Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Corviticus t1_iycyzsh wrote

Another factor could also be an increasing mistrust in digital surveillance. Some of these companies haven't proven that they can be trusted with our data.

161

iCANNcu t1_iyd0x1j wrote

They have proven time and again they can’t be trusted with our data and we never can. These companies are run by power hungry sociopaths who don’t care for humans. I doubt they even see regular people as humans.

116

cordcutternc t1_iye0kt1 wrote

Have you ever fired up the Alexa app and reviewed all of your past recorded voice commands and interactions? And that's just the stuff they acknowledge and make available!

15

Adventurous_Whale t1_iyevq47 wrote

So you think Amazon is recording even more voice command history than what they show? That’s very much not true

0

americon t1_iydkd26 wrote

Maybe I’m naive but I sort of trust Apple. They wouldn’t give up the San Bernardino Shooter’s information to the FBI so would they really give up my information?

−4

iCANNcu t1_iydlu2w wrote

I think it's naive. Apple is not a person with a personality, it's a corporation that has just 1 goal, to make as much money as possible for it's shareholders. Just look at how they cooperate with the Chinese government to see how their values on privacy really are. Right now their (false) image of being respectful of your data is making them money in the US and that's what matters to Apple, it's not because of their 'values and principles' as a company.

41

SeVenMadRaBBits t1_iydqau4 wrote

To add to this.

Companies are run by individuals that switch out. The companies goal is always to increase profits so the switch is usually to someone who will make them more money and many times the person willing to take things further than the previous person which is how we got to where we are with many greedy/ shady companies.

Just because you could trust it once doesn't mean you still can.

15

Dje4321 t1_iyduqbj wrote

They absolutely gave up the shooters information though. They handed over their icloud backups without hesitation which depending on your phone settings, could be your entire phone and everything on it. Your contacts, your messages, installed apps, photos, etc. Most people want their phone to be exactly the same when they restore from a backup, so you have to keep a copy of all of it if you want to restore it.

The FBI wanted access to the phone via a backdoor. Apple had no way of doing it as they didnt know the shooters password. So the FBI sued them to try and force them to add a backdoor to their software so they could try and bypass it. Apple refused because

  1. it would eliminate any trust people had with them. Most people wouldnt buy an apple product if the government can just goto them and demand they change their software. Apple and the FBI can say they only added the backdoor once, but with a closed source eco system as tight as IOS, you have no real way to audit or verify anything that happens. the FBI could demand every text message that gets sent is emailed to them and you would have no real way to knowing without a massive amount of work to deconstruct IOS at all levels to verify.

  2. because even if they did create a backdoor to let them bypass the password, most of the data would still be encrypted with the devices password (if apple set it up todo that, pretty stupid if they didnt)

There was nothing stopping the FBI, from simply cloning the devices storage, and simply guessing the shooters passcode which if it was a pin, would take a week at the absolute longest but more than likely, it could burn through all the combinations if a matter of minutes.

7

queequagg t1_iydzm2n wrote

>They handed over their icloud backups without hesitation

Of course they did, the FBI had a warrant. They follow the law. It is the user’s choice whether to use a cloud backup, however. You can use encrypted local backups if you prefer.

>because even if they did create a backdoor to let them bypass the password, most of the data would still be encrypted with the devices password

The back door the fbi wanted was a way to inject and run cracking software on the device. Most people’s passcodes are 4-6 digits. That’s trivial to crack, except that the OS (and in more recent phones, the Secure Enclave hardware) limits the rate of decryption attempts. IIRC the FBI found an Israeli company that used security flaws to do exactly that.

>There was nothing stopping the FBI, from simply cloning the devices storage, and simply guessing the shooters passcode which if it was a pin

The pin is entangled with a hardware encryption key physically built into the cpu. Cracking the encryption off the device is practically impossible.

2

garry4321 t1_iyeed8d wrote

That was a super publicized forum where Apple was basically given a golden opportunity to publicize that they werent going to share data. The risk with the FBI/law enforcement was nothing compared to the publicity and "trust" they could milk out of the situation.

