Surveillance Capitalism

[D.A.F.C]

Interesting topic and something that all of us are involved in. In the last twenty years there's been a huge transfer of power, data and money over to a few companies all in the name of progress but is it really for our benefit?

Thinking about getting her book and looking into it further. It seems on the outside that its some sort of nutball tinfoil hat stuff but it really isn't. The next step for this could be control of towns, cities and their inhabitants. She argues that pokemon go was an experiment in this technique. Cafes, pubs, clubs rewarding people for attending and the major companies getting cash and data for it? Could that be possible?

Will probably get ripped for posting this but I find this really interesting. 

Any other good reading or vidoes/docs on this?

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by D.A.F.C

[invergowrie arab]

I find it's best just to drink, surround yourself with good people and not worry too much 

[101]

9 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

Interesting topic and something that all of us are involved in. In the last twenty years there's been a huge transfer of power, data and money over to a few companies all in the name of progress but is it really for our benefit?

Thinking about getting her book and looking into it further. It seems on the outside that its some sort of nutball tinfoil hat stuff but it really isn't. The next step for this could be control of towns, cities and their inhabitants. She argues that pokemon go was an experiment in this technique. Cafes, pubs, clubs rewarding people for attending and the major companies getting cash and data for it? Could that be possible?

Will probably get ripped for posting this but I find this really interesting. 

Any other good reading or vidoes/docs on this?

 

Happy for companies to track my data provided I have consent over and and can view what they hold about me. There ought to be some kind of data tax to stop basically trawling data but until a country figures out a way to do it the problem is just going to get more and more invasive. Look at Alexa's the reason they are so cheap is because it's a brilliant data harvesting device for better targeted ads.

But my problem with surveillance capitalism is state surveillance being hijacked by private companies.

Take parking charges as an obvious example it is wrong a company can write to the DVLA and request the name and address of the owner and registered keeper of a vehicle when they would be perfectly within their right to collect the data from the user rather than collecting it after the fact often collecting data that has no relevance to what they claim i.e wrong person, incorrect number plate. These companies should have to have civil action against the driver before the DVLA assist it shouldn't be that the DVLA assist in building a case for a private company. 

[beefybake]

I don't have social media apps on my phone.

I use an iPhone because Apple make their money from selling hardware and services. They are more interested than most in the security , and privacy

of their customers.

Google / Android make their money from ads, and you are the product. They, and Facebook, define the term surveillance capitalism.

I use Firefox ( ie non-propriotery ) browser on my laptop, and have installed a browser extension to prevent Facebook tracking me all over the place.

[Derry Alli]

28 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

She argues that pokemon go was an experiment in this technique. 

The only thing Pokemon go should have been used for was to round up all the predators over 13 years old running around fields trying to catch imaginary beings and put them in a shipping container at the bottom of the fucking ocean. 

[Mark Connolly]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Alli said:

The only thing Pokemon go should have been used for was to round up all the predators over 13 years old running around fields trying to catch imaginary beings and put them in a shipping container at the bottom of the fucking ocean. 

 

3 minutes ago, Mr. Alli said:

The only thing Pokemon go should have been used for was to round up all the predators over 13 years old running around fields trying to catch imaginary beings and put them in a shipping container at the bottom of the fucking ocean. 

That's two things...

[NotThePars]

Barry Obama listed that book in one of his end of year lists

[GordonS]

59 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

Thinking about getting her book and looking into it further. It seems on the outside that its some sort of nutball tinfoil hat stuff but it really isn't. The next step for this could be control of towns, cities and their inhabitants. She argues that pokemon go was an experiment in this technique.

 

Is there any evidence for this other than that it would be a good way to do it if someone were doing it?

All too often I see people not only infer motive from everything, but portray that inference as evidence in itself. If so then fine, I'll watch and read further, but if not then it does fall into the tinfoil hat territory. The gateway to that is "this is the kind of thing that bad actors have done in the past so I think that's what's happening here." That's not really how things work.

[D.A.F.C]

6 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Is there any evidence for this other than that it would be a good way to do it if someone were doing it?

