
>OP has posted ad hominems
>>52522474
What I fear is a world without secrets, and that's what we're coming close to.
>>52523110
If you would have read past the first line, you would have picked up on the actuality of the question. Next time just TL;DR faggot
>>52522474
>There is literally no problem with people being spied by big companies
>Those who complain should go for alternatives instead of complaining
>Nobody cares.Companies that are successful are the ones who spies the most for a reason
>The only ones who cares(who are not pedos or terrorists) are 11 year olds who thinks nsa cares about their hentai watchlist
>Companies don't care about.They only spy to learn about general or personal behaviour to sho better ads
>>52523133
Everything that should remain a secret is usually kept secret. If a secret gets out, it probably should have, or was meant to.
Even 200 years from now, word-of-mouth secrets will still be reliable, assuming some George Orwell, I Robot shit doesn't happen to the human race.
I like to call it "I'm kind of a big deal" syndrome
I use all the cloud shit and the stuff /g/ hates, but if I have sensitive data, I know what do do with it and you'll never see it. Protecting everything like a madman only raises suspicion about you.
>>52523085
you think leaking CC numbers isnt a big deal? I mean people lose their cards sometimes but they know staiaght away. Bulk listings of CC numbers for anons to potentially exploit seems pretty bad to me, I mean you wouldn't hear about it straight away unless you check your emails 24/7 so I'd be pretty pissed
>>52523189
I do think about it as a big problem, but I think about it with numbers as well. The probability of you having your credit card or bank info actually used is probably ridiculously low unless you're not the least bit vigilant with your shit, or your past purchase info was also leaked, or your name was Aaron Aaronson and you came up first on the list.
It's definitely likelg that people get screwed because of leaks. It's a lot less likely YOU'LL get screwed because of leaks.
>>52523170
Same here. Honestly, I do assume that those who cry day in and day out about tech security here on 4Chan are more concerned about getting caught with CP or other illegal shit, but people who fear that the internet could destroy their lives at any second when all they do is buy shit on Amazon and browse Facebook baffle me.
>>52522474
Even if I trusted Microsoft, I do not trust the criminals who hack into Microsoft servers. All collected information will be available to criminals in the future.
>>52523156
That's really not true. Companies can use data-mining to predict your pregnancy before you do. They can identify your sexuality even if you're "in the closet". There are several companies out there trying to work on gait recognition systems among others that can potentially detect whether you are likely to commit a crime.
Companies are actively developing systems to track whether a work is at their desk or not.
Data-mining, even invasive, has become ubiquitous, and that should worry everyone.
this is a good thread
>>52523334
this is important. this kind of data collection and analysis also wins elections. companies can predict voting patterns and which specific issues matter to each person and target political messages to those people. I guarantee you will see it happen a lot this year.
Because this isn't what the internet was supposed to become.
>>52522474
1. I am not afraid, I just want powerful entities (that is, corporations and governments they obey) to have less power.
2. A rogue employee can and will do harm of any scale to me.
Another >>do have anything to hide<< faggot
>>52523334
>>52523471
Data mining is a problem when used maliciously. For the most part, it's pretty much used to recommend products to you or direct tailored ads your way. My point is, even when malicious, data mining is so large in scale that I feel there isn't a need to live your day-to-day life inside of a Trojan horse.
It's too late to be scared of where the Internet is headed. If people were all that concerned, the time to act, cohesively, was between 2003-2009 when the internet was growing like hell. Everyone lauded the openness of the internet and shut down extreme government regulations, but forgot companies were building ways to extract your data and preparing fof the giant that the internet is now. There's no use fighting the "what you want before you want it" direction the world is moving in, and I say that only because it's a useless, profit-less fight to take up. Because it will happen either way.
>>52523669
All you need to do is not trust corporations and not reveal your identity online. Nothing wrong with openness by itself.
>>52523170
If it even appears in a computer connected to the outer world, you connect a usb to it, consider the information compromised...
So how exactly do you protect your info?
>>52522474
It's not people looking at every single one you mongoloid. It's people with the entire dataset and an algorithm to single out their targets.
>>52523943
Be smart with your shit, and you won't have to worry about being a target, let alone part of a dataset, you paranoid conspiracist
When people know you, they can manipulate you. Every piece of data others have on you can, probably will be used as a leverage.
>>52522474
said somewhere that all hackers do is publish it. But what happens before they publish it?
People can just dump the info and use it later or, run scripts that but their wish list on steam with your credit card....
>>52523136
>reads past first line
>calls reader motherfuckers
Nice try woman
>>52522474
The only issue with this I have is that if they see anything slightly criminal that you do, they are virtually required to report it. If they weren't allowed to give data to the police/government, I wouldn't have a single issue with it.
>>52523994
Not much you can do to deter that, other than having purchase confirmations for all of your cards or or not using them on certain websites altogether
>>52524086
ITT we use "woman" as a cuss word instead of "faggot".
>>52524179
Use paypal. Only one place has your information, it is better than using your card everywhere
>>52522758
>muh porn secrets
Why hide it? I just type fucking every fetish into google just so they can get disgusted as fuck with me.
Which is also a good reason why not to datamine everything about people. You might not like what you find out.