If you think they are going to put one ounce of their ass on the line to protect you or not secretly use your data for their own goals, you are mistaken

1

JL151 t1_iyeyxdt wrote

I always felt like that was more of a publicity stunt to garner more "trust". Like other post said, they can't make money from giving it to the fbi... So let's fight them and show the people we can be trusted... Google has admitted that data mining and sharing is their most lucrative income. Apple just wasn't ready to come out of the closet yet. And with as many of the security breaches ALL these companies have had, its already out that none of their collected data is as "safe and secure" as they all claim.

1

FreeQ t1_iydat0p wrote

“Hey wiretap…”

10

urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_iyds44k wrote

Alexa order whisky, three letter agencies guys, the nameles chinese guys, the guys selling my details to spamers, everyone else and Mrs Briggs next door appartment with her ear on the wall, merry Christmas

1

Cetun t1_iyddexa wrote

Unless you're someone whos personal identifying information is important, like someone who works for the State department or a law enforcement agency. I think people really over estimate the capabilities of these companies with your data. I don't really opt out of any data mining, and periodically I will go on my Google add preferences or whatever. It's that section where Google shows you everything they "know" about you. Half of it is extremely wrong, so their profile of me is 50% accurate maybe. Just anecdotally I would think that if I were to opt out of all information gathering, Google would still be able to get information about me. I'm a registered voter so they know my name age and street address, in many states department of motor vehicles will sell that information, but it's not hard to find another places. It's not hard to find out that I'm a male, as part of general data collection from other companies they probably know what bank accounts I have, what magazine subscriptions I have, what college I went to, my cars. They can probably gather a couple of my general interests from other sources.

At the end if I were to opt out of all data collection they probably have a more accurate view of my interests. They would probably have a 90% accuracy. As for your personal information such as Social Security number, passwords, email address, ect. those will likely be gained through places with the least security. So most of your personal data will probably be taken from a parking app that your city might force you to download in order to park in public parking. That app probably doesn't have a super robust infosec team and is likely run by some guy who is friends with some council member. Your social security number is probably going to be from someday to breach from a loan servicer or insurance servicer.

Maybe I'm just an exception but with all the bad data they have on me, the "targeted" ads are either way way off base or just literally shit I have bought. I've never encountered a useful "targeted ad" in my life.

8

Dje4321 t1_iydw2q9 wrote

the thing about targeted ads most people think of, the information doesnt come from one source, it comes from a bunch of sources that get aggregated together. So while google may know nothing, someone else is going to know something, and combining the two means they can know alot.

​

If a data source sees that someone is staying at address XXX for 8+ hours a day during the night, then they can assume they live there or are related in someway. They can get another data source and get a list of names of people who live at that specific address. So now you know not only where they live, but who they have a relation too. Another data source might show you traveling from that house to an office building where you spend another 8+ hours a day at.

How many people live at that address, works at this location, and is possibly related to this list of people. 99% of the time, its going to be a small list of 1-5 people and once you have it down that far, figuring out more information isnt difficult.

By combining data sources, you can get information greater than the sum of its parts with very minimal work.

3

Corviticus t1_iydds0a wrote

Lol "opt out". If that makes you feel good man

−6

Cetun t1_iydj5k2 wrote

This is a debate about what it means to for large companies to have access to your "personal information". I'm discussing that. If all you can bring to the discussion is a quip that you think the reddit mob will upvote your usefulness to discussions about policy has come to an end. We can only hope that you're actual usefulness amounts to at least some menial labor you provide to the economy.

3

Corviticus t1_iydk1v4 wrote

I was the one who started this comment thread that you spent way to long commenting on. So you've already lost your argument on what I can 'being to the discussion'.

Maybe you're debating what it means for large companies to have access, but my comment (that you responded to mind you) brought up the reason for why Alexa is failing.

Get your info straight before you come at me bunk

−3

Cetun t1_iydm9e6 wrote

You said these companies "haven't proven" that they can be trusted with your information. I pointed out that likely they haven't done anything useful with your information, and in fact the more information they gather the less useful that information will probably be. That directly speaks to the allegations you made in your comment. If you can't see that I don't know what to say.

Also I don't know why you think Amazon isn't a large company. Alexa isn't some small startup, Alexa is Amazon. It's disingenuous to characterize it as not the product of a large company.

2

Corviticus t1_iydo1op wrote

Show me where i said Alex was small.

When Google is working with the fbi and fbi won't answer questions honestly to congress. That's a problem. Your argument of 'yea they have it but they probably won't do anything with it', doesn't matter, it's ridiculous. That's the same line of thinking as the Patriots Acts defense. 'if you don't do anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about'

0

Most_Job8557 t1_iydqlly wrote

I can't stand people like them honestly.