All too often I see people not only infer motive from everything, but portray that inference as evidence in itself. If so then fine, I'll watch and read further, but if not then it does fall into the tinfoil hat territory. The gateway to that is "this is the kind of thing that bad actors have done in the past so I think that's what's happening here." That's not really how things work.

I didnt really phrase that well. There's a group who believe in conspiracies and that there's a hidden motive. A simpler way to describe things when really, as you say, things are more complicated. 

The women in the clip has been involved with study and analysis of machines and data at a very high level since the late 80s. I added the tinfoil hat comment because lots of people will discredit others instantly and label them as crackpots misunderstanding the topic and putting others into that bin.

Theres no doubt that a handful of companies own a huge amount of personal info and make huge obscene amounts of money and provide most of their services for free. The cost for storing and processing this data alone must be enormous yet they still post billions of profit. My personal belief is that not only are they fucking about with our data they are also getting us emotionally charged to keep interacting with their products. This is creating divisions in society and altering our behavior in ways that could have serious consequences. They don't care though, they are making a fortune. This is partly backed up by studies and this is the part I'm not ok with.

[Priti priti priti Patel]

I have long had a theory which seems eminently sensible, but which I've never looked into substantiating academically, that basically all political/economic systems are destined to repeat each other's tyrannies. It's not because the specific system itself is evil but just a part of the human condition that we're doomed to repeat, society after society until we cease to exist.

It's basically the inevitable outcome of having a single "value" as the ultimate purpose of the social order. Every other aspect of society is cannibalised to reinforce that overarching value. Compare communism, wherein that value was the strength of the party, with capitalism, wherein that value is the strength of the currency.

I don't know enough about communism to feel comfortable with my comparisons, but I'll venture a couple of illustrations. For example, see the fact footballers for communist countries were often held accountable as representatives of the party/state, while footballers in capitalist countries are now held accountable for their actions as representatives of various brands. See also the emphasis in communist countries in the notion of "community" and "solidarity", so that the largest number of people can be influenced at a time, and the way more niche interests like football are sanitised and redesigned so that they can be marketed to the largest number of people at a time. Or how many communist countries implemented centralised agrarian policies which eliminated crop diversity to maximize production of a small number of basic goods, and how under capitalism crop diversity has drastically fallen as centralised corporations grow hand picked GM crops etc. These are not the most robust examples but you get my point.

Anyway, if that's the case, then the loss of privacy in favour of using intelligence about individuals to support the overarching value - whether the strength of the party or the strength of the currency - is inevitable. We may see corporations holding back from certain practices for PR reasons. For example, if the Stasi etc didn't have such a bad name, I'm sure corporations would have no issue paying people to supply detailed info in their friends' and relatives' tastes and buying habits. But in general, it makes sense that surveillance would steadily increase over time.

Likewise, the average person then and now, like a frog in a heating pot, probably won't complain. "That's just how the world is", they'll think. Then eventually, the system will disintegrate and give way to something new, and the citizens of the new system will look back at capitalism with horror. "The system literally battled to crush your autonomy so it could get you to spend money" they'll say, or "it was so hard for people to discover new things, to explore ideas, because all the advertising sought to reinforce their existing tastes". And at the same time, those people won't even realize they're trapped in the exact same thing. It's all just a weird, habitual, psycho rat race which we can never escape.

Or so goes my theory. But I'm probably talking shit.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Margaret Thatcher

[D.A.F.C]

23 minutes ago, Margaret Thatcher said:

I have long had a theory which seems eminently sensible, but which I've never looked into substantiating academically, that basically all political/economic systems are destined to repeat each other's tyrannies. It's not because the specific system itself is evil but just a part of the human condition that we're doomed to repeat, society after society until we cease to exist.

It's basically the inevitable outcome of having a single "value" as the ultimate purpose of the social order. Every other aspect of society is cannibalised to reinforce that overarching value. Compare communism, wherein that value was the strength of the party, with capitalism, wherein that value is the strength of the currency.

I don't know enough about communism to feel comfortable with my comparisons, but I'll venture a couple of illustrations. For example, see the fact footballers for communist countries were often held accountable as representatives of the party/state, while footballers in capitalist countries are now held accountable for their actions as representatives of various brands. See also the emphasis in communist countries in the notion of "community" and "solidarity", so that the largest number of people can be influenced at a time, and the way more niche interests like football are sanitised and redesigned so that they can be marketed to the largest number of people at a time. Or how many communist countries implemented centralised agrarian policies which eliminated crop diversity to maximize production of a small number of basic goods, and how under capitalism crop diversity has drastically fallen as centralised corporations grow hand picked GM crops etc. These are not the most robust examples but you get my point.

Anyway, if that's the case, then the loss of privacy in favour of using intelligence about individuals to support the overarching value - whether the strength of the party or the strength of the currency - is inevitable. We may see corporations holding back from certain practices for PR reasons. For example, if the Stasi etc didn't have such a bad name, I'm sure corporations would have no issue paying people to supply detailed info in their friends' and relatives' tastes and buying habits. But in general, it makes sense that surveillance would steadily increase over time.

Likewise, the average person then and now, like a frog in a heating pot, probably won't complain. "That's just how the world is", they'll think. Then eventually, the system will disintegrate and give way to something new, and the citizens of the new system will look back at capitalism with horror. "The system literally battled to crush your autonomy so it could get you to spend money" they'll say, or "it was so hard for people to discover new things, to explore ideas, because all the advertising sought to reinforce their existing tastes". And at the same time, those people won't even realize they're trapped in the exact same thing. It's all just a weird, habitual, psycho rat race which we can never escape.

Or so goes my theory. But I'm probably talking shit.

Pretty much all theories and ideas have been tried and failed so the politicians and people in power have created a fake world because they don't know how to fix it. The real power lies elsewhere anyway and as you say most people don't care as long as they're relatively comfortable. Which is why counter culture and protests only go so far because they don't want to rock the boat so much that they lose things. Also trying to change things and having big radical ideas can end badly. This does seem like the start of something though with big data,ai and 5g. It wouldn't take much for us to become like China. China controls its citizens by using technology and we let technology control us for money.

It's not that far apart.

[GordonS]

37 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

Pretty much all theories and ideas have been tried and failed so the politicians and people in power have created a fake world because they don't know how to fix it.

I'm sitting in a lovely warm kitchen with a fridge and cupboards full of food. My kids are happy in their beds. Our various ailments are well taken care of by healthcare that's free when we use it and my children are getting a decent education, also free. If my house goes on fire three massive fire engines will comes screeching round the corner, and insurance will cover anything we lose that can be replaced. When I'm too old to work I'll have a reasonable pension. I only have to work 37 hours each week and get loads of time for myself, plus I get 6 weeks paid holidays. None of these things were possible for people like me until living memory.

What's failed?

OK, so we've stretched ecosystems beyond the point at which they continue to function, but that's fixable and gargantuan efforts are going into fixing it all over the world. There's still far too much poverty, but a far lower proportion are living in poverty than at any time in human history and there has been astonishing reductions in disease, malnutrition and early mortality. We've also had the longest period of peace in Western Europe for several centuries and globally there is less armed conflict than at any time in a century. 

We should be doing better than this, but the idea that we're living in a time of failed ideas just doesn't bear comparison with reality. Is our life of unparalleled comfort really under threat because Google know where my office is and that I was looking for an office chair? None of the problems of privacy and data collection are insurmountable. 

[Theroadlesstravelled]

Bin your social media accounts.

[Ray Patterson]

4 hours ago, D.A.F.C said:

Interesting topic and something that all of us are involved in. In the last twenty years there's been a huge transfer of power, data and money over to a few companies all in the name of progress but is it really for our benefit?

Thinking about getting her book and looking into it further. It seems on the outside that its some sort of nutball tinfoil hat stuff but it really isn't. The next step for this could be control of towns, cities and their inhabitants. She argues that pokemon go was an experiment in this technique. Cafes, pubs, clubs rewarding people for attending and the major companies getting cash and data for it? Could that be possible?

Will probably get ripped for posting this but I find this really interesting. 

Any other good reading or vidoes/docs on this?

