SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/05/23/google-now-knows-when-you-are-at-a-cash-register-and-how-much-you-are-spending/ reports that Google has talked retailers into sharing data from credit card transactions, which it will link to location and other data, to further enhance consumer profiling*.
The article says "Google for years has been mining location data from Google Maps in an effort to prove that knowledge of people's physical locations could "close the loop" between physical and digital worlds. Users can block this by adjusting the settings on smartphones, but few do so, say privacy experts.
This location tracking ability has allowed Google to send reports to retailers telling them, for example, whether people who saw an ad for a lawn mower later visited or passed by a Home Depot. The location-tracking program has grown since it was first launched with only a handful of retailers. Home Depot, Express, Nissan, and Sephora have participated."
* and erode privacy.
The article also makes it clear than consumers don't get to opt-out, if they even find out their data has been shared.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday May 24 2017, @02:55PM (10 children)
I'm not saying that it is okay for Google to be doing this. I'd rather they didn't. But I think their motives are different than the government's motive to invade my privacy.
Google motive: I'm a drop in an ocean of data that they don't care about -- they simply want their machines to put fewer but better targeted ads in front of my eyes.
Government motive: The government cares deeply about each individual and they want all the details of my life to analyze whether I may be committing thoughtcrime. Speaking ill of the Dear Leader. Etc.
Which one should I be more worried about?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Unixnut on Wednesday May 24 2017, @02:58PM
Both, because if Google collects that data, you can bet the Government will want a copy (or any other government for that matter, where Google has a presence), and will not hesitate to get their mitts on it.
The only way to be sure it doesn't happen, is not to collect the data in the first place.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Taibhsear on Wednesday May 24 2017, @02:59PM
Both once Google starts buying/selling said data with the government.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Wednesday May 24 2017, @03:25PM
While slaves themselves have little value. They care about adding another one. And they might target you with higher prices if they can single you out. Or enforce a filter bubble with products that are bad for you.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday May 24 2017, @03:44PM (4 children)
I'm not sure what country you're in, but in my country we can speak ill of the evil|stupid|corrupt dickheads who may be in office at the moment.
For example, that piece of shit who currently occupies the White House doesn't have enough moral fiber for me to allow him to clean dog shit off my shoes.
Many of those who are elected to national office aren't much better, and those who are elected to state and local offices are even worse.
Fuck them! They need to be smacked in the nose with a rolled-up newspaper and sent to bed without dinner -- well, that or be forced to live under the rules they would like to impose on the worst off of us.
So DannyB, if you never hear from me again, perhaps your hypothesis is correct. Alternatively, if I'm still around, it seems that it may well be incorrect.
I'm much more concerned about corporate data collection shenanigans than I am about the government. There are specific safeguards (even if they aren't as widely implemented as they should be) to restrain government from amassing huge amounts of data about the residents of my country. Exactly *zero* limits are placed on corporations (with the minor exception of HIPAA, which is spottily enforced and often poorly implemented).
Your thoughts?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @04:12PM (1 child)
The only thing that will change is the shit that currently occupies the White House not that it is shit :p
Pay attention to everything that will be a hindrance for you to change your circumstances.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday May 24 2017, @04:17PM
I'm sorry, perhaps my English isn't so good. What the hell does that mean?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @08:28PM
Technically yes, but that doesn't mean they won't try to single you out for doing so. Maybe they'll investigate you more deeply and find that you broke some minor law, try to blackmail you, or just plain set you up. The US government has done all of those things, and that FBI letter sent to MLK is but one example. Protests are also legal, but that doesn't stop the government from harassing protestors; they just have to make up enough excuses to do so, which they frequently do.
Of course, it's less likely the government will be interested in some nobody. However, they are interested in journalists, whistleblowers, political opponents, and activists, people who actually help democracy function. Just because the government is unlikely to be interested in your destruction doesn't mean it isn't extremely dangerous.
You are lucky then, assuming your government actually follows those specific safeguards. In the US, the government conducts unconstitutional mass surveillance on the populace and uses techniques such as parallel construction to make use of the data. Mass surveillance inherently threatens freedom and democracy, and any corporate data is likely to end up in the government's hands too. I guess all I can say is that we do not yet have a total police state.
You're in the US? Then your government is doing unconstitutional mass surveillance and the "specific safeguards" are not just sparsely implemented, but are a total joke. Any country that conducts mass surveillance is in an extremely dangerous position. Maybe you were talking about a different kind of data, but the NSA's mass surveillance vacuums up nearly everything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @10:41AM
Not DannyB, but I think the powerful have realized that freedom of speech is a pretty good distraction. It does come with a little risk, but so far they've managed to pursue their agendas while using psychological techniques to keep the masses off track. "Conspiracy" became a word only crazies use, and even people speaking the truth get marginalized. You're ability to criticize anyone is allowed, right up until you cross the line or get too much traction. Then there are all manner of nasty methods to take you out of commission. From discrediting the source to blackmail or murder, we are not quite as free as we'd like to believe.
Humanity as a whole has to evolve, and it will take a while. My guess is 10-20 years for the miraculous predictions, 50-200 for more realistic projections. I just hope we can skip the WW3 stuff, or worse the descent back into true tyranny which could have all manner of consequences.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @04:56PM (1 child)
Surely, you mean only with regards to the period between conception & birth, elective life termination and taxation, no? I see no other case where the government actually cares about an individual. A group of individuals, maybe (referred to as 'plebs' IIRC), but an individual, never?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 24 2017, @05:12PM
In my country, the US, the one branch of government that does care, and actually LISTENS to the citizens is: the NSA.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.