Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Saturday July 23 2016, @08:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the camera+GPS=knowing-most-everything dept.

This data-mining game is what they call totalitarianism is how Oliver Stone described Pokémon Go at Comic Con. Earlier in the month Al Franken also expressed some concern asking the creator of the game about privacy, data sharing, and account access.

More from Stone:

They're data-mining every person in this room for information as to what you're buying, what you like, and above all, your behaviour. Pokémon Go kicks into that. But this is everywhere. It's what some people call surveillance capitalism. It's the newest stage. It's not for profit in the beginning, but it becomes for profit in the end.

It manipulates your behaviour. It has happened already quite a bit on the Internet, but you'll see it everywhere—you'll see a new form of, frankly, a robot society, where they will know how you want to behave and they will make the mockup that matches how you behave and feed you. It's what they call totalitarianism.

Personally I gave up my smart phone more than two years ago because I did not want a spy machine in my pocket; I've never played Pokémon Go but it seemed like a great way for the game creators to get people to run around and point the players camera at what ever they want, obtain other location based data, or focus players into businesses that pay for the privilege. Perhaps I just need to adjust my tinfoil hat but what do the 'lentils think? Is Stone just trying to plug his new movie or is this a legitimate concern?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by driven on Saturday July 23 2016, @06:26PM

    by driven (6295) on Saturday July 23 2016, @06:26PM (#379111)

    Let me break it down:
    - privacy = good
    - people want privacy
    - people are willing to pay for goods that respect privacy
    - therefore privacy respecting goods flourish
    On the other hand:
    - privacy invasion=bad
    - people don't want their privacy invaded
    - people don't buy goods that invade their privacy
    - therefore privacy invading goods wither on the vine

    Why is that not the case? Is it a lack of education of the average consumer? Are privacy invading goods just too alluring that people are willing to trade their privacy for in-game gems?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @08:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @08:02PM (#379148)

    Is it a lack of education of the average consumer? Are privacy invading goods just too alluring that people are willing to trade their privacy for in-game gems?

    Yes. Most people lack principles, or at least education about why surrendering their privacy is a bad idea.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @10:12PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @10:12PM (#379185)

    > Why is that not the case? Is it a lack of education of the average consumer?

    Yes. Capitalism, or really, free markets, are an illusion. In the real world any number of sources of friction reduce their efficiency and arbitrage of knowledge is one the biggest ones. Most people have no idea what their privacy is worth nor even that they are selling their privacy.

    All those sources of friction is one of, but not the only, reason capitalism is nothing more than a flawed tool and anyone who worships the ideology of capitalism is no better than any other kind of zealot.

    • (Score: 2) by fleg on Sunday July 24 2016, @03:17AM

      by fleg (128) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 24 2016, @03:17AM (#379277)

      genuine question.
      do you have an alternative?

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday July 24 2016, @07:25PM

        by sjames (2882) on Sunday July 24 2016, @07:25PM (#379481) Journal

        Not perfect by any means, but we could give up the silly notion that the invisible hand is a magic sky being and actually regulate the market. Punish the liars enough that lying costs more than it gains. Force full disclosure (or more likely, offer buyers a substantial remedy when there was inadequate disclosure). Practical examples: no more limiting 'unlimited'. No lifetime warranty that runs out in a year and only covers parts unlikely to fail. No long term rentals disguised as a sale. No more unilateral changes in terms with the notice clearly posted in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory in the basement with no lights, no stairs, and a sign saying "beware of the leopard".

        Disclosure includes any use of your data (including sale or targeted marketing) that is not essential to the product or service being useful. No getting out of those terms by filing bankruptcy or selling the company.

  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday July 24 2016, @06:48PM

    by sjames (2882) on Sunday July 24 2016, @06:48PM (#379460) Journal

    Market theory assumes information is perfect and that everyone has infinite time to make a rational decision. Reality says information is limited, often on purpose and chaffed with a constant stream of un-punished lies and people are too busy working their asses off to make fully rational well thought out buying decisions.

    Add in that people don't understand that competition (for market theory purposes) means dozens of sellers or even hundreds, not 2 or 3.

    Result: Very few markets are anything like healthy.