 

I read Zuboff's book recently for an essay in my degree, really interesting, if not depressing insight into the world. I think things like VPN's are excellent at masking the "Instrumentarians" as she puts it.

Splitting up the big tech and big data firms is the most important thing for me, separating AWS from Amazon, YouTube from Google and WhatsApp from Facebook would be a start.

 

[carpetmonster]

Personally I’m looking forward to Div signing a deal with Bezos that any posting to the OF forums renders the poster immediately sterile. He can have a hot tub the size of Love Street for that. 

[Guest TheJTS98]

I read an interesting book a while back about what Google searches can tell us about the world. Google Trends etc.

Some very interesting stuff in there and some potentially valuable social information. For example, it gives evidence that Google searches can more or less show us that across almost all societies the evidence is that about 5% of the population is gay. Anonymous evidence like this could be very useful in terms of tackling discrimination and tracking important trends in society.

There's also evidence that Google searches can help tackle hard-to-diagnose illnesses, such as pancreatic cancer. Lines can be drawn from certain patterns of Google searches to later diagnoses of certain illnesses.

People will tell Google things that they won't tell their friends, family, or even their doctor. The question is, how far are you prepared to allow the use of this information to go?

Are you happy to have Google properly access your information to tell you you've probably got cancer a year or two before your doctor can? Or to intervene by alerting the authorities that you are searching for phrases that correlate with suicide? What if they tell your employer? Are you happy for Google to give your information to your insurance company or bank so that they can adjust your premiums or interest rates? Are you happy with a potential employer being able to get access to your health or financial or personal information?

There are different views on these questions that reasonable people can have. But I'd be wary of assuming you can trust these companies to honestly maintain strict standards of anonymity. Through nefariousness or incompetence it's wise to assume that your information is available to someone who wants it in some way or other. The Ashley Madison data leak should be a wake-up call in this regard.

Edited February 23, 2021 by TheJTS98

[hk blues]

3 hours ago, GordonS said:

I'm sitting in a lovely warm kitchen with a fridge and cupboards full of food. My kids are happy in their beds. Our various ailments are well taken care of by healthcare that's free when we use it and my children are getting a decent education, also free. If my house goes on fire three massive fire engines will comes screeching round the corner, and insurance will cover anything we lose that can be replaced. When I'm too old to work I'll have a reasonable pension. I only have to work 37 hours each week and get loads of time for myself, plus I get 6 weeks paid holidays. None of these things were possible for people like me until living memory.

Fair enough for those living in countries like the UK but much of what you've described doesn't apply to a large proportion of the world's population - including where I am now.  In fact, what you've described doesn't even necessarily apply to everyone in the UK!  

[Detournement]

5 hours ago, GordonS said:

I'm sitting in a lovely warm kitchen with a fridge and cupboards full of food. My kids are happy in their beds. Our various ailments are well taken care of by healthcare that's free when we use it and my children are getting a decent education, also free. If my house goes on fire three massive fire engines will comes screeching round the corner, and insurance will cover anything we lose that can be replaced. When I'm too old to work I'll have a reasonable pension. I only have to work 37 hours each week and get loads of time for myself, plus I get 6 weeks paid holidays. None of these things were possible for people like me until living memory.

What's failed?

OK, so we've stretched ecosystems beyond the point at which they continue to function, but that's fixable and gargantuan efforts are going into fixing it all over the world. There's still far too much poverty, but a far lower proportion are living in poverty than at any time in human history and there has been astonishing reductions in disease, malnutrition and early mortality. We've also had the longest period of peace in Western Europe for several centuries and globally there is less armed conflict than at any time in a century. 

We should be doing better than this, but the idea that we're living in a time of failed ideas just doesn't bear comparison with reality. Is our life of unparalleled comfort really under threat because Google know where my office is and that I was looking for an office chair? None of the problems of privacy and data collection are insurmountable. 

 

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Barry Obama

[The Moonster]

7 hours ago, D.A.F.C said:

Pretty much all theories and ideas have been tried and failed so the politicians and people in power have created a fake world because they don't know how to fix it. 

What?