We fought centuries for peace, freedom and equality. And it's only going backwards.gif

2

asyrin25 t1_iydrqw9 wrote

When was the peace, freedom, and equality again?

1

Most_Job8557 t1_iydsqog wrote

>When was the peace, freedom, and equality again?

It was getting closer at least.

1

asyrin25 t1_iyduv6j wrote

Was it? When?

Prior to the Patriot act in 2001?

I bet we can both think of some groups that had pretty lousy times in the 80s and 90s who might disagree with that.

1

Cetun t1_iydytrj wrote

>Maybe you're debating what it means for large companies to have access, but my comment (that you responded to mind you) brought up the reason for why Alexa is failing.

Why is Alexa failing? -> data access concerns -> those concerns are overstated and not that big of a concern -> "what youre saying has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You're talking about large companies and I'm talking about Alexa"

What info do you think the FBI is getting from Google that is problematic?

1

Corviticus t1_iydzsnl wrote

Jesus christ you are Cathy Newman. Also don't use quotes when that not my quote dude.

It read, you are talking about large companies in general about data access. I was talking about SPECIFICALLY Alexa and WHY it was failing. Another large company may have a voice AI that isn't failing. You see how those two things are different?? You are conflating my words in your head and spitting them back out with your own distortion. Then accusing me of karma farming or something. Sod off bunk.

I'm over it. I'm blocking you.

0

MpVpRb t1_iydr9lo wrote

Kinda reminds me of a Reagan quote. He was asked "do you trust Gorbachev?". He answered "I trust him to act in the best interests of the USSR"

They can definitely be trusted to use our data to their advantage

7

DustinHammons t1_iyd5l91 wrote

This - the common sense approach is always fucking ignored.

6

Arponare t1_iyeykhk wrote

Increased? I never trusted these MFers with my data to begin with.

5

Corviticus t1_iyf3fef wrote

Yes. Collective Public increase. Not everything is always about you.

2

Arponare t1_iyf3lpt wrote

I was being facetious. This is reddit, mate. It's not that serious.

1

imnotreel t1_iye7775 wrote

I don't think this has as much of an impact. A quick glance at app and service popularity will tell you how little people actually care about privacy and how most of us will happily give any of our data away for the slightest modicum of convenience or novelty.

3

Corviticus t1_iye7gvk wrote

Many people yes, but not all. And Alexa wasn't always losing money. There has been a very obvious and open distrust that's grown the past 2 years. Things have changed

1

Tundrok87 t1_iyexxnc wrote

Alexa absolutely was ALWAYS losing money. It blows my mind how people just make shit up to fit whatever narrative they want

0

[deleted] t1_iyf3all wrote

[removed]

1

Tundrok87 t1_iyf3sne wrote

LMFAO!!! God damn I’m laughing my ass off at this because I work in Alexa and this shit about Alexa skill growth is a complete fabrication.

3

Asimpbarb t1_iyegvdo wrote

So true we would talk around the devices and next thing we know we saw adds about those things, or the screen would turn on and a voice would ask if we wanted to order.

3

ERSTF t1_iye3nrj wrote

I think that it has to do more with being a first world problem. Voice assistants are a solution searching for a problem to solve. They really have no essential application for a great deal of the world population. Being able to say "Alexa turn the lights off. Alexa, turned the volume down" hardly screams to be widely implemented or has any essential application. If we suddenly lost voice assistants right now... like a glitch takes out Siri and Alexa right now... how is your life going to be impacted? Barely... like a minor nuisance. Add that privacy concerns in exchange of something that feels like a gimmick... the technology is doomed, I believe

2

Corviticus t1_iye4gmm wrote

I can totally understand your point. It's a gimmick. It's cool, it's convenent. It's not game changing

2

Adventurous_Whale t1_iyeviox wrote

I don’t see that being a big impact. The reality is that the privacy concerned customers never really bought in. The customer base isn’t really shrinking but new customer retention has always been a problem.

1

Arponare t1_iyeylgv wrote

Increased? I never trusted these MFers with my data to begin with.

1

dice1111 t1_iyfbi64 wrote

Exactly this. If the system was local and only for you, then I would have no problems at all using it.

1