undefined | Better HN

0 pointsparkingrift4y ago0 comments

>According to who, you?

Spyware is illegal. So it’s just a matter of defining the data collection practices of internet companies as spyware.

>How is it spying when the people are freely giving away their data?

It’s not “freely given away” when you need a team of attorneys to understand what you’ve agreed to and you have no audit rights. Point me to the public FB page where they clearly and easily define all points of data they collect.

> Fair enough, but that entails not creating or fostering an imbalance by constantly providing the internet with your personal information.

Quite absurd to take this position after big tech companies ruined the internet economy with their spyware model. Is it your position that these companies were just responding to consumer demand to unknowingly give up their data in exchange for free services?

>Very true, however it's not clear how a truism about something else relates to the topic?

The only reason we have this spyware economy is because tech companies thought it easier to grow their enterprise off spyware than selling a legitimate product at a price.

0 comments

Permit4y ago

> Spyware is illegal. So it’s just a matter of defining the data collection practices of internet companies as spyware.

I’ve seen this phenomenon before but never so explicitly. When you can’t convince someone that something is bad, you re-define it as something they do consider bad.

Some examples I’ve seen:

- Some speech is so hateful and racist that its opponents wish to define it as “violence”.

- Facebook offers advertisers the ability to target the demographics their ads reach. Some have tried to term this as “selling your data”.

In this case, it’s clear the average person doesn’t hold data collection in such low esteem as yourself, so you must redefine it as “spyware” in order to convince them.

This subtle shift is in interesting to me, but it leaves me unconvinced. Words are not violence. Facebook does not sell data. Data collection is not the same as spyware.

Shoue4y ago

"Free speech" is not a good example in my opinion when we already have so many exceptions to it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

I'll reconsider not defending free speech from getting a "hate speech" exception when so called "free speech" proponents start talking about getting rid of the copyright exception instead of just wanting to say racist stuff.

It makes complete sense to want to expand the scope of terms that are associated with laws if you don't believe the law is accurate enough. Language evolves through social changes, and so do laws.

Permit4y ago

I made no mention of free speech. I'm Canadian and support the significant mechanisms we have in place to combat hate speech!

My point is only that speech is not violence. One does not need to change the meaning of the word violence in order to place sensible restrictions on speech. It is a cheap rhetorical trick.

1 more reply

parkingriftOP4y ago

Don't act like the term "spyware" is nebulous and undefined. Spyware is collection of information without consent of users. It's well defined, well understood, and illegal.

The only thing people are hiding behind here is that users agree to it in some novel length TOS that they don't read and don't understand.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsparkingrift4y ago0 comments

>According to who, you?

Spyware is illegal. So it’s just a matter of defining the data collection practices of internet companies as spyware.

>How is it spying when the people are freely giving away their data?

> Fair enough, but that entails not creating or fostering an imbalance by constantly providing the internet with your personal information.

>Very true, however it's not clear how a truism about something else relates to the topic?

The only reason we have this spyware economy is because tech companies thought it easier to grow their enterprise off spyware than selling a legitimate product at a price.

0 comments

Permit4y ago

> Spyware is illegal. So it’s just a matter of defining the data collection practices of internet companies as spyware.

I’ve seen this phenomenon before but never so explicitly. When you can’t convince someone that something is bad, you re-define it as something they do consider bad.

Some examples I’ve seen:

- Some speech is so hateful and racist that its opponents wish to define it as “violence”.

- Facebook offers advertisers the ability to target the demographics their ads reach. Some have tried to term this as “selling your data”.

In this case, it’s clear the average person doesn’t hold data collection in such low esteem as yourself, so you must redefine it as “spyware” in order to convince them.

This subtle shift is in interesting to me, but it leaves me unconvinced. Words are not violence. Facebook does not sell data. Data collection is not the same as spyware.

Shoue4y ago

"Free speech" is not a good example in my opinion when we already have so many exceptions to it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

It makes complete sense to want to expand the scope of terms that are associated with laws if you don't believe the law is accurate enough. Language evolves through social changes, and so do laws.

Permit4y ago

I made no mention of free speech. I'm Canadian and support the significant mechanisms we have in place to combat hate speech!

My point is only that speech is not violence. One does not need to change the meaning of the word violence in order to place sensible restrictions on speech. It is a cheap rhetorical trick.

1 more reply

parkingriftOP4y ago

Don't act like the term "spyware" is nebulous and undefined. Spyware is collection of information without consent of users. It's well defined, well understood, and illegal.

The only thing people are hiding behind here is that users agree to it in some novel length TOS that they don't read and don't understand.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse